Writes Annie Karni, in "Questioning University Presidents on Antisemitism, Stefanik Goes Viral/The No. 4 Republican, a Harvard alumna with a fraught relationship with her alma mater, had a confrontation over campus responses to antisemitism that resonated across the political spectrum" (NYT).
Where the university presidents went wrong was not in defending pure speech and distinguishing pure speech from conduct. That was good. Their mistake was the rote repetition of stock phrases in place of real engagement about the line between speech and conduct. There should have been a frank discussion of whether the universities draw the same line for anti-Semitic speech that they draw for speech that is hostile to other groups, such as black people.
I think that by "conduct," the presidents meant the kind of speech that is aimed at individuals and constitutes a true threat or an incitement to imminent violence. These presidents seemed unable or unwilling to talk about freedom of speech and bigotry. I suspect that they didn't dare risk speaking substantively because either they really don't understand the law and philosophy of freedom of speech — a shameful deficiency in a university president! — or because they know the facts are against them and they have not been maintaining the strong free-speech position that they want to take now — now that the offensive speech is hateful toward Jews.
Posts
136 comments:
This is one of the most sensible takes that I have seen on the subject of the now-infamous appearance by the university presidents. Props, Althouse.
There should have been a frank discussion of whether the universities draw the same line for anti-Semitic speech that they draw for speech hostile to other groups, such as black people.
Why black people. Wouldn't a more apt comparison be Arabs or Muslims?
You will find very few people who openly advocate for genocide of black people outright (and rarely on this blog since Cedarford left), but right here on your very own blog you tolerate calls for genocide of Arabs, Palestinians, or Muslims in general. You also let your commentors use racial slurs against these groups while not allowing the "n" word or even words that sound like it.
"What the university presidents did wrong, in my view, was not the defense of pure speech and the distinguishing of pure speech from conduct. It was the rote repetition of stock phrases in the place of real engagement over what was the line between speech and conduct."
Why, it's almost as if they aren't up to the level of performance required of their position…
See Liz Magill's pathetic groveling walk back video from yesterday - posted after a Penn donor threatened to withdraw his $100 million donation if she isn't fired. Quite a change from her smug, dismissiveness testimony to Congress a few days earlier. It is really fun to watch her sweat her million dollar a year salary.
Stefanik's piece in the WSJ today lays out the rather damning facts against her alma mater. It is ludicrous for Gay to pose as a defender of free speech in light of her employer's past actions.
Perhaps someone could ask Stefanik — Is it a violation of free speech at a public university to continue to say after 60 court cases that Trump’s baseless and desperate claims of a stolen election was stolen?
Sorry, I'm mostly with Popehat on this one. Stefanik was just pure grandstanding, and had no interest in eliciting anything other than stuttering confusion on the part of the elites (which was somewhat painfully fun to watch).
That Ms. Stefanik emerged as the voice of reason in the hearing was a sobering thought for many of her detractors.
When a hated Democrat says something good and true, conservatives are like "Wow, I agree with Sen. Fetterman. Good for him for standing up for what's right. Any chance we can see more of that?"
When a hated Republican says something good and true, liberals are like, "Oh my god! How is it possible I agree with Rep. Stefanik? Is the sky falling? This is terrible!"
Both parties have political pitbulls that they unleash at various times. Stefanik has earned this position within the GOP; Jamie Raskin plays a comparable role for the Democrats. In the moment, she did a good job of grilling the university presidents without overplaying her hand.
What is surprising is that the three presidents knew they were walking into the lion's den yet were unprepared. By being vague and evasive, they were probably trying to walk a fine line between their constituencies. If they had been clearer and more critical of antisemitism, they probably would have faced rioting students and faculty and their offices occupied.
I am hopeful that this will be Liz Magill's last day in Philadelphia. May she be the first of many.
Freder Frederson said...Why black people. Wouldn't a more apt comparison be Arabs or Muslims?
No. Every comparison is equally apt. That's the problem these presidents were facing--the are required by law and custom to treat all speech the same, but they haven't done that.
She kicked ass and took the names.
Too clever by half.
@Althouse
The flaw in your reasoning it seems to me is that if they had followed the line you suggest they would have to defend their policy of disinviting speakers they disagree with.
Well money does talk qataris will make up the difference though
A simple question makes her far right, lol
"Claudine Gay’s hesitant, formulaic, and bizarrely evasive answers were deeply troubling to me and many of my colleagues, students, and friends.'.."
