The discussion, recorded in written minutes and captured on video, seemed to echo the kind of questions, prejudices and tropes — particularly about divided loyalties — that have plagued Jews across the globe for centuries, students and Jewish leaders said.ADDED: I do feel sorry for the students whose names are now connected forever with this controversy, which they worked through at the meeting and have apologized for. The link above goes to the NYT, which has put the students' names into the context of the terrible, historical wrongs of anti-Semitism, even though none of the students — from what I see in the transcript — were talking about anti-Jewish stereotypes. They were concerned about the candidate's activism on particular issues and whether there could be a conflict of interest in cases that come before the judicial board.
March 6, 2015
The UCLA student council debates whether a Jewish student is capable of serving without bias on its judicial board.
That just happened.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
138 comments:
Godwin's law dictates that there be no response to this.
Gentile Leftists don't like Jews.
Fifty years ago raising this sort of question would be a sign of mental degeneracy. Not at all sure it isn't still that way today.
When the pogroms come to the US, they will come from the left side of the political spectrum.
Just remember, tim in Vermont, it was called the National Socialist party for a reason.
Still want to bash on the FLC professor about "moral facts?"
Jewish folks...supporting Progressives has worked out poorly for you.
Stop doing that.
If it makes them feel better, I'm embarrassed for them.
Whatever. I've heard the same thing about white male protestants regarding a much more significant judicial board than UCLA's.
And really, if Jews haven't figured out by now that the side that has spent the last half century flooding Europe with Muslims and is trying to make up for lost time in North America is the side that views them as a temporary useful idiot before their all 'tragically and unforeseeably' removed, then I don't want Jews serving on judiciary boards either.
Progressive anti-semitism at its best. So very sad and ugly.
Imagine a Muslim student being asked like questions. I say "imagine" because there's no way it would actually happen at a university, let alone UCLA.
Shame on them. You just know that they would never vocalize such complaints against an Arab-American student who was active with CAIR or the Muslim Brotherhood.
We are well and truly on our way. Another generation and the process will be complete.
When you have a Muslim agent as your President and he has taken off his mask since he has no more elections coming, then this is natural.
All Muslims feel this way. It is in the Chant of domination that Obama tells people is a sweet "Call to pray." It is really a call to prey on Jews and Christians where ever you can hunt them down.
ALL Muslims take great pride in fulfilling their vows to hunt down and attack the Jews.The Christians are on schedule as the next prey.
When the pogroms come to the US, they will come from the left side of the political spectrum.
It is now expected that good people take the side opposing Israel. Any other view is embarrassing. Any defense of Israel is shocking.
Defending the Jews is like acknowledging that Sarah Palin is smart: It just isn't done in polite company. Those viewpoints are expected only from poor hillbillies and rich old Republicans.
Reading/watching Holocaust porn and chanting "Never again!", though...that is still totally acceptable.
I had the exact same reaction as Michelle. Expand it to include women, black or hispanic.
"When the pogroms come to the US, they will come from the left side of the political spectrum."
And it won't help the Jews that they have been overwhelmingly liberal with a history of voting for the liberal Dems. Wherever the Jewish people have lived, they have always tried to assimilate and be good citizens but all of that in the end is disregarded.
Best reply when you are asked, don't you hate the Jews and Israel too, is that No, but but I hate the people who hate them.
That saves a lot of wasted time, because they will hate me for being a believing Christian anyway. You might as well add me to the list now.
Fence sitters are not in the game.
That's what happens to old victims-exhilarating to be on the crest of the ideological wave-not so great in its wake where all the old prejudices and self-interest lies.
So, tread water with all the rest of 'em, don't kill each other, and play nice with the new victims. Such shiny, new victims.
By the way, are you sure you want to wear that yarmulke outside? You guys have so much money Im not sure you're victims.
Solidarity!
They were concerned about the candidate's activism on particular issues and whether there could be a conflict of interest in cases that come before the judicial board.
That's a reasonable enough concern. I wonder if they raised similar questions about other members of the student council who might be activists or just the Jewish one? Is all activism considered equal?
Everyone who is on a college student council is activist. By their own standards, none of them should be on the judicial board.
Any common etymology between judicial and Jewish?
Imagine a Muslim student being asked like questions. I say "imagine" because there's no way it would actually happen at a university, let alone UCLA.
Bingo!
I'm sure the kids didn't mean to sound like bigots. Here's the thing though, in academia today, it's only acceptable to question somebody for their "UnPC" biases and activism. Academia's own bias and blindspot has grown so large they didn't even realize the perception of anti-semitism.
"That's a reasonable enough concern. I wonder if they raised similar questions about other members of the student council who might be activists or just the Jewish one? Is all activism considered equal?"
Should they be put in the context of the world's history of anti-Semitism or should they be put in the context of how they as individuals have treated other individuals who have come up for election to UCLA's judicial board?
If you care about prejudice and treating people fairly, the obvious answer is the second.
"'Imagine a Muslim student being asked like questions. I say "imagine" because there's no way it would actually happen at a university, let alone UCLA.' Bingo!"
What a fabulous example of exhibiting the very quality you are purporting to decry.
Should we look to the Rev. Jessie Jackson, Louis Farrakhan Muhammad, Sr or Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright as examples regarding the Jewish people, ya think?