Any particular group of your "colleagues, students, and friends", Laurence? I suppose I might ask, any particular Tribe?
What they did wrong was they got over-briefed and over-prepped by their lawyers who were only focused on mitigating damages from the Title VI lawsuits that are coming.
But in fairness to their lawyers, the administrators had already triggered the liability when they didn't equally and uniformly apply their policies to the post-October 6 demonstrations and this speech, as they did in past cases with other more favored target groups.
Their superior and highly refined education has taken then to the absurd point of thinking that they not only can competently rank order in a hierarchy the good and the bad - the oppressed and oppressors - (by group, no less), but that they can measure out the degree of hate and threats that each level of the hierarchy deserves to receive as just retribution for their past sins.
Or in other words, they have appointed themselves to be God.
"You also let your commentors use racial slurs against these groups while not allowing the "n" word or even words that sound like it."
Freder, that's a base calumny. Althouse has asked us not to use that word, and we mostly comply, out of respect for her. There are things she won't allow in her comments, but htat's not one of them.
Field Marshall Freder: "Why black people. Wouldn't a more apt comparison be Arabs or Muslims?"
Uh, no.
Most Universities run by your totalitarian wokified leftists have already gone out of their way to publicly kiss the arse of those Hamas-ite terrorist supporters while completely abdicating their obligation to maintain objective neutrality in viewpoint expression and even handed support enforcement of harrassment rules.
Duh.
Here's another good example of that at Rice University: https://medium.com/@vardi/a-moral-rot-at-rice-university-86440aede302
Field Marshall Freder: "You will find very few people who openly advocate for genocide of black people outright (and rarely on this blog since Cedarford left), but right here on your very own blog you tolerate calls for genocide of Arabs, Palestinians, or Muslims in general. You also let your commentors use racial slurs against these groups while not allowing the "n" word or even words that sound like it."
"From the river to the sea" IS an explicit call for the destruction of Israel and genocidally driving the Jews into the sea. And it always has going back to the 1920's.
Israel is NOT conducting a genocide, nor would it, against the 7th century death cultists you leftists support. Simple math demonstrates that conclusively. Who cares what some commenter on a blog says when discussing even-handed application of University rules?
FYI: "Zionists" DOES effectively mean all Jews given the almost total support for the existence of and support for the state of Israel by all Jewish sects with the exception of a few numerically irrelevant Haredim.
Sorry, all i get from this is that Tribe is a fucking nutjob that degrades any conversation or institution by his presence...
Rich - why should it be illegal to say "an election was stolen"?
Trump left office right on time.
The shenanigans in key states still smells to high heaven.
"Perhaps someone could ask Stefanik — Is it a violation of free speech at a public university to continue to say after 60 court cases that Trump’s baseless and desperate claims of a stolen election was stolen?"
Rich, I think the answer would be "No". Like, if Trump goes on Hannity, and says the election was stolen? That wouldn't be "at a public university". But maybe if I were to go down to the local Academy of Communist Arts and Sciences, and hop up on a soapbox (anyone have a soapbox?), and shout "The 2020 election was stolen"? Well, no, that wouldn't be a "violation of free speech" either. That would actually be free speech. Even though 60-odd judges have refused to even look at the evidence for that claim.
See here
https://www.tabletmag.com/tags/qatar
Rich - does every topic include Trump?
Your no diff than his obsessives on the other side.
There should have been a frank discussion of whether the universities draw the same line for anti-Semitic speech that they draw for speech that is hostile to other groups, such as black people.
And then there's those white people. How much anti-white language is permitted to be targeted at those colonizers?
It's disappointing that no one is really challenging the notion that everyone must be sorted into Oppressor or Oppressed boxes. The only debate is whether Jews belong in the Oppressed box with white folk. (There is no debate that white folk can only exist in that box.)
"Blogger Rich said...
Perhaps someone could ask Stefanik — Is it a violation of free speech at a public university to continue to say after 60 court cases that Trump’s baseless and desperate claims of a stolen election was stolen?"
Lynching is to black people as intifada is to Jewish people.
In a discussion about calls for genocide against Jewish people, Rich brings up a total non sequitur.
I am therefore going to assume that calls for Jewish genocide have Rich's tacit approval.
@Rich
Are you arguing that there weren't several cases of the elections being conducted in an illegal manner in spite of court rulings saying specifically that was the case? Illegally taking something and stealing seem to be the same thing to me, but I'm not that familiar with demspeak.