"I do feel sorry for the students whose names are now connected forever with this controversy, which they worked through at the meeting and have apologized for . . . They were concerned about the candidate's activism on particular issues and whether there could be a conflict of interest."
Right. Happens all the time. At UCLA and all other great institutions of higher education in the land, there's nothing worse than "activism" causing a "conflict of interest." They guard against it, vigilantly. Just like the Jews and that Jewish newspaper to make an issue out of it.
I don't see how you can honestly make your assertion. I truly do not. This has EVERYTHING to do with sterotypes.
If anyone had asked the question of how a black person who was active in NAACP could be neutral in adjudicating cases involving black people, that person would have been pitched out.
There is widespread anti-Semitism in the academic cadre. This incident demonstrates that fact.
No, judicial, judge, justice, etc. are from Latin.
Jew is derived from Hebrew.
Even if, let's not blow it out of proportion. Below list of ethnic groups accused of double loyalties in the US:
- Japanese (WWII)
- Germans (WWII)
- Catholics (always)
- Chinese
- Muslims
- ...
@ Ignorance is bliss
No common etymology. Judicial comes from the Latin Iudex, a judge or arbiter in the Roman legal system. Jewish comes from Jew, which comes from the Latin Iudaeus. It came into Latin from Aramaic y'hudai(via the Greek). The roots jusst happen to be homophones.
I admit it. I have consorted with an oboe player. She played a very fine oboe, though. I was seduced by the beauty of it.
This, btw, is the background of that meeting:
http://www.jewishjournal.com/los_angeles/article/ucla_student_court_hears_case_against_students_who_accepted_israel_trips
This is a long-running saga.
Kids tend to know or care about little other than what's in front of their faces daily. If the buzz in their circles is all anti-Israel chatter, then it becomes their conventional wisdom. Kids are suckers for conventional wisdom.
Perspective comes with age, and I think also the ability to escape conventional wisdom.
Interesting modern example of the guidance in Mein Kampf regarding the uses and effects of propaganda. All this is in there. Its not just an irrelevant historical document.
I have a degree from UCLA. Here are the opening paragraphs of Chancellor Gene Block's message about the situation.
"To the Campus Community:
"I have been troubled by recent incidents of bias on campuses across our nation. Sadly, UCLA is not immune to these occurrences.
"At a recent ... Students Association Council meeting, a few council members unfairly questioned the fitness of a USAC Judicial Board applicant because of her Jewish identity. Another upsetting incident occurred last weekend when inflammatory posters on our campus implied that Students for Justice in Palestine was a terrorist organization." Blah blah blah.
-- Block says a "few" students challenged a student's objectivity, when in fact the discussion continued for 40 MINUTES and did not stop until a faculty advisor pointed out that being Jewish is not ipso facto evidence of bias.
-- The chancellor also pulls a neat moral-equivalence trick by pairing the first incident with the pasting of anti-Palestinian placards on campus by persons unknown. (Jewish students have done no such thing on any US campus yet, although the Students for Justice in Palestine group has engaged in agitprop at colleges nationwide for years now.)
Block pretends to conflate anti-religious bigotry in an official campus proceeding with ad hoc postings that have no relation whatever to the university.
I don't feel the slightest bit of sorrow over those who questioned the Jewish student. And I would make it a point not to hire them or to engage any firm which did hire them. I would like to see their names forever associated with this incident in the hopes that we could somehow stop or slow stupid behavior, blind political correctness, and Jew hatred.
Another thread that cries out for Cedarford.
I don't feel the slightest bit of sorrow over those who questioned the Jewish student. And I would make it a point not to hire them or to engage any firm which did hire them.
That's a lot of work, to keep track of people who have violated your Speech Code.
I feel fortunate that my life is not influenced by the publication of things I said (or didn't) when I was in college.
A vote was taken and Beyda was denied the position.
After further discussion, though, the group voted her in but some students say the damage has been done.
Looks like somebody said, "Uh Oh..holy shit, what did we just do? We might want jobs after college."
Any sympathy I have for these students extends to the fact that this is what they are taught on liberal campuses and surrounding left-wing cultures. And, they pay money for it.
Who's surprised at this?
Universities should seriously take a look at the damage they are doing to their students. Debt. Speech Codes. Rape Hysteria. Anti-Semitism. Godlessness.
But that would require self-awareness.
The link above goes to the NYT, which has put the students' names into the context of the terrible, historical wrongs of anti-Semitism, even though none of the students — from what I see in the transcript — were talking about anti-Jewish stereotypes. They were concerned about the candidate's activism on particular issues and whether there could be a conflict of interest in cases that come before the judicial board.
If true, then you are implying that the NYT played fast and loose with the facts. I'm having palpitations of the heart.
Jewish folks...supporting Progressives has worked out poorly for you.
What is it about Never Forget that you can never remember?
Come on, people, some Jews certainly require scrutiny.
Example: Scarlett Johannson. She's a Jew, and I believe she deserves intensive, up-close scrutiny. Intensive, up-close, naked scrutiny.
This also applies to Natalie Portman. And Mila Kunis.
I, for one, want to be sure they aren't hiding anything. Anywhere.
I am Laslo.