Nonetheless thanks for taking the time to interject some wierdly phrased Trump bashing that has nothing to do with the topic.
This whole thing really makes me wonder why these three women were chosen for jobs for which they obviously are not suited.
“ You will find very few people who openly advocate for genocide of black people outright (and rarely on this blog since Cedarford left), but right here on your very own blog you tolerate calls for genocide of Arabs, Palestinians, or Muslims in general. You also let your commentors use racial slurs against these groups while not allowing the "n" word or even words that sound like it.”
You need to back that up. As far as I can tell, the demand has been, and continues to be, elimination of Jews/Israelis from their traditional homeland.
I reject any sort of parsing here. These institutions had student codes of conduct long before the recent political reinventions. These President Assholes tried to thread the needle with the expectation their political allies in the media will save them. They rose to the top of these organizations as a result of politics not competence and now they should pay the price for concluding eye rolls and political snark are the equivalent of debate...
Harvard and Penn are at the very bottom of F.I.R.E.'s ranking of free speech in American universities. Obviously there is a rigid hierarchy of speech at the two institutions and ,"From the river to the sea" is at the top and acknowledging the realties of sex, race, and culture is beyond the pale.
Dems have been calling every other election as stolen since 2000, 2004 2016
Calls to annihilate a people dont need to be parsed
Althouse says: "Where the university presidents went wrong was not in defending pure speech and distinguishing pure speech from conduct." The university presidents cannot distinguish between speech and violence because they and their armies of DEI bureaucrats have spent years telling us that speech is violence (hell, even silence is violence) and that even innocent uttering of the wrong phrase makes minority students feel unwelcome on campus. Now, they are trying to claim that explicit and implied calls for a second holocaust are A-OK as long as you don't actually kill any Jews, and so the campuses aren't unsafe for their Jewish students. So remember this, while saying 'all lives matter' instead of 'black lives matter'during the BLM riot season was racist misconduct, calling for the genocide of Jews doesn't even justify a reprimand on your official record. One of the Ivy League schools (sorry, I forget which one) went so far as to refuse to take disciplinary action against students for any rules violations because suspending them might lead to the loss of their student visas. So their you have it, the first priority is to keep these nazis in the country.
Offer a bullshit apology.
Shut off comments.
Lose $100m
FAFO
p.s. To the media, anyone who has common sense is a brain dead MAGA Nazi Troglodyte
The university is the unique place where you can say anything that you think is true. So can the other guy, and through back and forth you rub off the rough edges of each side and wind up with material for two academic courses.
LLR-democratical Rich: "Perhaps someone could ask Stefanik — Is it a violation of free speech at a public university to continue to say after 60 court cases that Trump’s baseless and desperate claims of a stolen election was stolen?"
LOL
There were actually 92 cases involving election challenge lawsuits:
- 92 total cases
- 30 decided on the merit
- Of those 30, Trump and/or the GOP plaintiff prevailed in 22 of them
Link to the comprehensive list with details: https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1718282544603439602?t=ChxJYTOSo9l4-GlRMjP65Q&s=19
Nice try Rich! Almost as bad as your serial starlink/crimea lies!
But you'll still need to up your gaslighting/lying game if you want to keep LLR-democratical and Violent Homosexual Rage Rape Fantasist Chuck "off your back"...and I'm betting keeping a violent homosexual rage rape fantasist off your back is probably a good idea.
Also, keep the status of any young children in your household "close to the vest"...if you know what I mean.
Complex systems will not survive the narcissism crisis.
Intifadas have been going since 1920 1929 136-39, the four wars were external the word itijihad from the turks is more on point
Stefanik’s right BUT Trump!
Oh yeah, Rich. Questioning a stolen election and calling for genocide are pretty much morally equivalent, now that you mention it.
“…. More than any other member of Congress, Ms. Stefanik represents to Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans the worst of what happened to the G.O.P. under the sway of Mr. Trump...."
So is she worse than Hitler now, too?
Poor pitiful NYT writers. hey didn't want to but Stefanik made them like her. Boo freaking hoo. In a publication not obsessed with always putting down Republicans this would have been written, "Rep. Stefanik was correct, and the presidents of XYZ were horrible at answering her simple direct questions."
In the NYT style guide, "far" and "right" appear as one word.
Freder
Give examples.
Ann Althouse said,...
"Where the university presidents went wrong was not in defending pure speech and distinguishing pure speech from conduct. That was good. Their mistake was the rote repetition of stock phrases in place of real engagement about the line between speech and conduct."
After I'd already written:
"I'm watching College presidents testify before House committee on campus antisemitism — 12/5/23 and, I have to agree, they did awful. Even if correct in their free speech positions (which I think they are) the repeated, robotic recital of policy, when answering specific questions, should get them fired: they've demonstrated they're not up to the job of teaching."
Where we part is the end of this paragraph:
"There should have been a frank discussion of whether the universities draw the same line for anti-Semitic speech that they draw for speech that is hostile to other groups, such as black people."
I would've said "such as you-know-who," because we all know who the example of the world's universal whipping boy is. As a black person I'd try to stick a Native American in there or something. Sometimes. Just to shake it up. Not make the black kid in class always have to experience everyone turning to look at him in every class.
"I suspect that they didn't dare risk speaking substantively because either they really don't understand the law and philosophy of freedom of speech — a shameful deficiency in a university president! — or because they know the facts are against them and they have not been maintaining the strong free-speech position that they want to take now — now that the offensive speech is hateful toward Jews."
You left out another option: the supporters of Zionism are so fanatical, that - at a time when the killing of children is being applauded - an academic, in such a totalitarian environment, could be resigned to the fact there's no way for a normal, rational argument to be heard or respected, so spouts unimpeachable established policy.
Anyone who can't see there's an element of that, in this time when even a nut job like the repeatedly-humiliated Ben Shapiro is trying to make people "condemn" things, is blind.
"Where the university presidents went wrong was not in defending pure speech and distinguishing pure speech from conduct. That was good."
It would have been good coming from people who had a record of making such defenses and distinctions. But everyone knows they don't give a damn, so their "good" arguments were, and sounded, blatantly insincere.
"Their mistake was the rote repetition of stock phrases in place of real engagement about the line between speech and conduct."
Yes, it was a mistake, but the mistake is telling: emerging form their bubble, they thought those rote phrases would suffice, especially in dealing with deplorably uncouth GOP questioners.
"There should have been a frank discussion of whether the universities draw the same line for anti-Semitic speech that they draw for speech that is hostile to other groups, such as black people."
Well, there should have been, but of course those women had no interest in such "frank" discussion, since they don't want to draw "the same line," and blacks obviously rank above mere Jews as victims. Frank discussion would have upset their basic pro-Hamas constituencies, probably the main reason for the roteness.
"I suspect that they didn't dare risk speaking substantively because either they really don't understand the law and philosophy of freedom of speech — a shameful deficiency in a university president! — or because they know the facts are against them and they have not been maintaining the strong free-speech position that they want to take now — now that the offensive speech is hateful toward Jews."
Or? Or "and"? Besides being dishonest progs, they were also incompetent. That's the true tell: the academic prog bubble is so strong, so impregnable, so sure of itself, that second-raters can rise to the top, particularly if they also check some DEI boxes. For fun, check Gay's record.
Ann, embrace the power of "and".
You need to back that up. As far as I can tell, the demand has been, and continues to be, elimination of Jews/Israelis from their traditional homeland.
Of course I would expect this from the person who spent several paragraphs instructing us on what ammo loads and weapons would be most effective killing BLM protesters.
I can't be bothered to find the exact post (look for yourself), but within the last month, Michael K said that the Israelis should do to the residents of Gaza what the Romans did to Carthage (i.e., kill or sell into slavery everyone, and maybe even sow the ground with salt). Go back through the posts Althouse had on the Gaza situation over the last two months. There are numerous comments advocating genocide, not only of the Palestinians, but for Muslims in general.
Boulder Buffoon: "Rich - does every topic include Trump?
Your no diff than his obsessives on the other side."
LOL!
Did you really just write that?
Without irony?
Amazing.
They seemed to think that we will believe them powerless to act because of the Brandenberg decision.
Perhaps someone could ask Stefanik — Is it a violation of free speech at a public university to continue to say after 60 court cases that Trump’s baseless and desperate claims of a stolen election was stolen?
Rich, can you please point me to the trial(s) on the merits of the Trump claims? I only know of one, in Wisconsin, where the Supreme Court said that election laws were violated through unobserved, plus illegal, drop boxes.
I remember the college Presidents repeatedly invoking the term "severe and pervasive," which is the criteria normally associated with hostile environment sexual harassment claims.
Commonly it's the criteria used to separate the normal back and forth of interpersonal relationships from a level that creates a hostile environment, which can prevent someone's full participation in the benefits of the group.