Crikey! Rachel is a babe. I'm guessing it was more about a frustrated lesbian who realized she had no shot, than about anti-Semitism.
Gusty Winds is correct. This is jew-hatred. Just because it reared its ugly head and then ducked back under the covers when someone called it what it is doesn't make it something else.
Should they be put in the context of the world's history of anti-Semitism or should they be put in the context of how they as individuals have treated other individuals who have come up for election to UCLA's judicial board?
How is this not a local example of the world's history of anti-Semitism? Tell me these students aren't influenced by their 'radical' and 'enlightened' pro-Palestinian liberal professors who spew garbage like Israel existence is unjust. Or Israel is fascist.
In December 2014 the Berkely Graduate Student Labor Untion took it upon themselves to vote whether Israel should continue to exist.
I'm sure Israel lost the same vote in the Iranian parliament.
No people is so linked to their land as Jews are to Israel. The bias in one in the same.
"Just remember, tim in Vermont, it was called the National Socialist party for a reason."
Yes...to fool and attract many into joining their party, thinking it was something it was not.
Questions for the scrutiny of the Jew Scarlett Johannson:
What role does your Jewishness play in your having magnificent breasts?
Can a Christian women possess breasts as magnificent as yours -- and if not -- is this in some way related to their religion? (Feel free to count Episcopalians as Christian).
Do you consider your breasts 'The Chosen Ones'?
Does your sense of Jewishness prevent you from engaging in anal sex?
I'm sure there are other questions.
I am Laslo.
Hey, Robert Cook, I challenge you to a differential-government game. This used to be called "Comparative Government studies". Let's try to see how the Nazis differed from the Communists. You start.
Ann Althouse said...
"'Imagine a Muslim student being asked like questions. I say "imagine" because there's no way it would actually happen at a university, let alone UCLA.' Bingo!"
"What a fabulous example of exhibiting the very quality you are purporting to decry."
When Jews are in control of a country there is a general level of freedom for everyone including Muslims. I.E. Israel. Gay people in Israel live only in fear of muslims strangely enough. There is even a relatively affluent arab population in Israel relative of course to their brethren in muslim controlled countries.
When Muslims are in control they either kill off all the minorities or charge them Jizya. They behead people as a general method of political discussion. They strap bombs to their children and send them into crowded markets. They commit genital mutilation on women. The immigrants into other communities form rings where they groom and rape thousands of children.
Jews and Muslims are not the same. They do not act the same nor do they believe the same things. There should be no requirement that they be treated the same.
These days its trivial to background check a job applicant with a google search.
Conservatives of all ages have been regularly threatened in this way.
At many levels in business, in most of the S&P1000, for anyone with nonpolitical ambitions, there is no free speech possible. The only opinions that won't get one into career-ending trouble are liberal platitudes. The private opinions are private, spoken to others only in person, after a degree of trust is established, and in my experience, almost universally conservative.
Ann is not at the top of her game. The so-called apology, which Ann thinks is unnecessary, is not a true apology as Ann defines the word. It is an apology "to the extent I offended anyone ..."
Every judge has conflicts from time to time. She should have simply been asked how she would determine whether she had a conflict in a matter. Her faith is irrelevant.
She may not be Scarlett Johannson, but she is close. wish I went to UCLA.
Robert Cook said...
"Just remember, tim in Vermont, it was called the National Socialist party for a reason."
"Yes...to fool and attract many into joining their party, thinking it was something it was not."
Except they did the same things that the left did in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea...
They took power, told people what to do with their lives and money, and violently dealt with their political opposition. Whatever you call it it is the government gaining power and the people in power using it to further their ends. The rest, like how many people have been killed by socialists, as a great man once said are just statistics.
Judging by a couple of comments above and many comments elsewhere (on this blog and in the broader public), it's becoming apparent that being openly contemptuous of and insulting toward Muslims has become the safe alternative for those who might previously have been as comfortably and frankly anti-semitic.
"The roots just happen to be homophones."
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Judging by a couple of comments above and many comments elsewhere (on this blog and in the broader public), it's becoming apparent that being openly contemptuous of and insulting toward Muslims has become the safe alternative for those who might previously have been as comfortably and frankly anti-semitic.
I don't read that at all. At UCLA, it's apparently an okay thing to ask this very anti-Semitic question. How does it insult Muslims by pointing out that the same question would never be asked of a Muslim? Insulting Jews with a question: No self-censoring. Insulting Muslims with a question: Self-censoring at full power.
MaxedOutMama: thanks for the background/context link.
The only thing that is apparent is that you're making stuff up. If you can't tar people with one hatred you'll happily tar them with another. Anything available to other people will do, apparently.
Of course, I meant to put "other" in quotes because that's what it deserves.
Questions for the scrutiny of the Jew Natalie Portman:
Do you realize that -- though small -- your breasts are magnificent, too? Do you believe that your Jewishness has anything to do with that?
What role does your Jewishness play in your having an exquisite ass?
Does the Jewishness of your exquisite ass require less exercise to maintain, compared to an exquisite Christian ass? (As with Scarlett, feel free to count Episcopalians as Christian).
Does your sense of Jewishness prevent you from engaging in anal sex?
I'm sure there are other questions here, too.
I am Laslo.
I don't think I agree w Althouse on this one. If a black person applied for the position, everyone would _understand_ that he or she is going to be interested in and involved with issues that have to do with race and black people. That would probably be considered a plus, not a problem. The same would be true if a serious Muslim applied.
That is the norm in any organization these days that professes to value "diversity".
Since I don't think that this group of students disagrees with that, I think I have to tentatively assume that they have some problem with an activist Jew doing the same thing.
Robert Cook said...
"Judging by a couple of comments above and many comments elsewhere (on this blog and in the broader public), it's becoming apparent that being openly contemptuous of and insulting toward Muslims has become the safe alternative for those who might previously have been as comfortably and frankly anti-semitic."
Yeah that sucks. Damn bigots. Please move to any Muslim dominated country. Today would be preferable. Show us how we are wrong.
"Except they did the same things that dictatorships did in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea...."
I fixed that for you.
Dictatorships are not all on the left side of the political spectrum. Examples of right-wing dictatorships (aside from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy) include Allende's Chile, Franco's Spain, the Shah's Iran, Marcos' Phillipines, Suharto's Indonesia, Somoza's Nicaragua, Trujillo's Dominican Republic...to name a few.
Nice to see that Cooktard has appeared to make sure that the Stalinist position on Jewish people is represented.
Diversity!
Professor: The students are connected to broader historic anti-semitism and you feel bad since that wasn't necessarily warranted based on the particulars of the issue under discussion. Okay. Do you extend the same empathy/sympathy in analogous situations involving, say, race/racism against African Americans--or do you instead just call those situations "ugly" and join in implying those engaging in the ugly behavior/comparison are themselves racists?
Seems like one could call the student council's line of questioning "ugly," but for some reason that's not where the analysis stops in this case.
"Dictatorships are not all on the left side of the political spectrum. Examples of right-wing dictatorship..." The terms left- and right-wing are badly misused. Explain to me what those regimes have in common with a libertarian or a Tea Partier. Did they, like, believe in the free market? The only thing I see that they had in common was that they found it advantageous to ally with the US instead of the Soviet Union.
The Pournelle Chart (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pournelle_chart) is far more useful than any attempt to make politics one-dimensional. Maybe even more dimensions would help...
All dictatorships are rightist. This is religious doctrine for leftists. Except when Obama ignores the Constitution.
Robert Cook said...
"Except they did the same things that dictatorships did in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea...."
I fixed that for you.
Dictatorships are not all on the left side of the political spectrum. Examples of right-wing dictatorships (aside from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy) include Allende's Chile, Franco's Spain, the Shah's Iran, Marcos' Phillipines, Suharto's Indonesia, Somoza's Nicaragua, Trujillo's Dominican Republic...to name a few.
Geez, I hate to just say "scoreboard!" but if the difference in the size and scope of human misery and death represented by those two lists isn't immediately apparent I'm afraid no amount of empirical historic evidence wil do much good here (even if one grants the Nazis were on the right...which lots of us don't).
But yeah, obviously the right is worse than the left, numbers be damned.
According to Legal Insurrection, "The students who expressed concern about the Jewish student's Jewishness are BDSers:"
In other words. official Jew Hating, Israel Hating activists. This is no small problem in academia.
Questions for the scrutiny of the Jew Mila Kunis:
Does your sense of Jewishness affect in any way how you approach fellatio?
Does your sense of Jewishness affect in any way how you approach girl-on-girl action?
Does the Christian context of the "Missionary Position" cause you to choose different sexual positions? Does this include reverse-cowgirl?
Can a Christian woman perform fellatio as good as you? What if you showed her by example, taking turns? (As with Scarlett and Natalie, feel free to count Episcopalians as Christian).
Does your sense of Jewishness prevent you from engaging in anal sex?
As before: I'm sure there are other questions here, too.
I am Laslo.
Many Jews have divided loyalties. This is news? American Jews hardly keep their devotion to Israel a secret.
Everyone carrying dual citizenship has divided loyalties.
Those who regard every Third Worlder as an American-in-waiting also have divided loyalties. In fact, loyalty to only America would probably count as racist, a hate crime against people of color who live in countries oppressed by Western imperialism.
Their anti-Semitic Test: do they apply the same "standard" to screen out Muslims, the same standard to screen out Progressives, the same standard to screen out Hispanic activists, the same standard to screen out black activists.
Frankly, non-activists of any stripes do not join "student council" nor are they active in political parties...
Their names should be forever linked to their stupid anti-Semitic decision. Like their counter-part Progressive bigots in real life, they will hide behind their bigotry by talking the pc talk and projecting their bigotry on non-Progressives. A lot of people would be fooled until they committed a "gaffe" speaking their true sentiments in public.
They were concerned about the candidate's activism on particular issues and whether there could be a conflict of interest in cases that come before the judicial board.
Nothing in the article indicated Ms. Beyda was engaged in any pro-Israel activism.
You really dropped the ball on this one Ann. Big time.
Now imagine if it was asked whether the black leader of the black student association would have "conflict of interest" and Ann and her liberal friends would be screaming bloody murder.
Do it against Jews - whatevah!
BTW Ms. Beyda is a total babe.
U. California students remove offensive American flag from 'inclusive' space
http://www.campusreform.org/?
ID=6335
Wonder who these students are loyal to?