Stefanik's question asked in the hearing was about "genocide."
If we are going to draw parallels here with sexual harassment, I don't see how endorsing "rape" or "murder" (unless it's the lyrics to Gimme Shelter) does not rise to the level of "severe" needed to establish hostile environment sexual harassment.
Similarly, I don't see how a public endorsement of "genocide" of a group can be viewed as anything but "severe."
Alleging that sn election was stolen has been protected speech at least since 1800, when Jefferson stole one himself!!
These three university presidents (sorry, I should say, these three bozos) are the very type who will mouth "Silence is Violence", But that's for those who fail to denounce whatever lefty bogeyman is called up from the Id.
I can recall university presidents and deans of students from my long ago college days and they were, by and large, a very decent bunch. Heck I even liked all but one of my law school deans. And the guy I didn't like made it to the state's Supreme Court.
But your average college president these days is not much more than a mealy mouthed fund raiser. And they have to be successful at fund raising or they don't last. And based on the evidcence at a couple of local major universities in Southern California their morals and ethics are lacking the "essentials' for the job.
Didn't Tom Wolfe write about this kinda thing in the 70s? Radical blacks were welcomed in high culture circles with open arms when ranting about Whitey, but when the smart set realized Whitey included the Jews then all the invitations and contributions dried up.
Exactly
"Even though 60-odd judges have refused to even look at the evidence for that claim."
But 30 cases did go to court. Of those 30, 23 were found in favor of Trump or Trump supporters. The complete list of 92 cases has been circulating on social media - mainly X - for the past couple of months. I'm pretty sure Rachel Alexander, who was following the John Eastman hearing in California, is one of th X users who has posted this list.
The whole idea is to restrict free speech even further. Now some of the richest most powerful people in the USA, aka Ivy league jewish students, will be protected from any speech about anything that injures there poor little feely-weelys. Meanwhile, white non-jewish students feelings can be hurt with impunity.
This may cause some problems. How can a leftist tell the protected class students (Jews) from those not protected students (other whites)? Maybe gold crowns with a star of david, are the answer.
BTW, when are we going to have congressional hearings on the 12,000 innocent Gazans that have been killed by USA supplied bombs dropped by Israel? I have to admire the way the MSM always distracts from topics they don't want to talk about.
The university presidents made the mistake of thinking that complete nonsense spoken in earnest tones makes it learned. Their professors make the same mistake every day. But of course, they hired those professors.
BTW, I seem to be only one who finds it odd that these Ivy league colleges with endowments in the $10s of BILLIONS, are getting "donations" from wealthy people in the $10s of Millions. Why should ANY of this be tax deductable?
And why is any of it neccessary? As far as I can tell, these "donations" are just thinly disguised bribes for the College adminstators. The big donors want control. So much for "academic freedom". More like Academic, Inc.
>>This whole thing really makes me wonder why these three women were chosen for jobs for which they obviously are not suited.
I agree. You would think that at that level, they would has better presentation skills than just repeating rehearsed and wordsmithed sentences.
Or, at a minimum, be better at lying.
"Perhaps someone could ask Stefanik — Is it a violation of free speech at a public university to continue to say after 60 court cases that Trump’s baseless and desperate claims of a stolen election was stolen?"
Was this written by Grok? It doesn't make any sense.
Their mistake was the rote repetition of stock phrases in place of real engagement about the line between speech and conduct.
I doubt these three women are actually capable of anything else. Repetitive stock phrases are the ammunition of the left.
These institutions are very hostile to free speech that they do not approve. Now they want free speech for people who would have been welcome at a Nazi rally if not for the potentially problematic skin tone situation. Eh, the Nazis were a bit flexible on who qualified as Aryan, so it should not be a problem, at least not until they were no longer useful.
I am going to reiterate this from previously: no one wants to hire someone who literally wants their co-workers dead. That shouldn't be difficult to understand, but golly we have some incredibly stupid people in academia.
Higher education is reaching an existential crisis. It is too expensive for the benefits (or "benefits") it provides, it payrolls a massive number of administrators that provide little to no value, and it now supports the most disgusting of ideologies. Would we be better off without Harvard? It pains me, but I would argue that, yes, Harvard is a net negative and should be abolished.
It was also their empty arrogance that got them in trouble. I'm sure those three empty headed university presidents hate women like Rep. Stefanik. They weren't going to give an inch to her in a public setting. Probably thought they were being "nuanced".