Jews may have "divided" loyalties, at least some of their loyalties is to the United States. These students are definitely loyal to the other side, the anti-American side.
@Cookie, go see what I wrote at 9:34.
MadisonMan
It is not a lot of work and it is not 'my" speech code. What a stupid remark.
Maybe you would hire someone who displayed Jew hatred and would think nothing of it. That would be your open-minded approach, I presume. Maybe you would hire someone who had been in the KKK for that matter, or someone who had fought for ISIL and lopped off a few Christian heads.
I would not hire someone or engage a firm that hired a Jew hater. But that's just me and my silly "speech code"
Michael, you still have to keep track of what everyone you hire has said, and will say. And, apparently, what everyone says for firms you work with.
Exhausting!
Keep looking for those firms out there who employ only Saints with pure thoughts.
"Explain to me what those regimes have in common with a libertarian or a Tea Partier. Did they, like, believe in the free market?"
Oh, ferkrisesake! "Right wing" is not synonymous with recent provincial American cults such as the free marketeers, Tea Partiers or Libertarians.
" That's a reasonable enough concern. I wonder if they raised similar questions about other members of the student council who might be activists or just the Jewish one? Is all activism considered equal?"
Perhaps it's more like a No-Nothing asking a Catholic candidate if his primary loyalty is to the Pope (and what he'll do if Pope and secular duty conflict)?
"All dictatorships are rightist...."
I know you're being snarky, but no. A few examples of left-wing dictatorships would include, of course, Soviet Russia, Red China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Castro's Cuba, and North Korea.
Authoritarianism, the will to power, the drive to dominate and rule over others, is unique to neither the left or right wing, is not even a political ideology, but is an aspect of human nature and psychology, and all governments will tend toward authoritarianism leading to tyranny--either over the longer term or in the short term, or immediately--if not otherwise checked. We are certainly on the highway heading that way, and we missed the turnoff some time ago. After 9/11, we simply put on our lead boots.
'"Right wing" is not synonymous with recent provincial American cults such as the free marketeers, Tea Partiers or Libertarians.' Exactly what I said, leaving out the insults. If you like your shallow one-dimensional definition, and not Pournelle's much better two-dimensional one, that's your choice. But then you are admitting that the term you chose, Right-Wing, has no relevance to the groups in American politics that you are trying to use it to attack. You don't get to use it both ways.
The apology letter from the four students who initially voted against Ms. Beyda is here.
Thus we ask the Jewish community to accept our sincerest apology for remarks made during the Feb. 10 Undergraduate Students Association Council meeting concerning the potential Judicial Board appointee. Our intentions were never to attack, insult or delegitimize the identity of an individual or people. It is our responsibility as elected officials to maintain a position of fairness, exercise justness, and represent the Bruin community to the best of our abilities, and we are truly sorry for any words used during this meeting that suggested otherwise.
Notice. They aren't sorry they voted against her initially because she was Jewish. They are sorry for any "words used".
U. California students remove offensive American flag from 'inclusive' space
Rationale for exclusive inclusion:
“[F]lags construct paradigms of conformity and sets homogenized standards for others to obtain which in this country typically are idolized as freedom, equality, and democracy,” the bill reads.
Is our children learning?
Our intentions were never to attack, insult or delegitimize the identity of an individual or people.
Bullshit. If their intentions were not to "attack, insult, or delegitimize" then they wouldn't have raised the points they raised or used the words they used.
It is our responsibility as elected officials to maintain a position of fairness, exercise justness, and represent the Bruin community to the best of our abilities,
They got that one right. That's their responsibility. Now if only there were responsible individuals.
and we are truly sorry
That they got caught?
for any words used during this meeting that suggested otherwise.
Bullshit. If they didn't mean the words why did they use the words?
"But then you are admitting that the term you chose, Right-Wing, has no relevance to the groups in American politics that you are trying to use it to attack."
I'm admitting no such thing--mainly because I haven't had a chance yet to read Pournelle's definition and so am not reacting to it or against it--and I'm not particularly attacking the tea partiers or libertarians; they're no danger to what's left of our republic. In fact, I think the tea partiers are probably, for the most part, Americans angry at what they correctly see as the demolition of our freedoms, who have been conned by the architects of that demolition--the Kochs and their ilk--into supporting those elements in Washington who are helping the architects of our destruction in their purpose. It is the corporate state and the wealthy elites that are the great danger, and it is so far quite successful in its program to exterminate our representative republic.
I notice that I erred in my reference to "Allende's Chile" as a right-wing dictatorship; Allende, of course, was democratically elected and was overthrown in a coup by right-wing dictator Augusto Pinochet, greatly supported and aided in that coup by our government and the C.I.A.
I don't feel sorry for them at all. The claim that they were taught to be evil anti-Semitic creeps by their left wing professors does not absolve them of the guilt of adhering to those lessons.
Somewhere Hitler is grinning from ear to ear.
MadisonMan
Very easy to check backgrounds on people these days and very easy to find out if they have engaged in the kind of behavior that occurred at UCLA. The internet, as they say, is forever.
It is not only not exhausting it is prudent to do that kind of research on people you are hiring or doing business with. Unless, of course, you don't care.
Paul Johnson devotes the most part of an entire chapter in his magisterial "Modern Times" to comparing and contrasting Marxism and fascism. He explains that fascism is merely a "Marxist heresy," substituting race for class and nationalism for internationalism. In other words, on a fundamental level, the two are the same: socialist, collectivist ideological systems using the instruments of totalitarian repression to achieve utopian goals. If one accepts Johnson's formulation, it follows that there is no meaningful difference between leftist and rightest dictatorships: both are equally evil, and in much the same way.
It depends on the charter of the judicial board. Does being Jewish uniquely violate its principles or undermine its purpose? Does anyone else have a similar conflict of interest? Does the problem reside with individual members or the charter?
Madison Man
Oh, and in the instant case those involved are stupid on top of being Jew haters.
Roughcoat:
The definition of left and right orientations varies with each society. If we follow the traditional definition, Marxism, fascism, and dictatorships are departures from America's national charter and constitution, and so would be classified as left.
n.n.:
You're missing one of Johnson's underlying points, which is that the traditional definition of Marxism is wrong since it is based on a misinterpretation and misunderstanding of both Marxism and its heretical offshoot, fascism. Johnson is asserting that classifying Marxism as "left" and fascism as "right" is to miss the mark; a different classification is needed.
Robert Cook said...
...it's becoming apparent that being openly contemptuous of and insulting toward Muslims has become the safe alternative for those who might previously have been as comfortably and frankly anti-semitic.
That is seriously hilarious.
MikeR said...
The Pournelle Chart (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pournelle_chart) is far more useful than any attempt to make politics one-dimensional. Maybe even more dimensions would help...
Communism is "reason enthroned"?
Better "chart"
Ann seems to think that those who disagree with her would like no Jew questioning, but lots of Muslim questioning.
I would advocate for neither---the whole thing smacks of JFK and the Pope or Mitt Romney and the Prophet.
Message telegraphed by UCLA and those under its purview:
We CAIR!
'Communism is "reason enthroned"? ' Not sure what you're quoting, but http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm gives more information on the Pournelle chart. I don't understand your objection, or you didn't understand what the axes on the chart represent.
"I think the tea partiers are probably, for the most part, Americans angry at what they correctly see as the demolition of our freedoms, who have been conned by the architects of that demolition--the Kochs and their ilk--into supporting those elements in Washington who are helping the architects of our destruction in their purpose." Meh. This commits the same fallacy: everyone you disagree with goes into the same basket. This is just not one-dimensional. I see no evidence that the Kochs are statists. If you'd picked George Soros or Warren Buffet it might make some sense.
Who says the Kochs are statists? The wealthy elites want to eliminate the state as the governing entity insofar as they can--that is, they wish to free themselves from any regulatory limits that might be placed on them by the state--and make it, instead, subordinate to their prerogatives, a tool for them to wield for their own benefit. By encouraging Tea Partiers and others in their animus against the state, they divert the attention of the citizens away from the reasons for our society's present ills and therefore disarm citizens of their rightful rage at those who are to blame. Otherwise, these citizens might rightly see the privileges demanded by the wealthy elites and the concomitant burdens placed upon the rest of us as being the crux of most or all of the problems.
The lead interrogator at that meeting, Fabienne Roth, is an international student from Switzerland. Considering the renewed anti-Semitism in Europe, perhaps all this pushback comes as a big surprise to her?
The reason that left-wing dictatorships killed more people by several orders of magnitude than right-wing ones is that communism (Stalin, Mal, Pol Pot, etc.) were trying to create a "new man". The right-singers were just getting rid of their enemies.
The reason that left-wing dictatorships killed more people by several orders of magnitude than right-wing ones is that communism (Stalin, Mal, Pol Pot, etc.) were trying to create a "new man". The right-singers were just getting rid of their enemies.
From Cook's Wikipedia link:
Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that view some forms of social hierarchy or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable
What complete nonsensical tripe. Looks like it was written by some cultural studies professor at Cal Berkeley or Evergreen State.
If this is what right wing politics is to you lefties, then you people are completely insane.
Roughcoat:
I agree. The use of left/right, liberal/conservative, etc. shorthand oversimplifies and generally undermines proper judgment of the relevant ideologies and underlying principles.
By encouraging Tea Partiers and others in their animus against the state, they divert the attention of the citizens away from the reasons for our society's present ills and therefore disarm citizens of their rightful rage at those who are to blame. Otherwise, these citizens might rightly see the privileges demanded by the wealthy elites and the concomitant burdens placed upon the rest of us as being the crux of most or all of the problems.
Jesus could you be more of a stereotype?
The Transfer Student Representative in the apology is Iranian-American.
So with along with the European girl this gets less surprising.
Could have been predicted.
The problem with the idea of assuming that the plutocracy wants to abolish the state, is that the state as an institution is what they desire most.
The real danger to these people is competition and the disruption of their power formulas by new players. So they must do their all, especially by co-opting the state, to suppress competition. Its all in Schumpeter.
The desired outcome is a stable corporatism or crony capitalism that entrenches a hereditary oligarchy.
People with wealth and power have no problem capturing the actual structure of the state, the bureaucracy. They don't object to a superfluity of regulation, that intrudes into every business process. This is all to the good. The more complicated the bureaucracy's job is, the less possible it is to oversee them, the easier they are to capture, and the more effective it is in raising the costs of entry and thus discouraging disruptive competitors.
Elections and the will of the people are useless besides the power of the state apparatus, and no "waking up" will do anyone any good. You cannot democratically run such a complex system. The task of just trying to understand the incredible mass of regulation and its ramified implications is beyond human capacity, arguably even beyond collective capacity. The information costs are prohibitive.
Unless, of course, you don't care.
Well, in this case, no I don't really care what College Students with too much time on their hands say. No one should be judged on the foolish words of their youth. Suddenly they can be because of the internet. I'm not sure that's a good thing.
If it's the Govt saying this, that's alarming. But it's not the Government (unless you consider Student Government actual Government -- a laughable proposition. Student Government is just a very liberal Dating Service underwritten by unwitting fellow students) No, in this case, stupid speech was followed by more less-stupid speech. That's a good thing.
What does finding this UCLA case an outrage get you? A sense of moral superiority/righteousness? The idea that you only associate with the "Right Thinkers"? Meh.
As a example that some Universities are full of people who hold these views (a better example are radical Islamists in English Universities, though I'm sure they're here too), this is a good example. If you want to be alarmed about that state of affairs, that's another discussion.
So should only atheist server on the board? Is that what they are saying? Or just Jews?
"Well, in this case, no I don't really care what College Students with too much time on their hands say. No one should be judged on the foolish words of their youth."
The child makes the man, or woman. The ideals and prejudices established in youth are with us for life. If the attitudes expressed in this incident are typical then we can expect much of our educated class, especially those in authority, to have them in the next 20-30 years. If anti-semitism is fashionable among the youth now, it will be dominant then.
Madison Man
What does finding this UCLA case an outrage get you? A sense of moral superiority/righteousness? The idea that you only associate with the "Right Thinkers"? Meh."
No, I am appaled at the stupidity of the students and at the system that has turned normal kids into Jew haters. My observation was that I had no sympathy for the kids and would hope that this stupidity was hung around their necks forever.
I associate with a lot of people who hold radically different views from mine but that does not include Jew haters or skin heads for that matter.
I see that you somehow find it impossible to differentiate normal judgement from prejudice and conflate open mindness with associating with people with vile views. That is meh on stilts.
Did they hold similar meetings for any Muslim students? Black Students? Episcopalians? No?
Then they're Antisemites who got caught and called out, nothing more.
For those who may not believe the Nazis were indeed Socialists, you may want to find the PBS special on civilian life in Nazi Germany. When the Nazis took over the education system, all teachers were required to be trained in how to teach in their respective fields from a Socialist perspective. All aspects of civilian life were to be founded on Socialist values.
n.n. Re: "The use of left/right, liberal/conservative, etc. shorthand oversimplifies and generally undermines proper judgment of the relevant ideologies and underlying principles."
Precisely. Marxism and fascism are not polar opposites on a left-right continuum; rather, they are mere variations (with not a great deal of variance) on the same theme. Johnson argues that this theme is the moral relativism in which they are both rooted and which spawned them both. I agree.
What happened to my identity?
Ann,
"'Imagine a Muslim student being asked like questions. I say "imagine" because there's no way it would actually happen at a university, let alone UCLA.' Bingo!"
What a fabulous example of exhibiting the very quality you are purporting to decry.
What "quality" would that be? I realize that you aren't quoting me, only quoting someone who quoted me, but I'd still like to know.
What I was saying is that the council at UCLA mistrusted a student because she was a Jew, and active in Jewish organizations. If she had been a Muslim, and active in Muslim organizations, there wouldn't have been a problem. Do you dispute that? Can you?
We could add other categories, of course. Maybe she was LDS, and active in LDS organizations. Maybe she was a Korean evangelical, and active in Korean evangelical organizations. Maybe (Heaven forfend) she was a libertarian, and active in libertarian organizations. I don't see why any of these should lead to any student questioning her objectivity on any question she would be called upon to adjudicate.
Roughcoat:
I tend to classify the various philosophies, ideologies, religions, etc. following a reconciliation of two moral axioms: individual dignity and intrinsic value, where the former favors individual liberty and the latter favors general or common welfare; and two causal orders: natural and conscious, where the former sets the limits (e.g. scientific domain) for the latter.
The common thread that connects Marxism and fascism is an establishment of monopolies through design or coercion. The proponents claim is that their establishment and operation are reconcilable with the two moral axioms and that it is further possible to mitigate corruption. There is no justification for those beliefs and there are thousands of years to demonstrate that these propositions are false.
In the absence of a moral consensus (i.e. religion), and even with a consensus, it seems the optimal outcome in the real world will come through a maintenance of competing interests to prevent any one interest from running amuck.
While there are many branches, the root of all evil is narcissistic indulgence. This is a quality that most people learn to temper with maturity. Others will be pretenders to godhood, and so we have Marxists, fascists, etc.
“Given that you are a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community,” Fabienne Roth, a member of the Undergraduate Students Association Council, began, looking at Ms. Beyda at the other end of the room, “how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?”
Ann, are you willing to say that this is not a dig at Beyda specifically as a Jew? Again, substitute "Muslim" for "Jew" and "Jewish" and see how that flies.
Ann,
They were concerned about the candidate's activism on particular issues and whether there could be a conflict of interest in cases that come before the judicial board.
What "particular issues" would those be? I didn't actually find any, looking through the transcript. There seems to be a presumption that Ms. Beyda is a Zionist and an opponent of all things Palestinian, but precious little evidence. And, again, would a Muslim student be grilled on whether she supported Israel's right to exist?
n.n.
Yes indeed. Utopian schemes such as Marxism and fascism all entail a denial of human nature, which enterprise constitutes unalloyed evil. I'm not sure that "the root of all evil is narcissistic indulgence," but I get your point--it aligns with my Catholic views of the "glamor of evil"--and in the end we arrive at the same conclusion, so no quibbles from me.
According to reports, the four students who carried the day (initially) were all international -- the quoted woman was Swiss, one was Sikh (not a Muslim), one was Iranian-American and one was a member of the Muslim Students Association.
The latter two were active and voted regularly with BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel) and SJP (Society for Justice in Palestine). They were elected to their posts and lobbied, effectively, to deprive a Californian Jewish student a voice on a campus panel. There was a unanimous vote of the university's Student Council that was not stopped until a late-to-the-day faculty advisor pointed out that, in America, we don't discriminate against people based on their religion.
We've got a problem here, and it isn't just at UCLA.
The latter two were active and voted regularly with BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel) and SJP (Society for Justice in Palestine). They were elected to their posts and lobbied, effectively, to deprive a Californian Jewish student a voice on a campus panel.
Any rational person would ask how such students got to have such a disproportionate voice and why it took something like this for people to care.
And it is worrisome that it could be more widely spread.
Roughcoat:
It seems logical to define liberty as a state and quality attributed to actors with freewill who are capable of self-moderating their behavior in order to reconcile their actions with like-minded.
I believe that Judeo-Christian philosophy characterizes Satan as appealing to women and men's egos, their desire for material excess, in opposition to God's kingdom and morality.
n.n. wrote: I believe that Judeo-Christian philosophy characterizes Satan as appealing to women and men's egos, their desire for material excess, in opposition to God's kingdom and morality.
I believe that Judeo-Christian philosophy characterizes Satan as appealing to women and men's ids, their desire for material excess, in opposition to God's kingdom and morality.
The ego is much maligned in such statements as yours. The ego is a good and healthy thing and actually mediates the irrational id and the supervising superego.
Those four students never "carried the day".
There were two votes: the first one was 4-4, with the four students who did the interrogation voting against Beyda; the second vote, taken after a faculty person spoke to the group, was 9-0, that is, unanimously for her:
"Although the council eventually unanimously approved Beyda’s appointment, the 9-0 vote came after 40 minutes of debate, an initial 4-4 vote that was later invalidated and an interjection by a faculty representative who explained that Beyda’s affiliation with the campus Jewish community does not constitute a conflict of interest."
This definitely looks as if the onus should not be put on UCLA students in general, in any way, but upon those specific four students, at least two of whom are international students from places where anti-Semitism is either commonplace or the official line.
There was a unanimous vote of the university's Student Council that was not stopped until a late-to-the-day faculty advisor pointed out that, in America, we don't discriminate against people based on their religion.
I do think that it is maybe time that we start discriminating against people because of their religion - for the simple reason that much of the unrest in the world is a direct result of religious discrimination on the part of extremists who belong to a specific religion, which BTW is neither Judaism nor Christianity.
But, of course, it won't happen, and members of the Religion of Peace will continue to kill, and try to discriminate against Jews in this country, while exploiting our religious tolerance against us.
Bruce Hayden -- Please see my earlier comment just before yours. There was no unanimous vote ever against her.
Gusty Winds: How is this not a local example of the world's history of anti-Semitism?
Because it's a local example of the world's history of group-interest conflict being played out with whatever tools are at hand. There's nothing special about Jews finding themselves on the wrong side of the cudgel of social/political movements that they as individuals may or may not have promoted.
The injustice meted out to Ms. Beyda was a natural and predictable consequence of the contemporary imposition of the Great Progressive Cult as the official religion of the West, and its dogmas of multiculturalism, anti-Westernism, sacralization of victims (regardless of whether they were trying to be victimizers themselves, but failed), inculcation of ethnic and racial resentments, etc., etc., etc.. Those radical enlightened UCLA professors you decry ain't hatin' just on Israel and Jews. (Some of 'em probably are Jews, and hatin' on everybody who isn't a current Official Victim.)
In case you haven't noticed, it's not just Jews being told an essential point of their identity makes them "too biased" to sit on a board or hold a job, or, for that matter, magically "privileged" or somehow inherently morally suspect. And it's not as if these ugly attitudes have ever led to uglier things only for Jews.
" Is all activism considered equal?"
To ask this question is to answer it.
I do feel sorry for the students whose names are now connected forever with this controversy, which they worked through at the meeting and have apologized for.
That's because you're a sucker.
I'm baffled by what the conflict of interest could be.
I'm even more baffled that universities waste their times with student council bullshit. Why the hell is there a "judicial board"? It's pretentious crap which most students don't give a rat's ass about and which has nothing to do with providing a quality education for the vast majority of them. (In my experience, student councils are dominated by arrogant busy-bodies like, well, your average politician.)
Post a Comment