They weren't giving and inch to Stefanik, and now they will pay with a mile. Boo-hoo.
They completely humiliated themselves, and they know it.
Their fifteen minutes of fame were cashed in on being tolerant of genocide. Well deserved.
She's running for re-election, it was all an act to get DJT to notice her. She has never been a zionist at all. Now, she is? Please. Pure performance art.
Now, let me get this straight, these college Presidents should be fired for not being able to control their narrative. I don't condone what they did, or how they presented themselves to the committee. but.... isn't it funny that all the college presidents were women... Couldn't they find a male college president to chastise?
Vicki from Pasadena.
Blogger Ice Nine said...
See Liz Magill's pathetic groveling walk back video from yesterday - posted after a Penn donor threatened to withdraw his $100 million donation if she isn't fired. Quite a change from her smug, dismissiveness testimony to Congress a few days earlier. It is really fun to watch her sweat her million dollar a year salary.
Smug and dismissive. That's basically how the left deals with any challenge. Let more of these 'intellectual' credentialed idiots speak, and let their words and opinions be heard by the public. America needs to wake up and realize our Universities are infected with this type of leadership. In turn, they infect America's youth and its future health.
Is this worth a trillion dollars in student debt?
You are certainly right that the past censorious approach at Harvard/Penn/MIT to speech that lefties dislike -- e.g., using the wrong pronouns is 'violence,' questioning the wisdom or fairness of 'affirmative action' is racist harassment -- makes their current invocation of free speech principles more than a little hypocritical. But the rot runs deeper than hypocrisy about speech codes used to ban speech deemed offensive by favored groups. As Eugene Volokh commented today, "Thanks to the freedom of speech, we have a better sense now than before of who our enemies are, and who our friends are. We have a better sense of how our institutions operate. We have a better sense of how the ideologies that many teach there can play out." Measured by what they have done and said, very few administrators in American universities today qualify as friends that you'd want to keep. The good news is that the presidents of Penn and Harvard are unlikely to survive the strong push-back their pathetic form of 'leadership' has engendered.
Out: CHAT-GPT
IN: Rich-PCP
The problem that the University Presidents had was that they had punished students for saying things like, "there are only two genders" or "being obese is unhealthy" and said that that talk was the same as violence. But they turned a blind eye to their pro Hamas students calling for actual violence against Jews.
The Progressives have decided that opposing free speech is their hill to die on. But what they don't realize is that when they deny free speech to select people, it exposes their own biases to everyone.
That's why you need to support free speech unless there is a PROVABLE threat of that speech breaking the law and/or causing violence.
"Sauce for the goose, Mr. Saavik."
Yeah, it’s cause they were chicks. Geez Vickie, You go with that toots.
Hormone problems, what can’t they do
victoria said...
"Couldn't they find a male college president to chastise?"
There are only two in the Ivy League. Affirmative Action made certain of that. If those women were chosen for their abilities... ha ha ha.
I suspect that they didn't dare risk speaking substantively because either they really don't understand the law and philosophy of freedom of speech — a shameful deficiency in a university president! — or because they know the facts are against them and they have not been maintaining the strong free-speech position that they want to take now — now that the offensive speech is hateful toward Jews.
I think it's the latter. But I also think some of the focus on these hapless little college bureaucrats -- whose primary job is fundraising -- is unfair. Alumni and donors and trustees and politicians want them fired. Sure, no great loss. But do they really think knocking off a college president is going to trigger a change in the institutional culture of these places?
These institutions have spent decades affirmatively selecting for students and professors who adhere to a kind of "blue and orange morality" in which ordinary principles of interpersonal decency, humanity, and compassion must be subordinated to their theory of racial hierarchy and oppression. Switching out the petty functionary at top isn't going to do anything if you're still dealing with a student body and a professoriate who jump enthusiastically to bully American Jews because they're upset about Israeli counterattacks in Gaza. And achieving neutral enforcement of campus policies is a ridiculous fantasy, in an environment where campus bureaucrats still enjoy enormous discretion and don't have to justify their bigotry to anyone but their fellow bigots in the academy.
You'll only see meaningful change in the short term if some of that institutional discretion gets displaced onto outsiders.
when jewish students are being mobbed at cooper union, at columbia, at cornell (checks notes) remember that professor who was 'exulted' by October 7th, maybe a cross burning would make him feel likewise, when incitement to murder seems the order of the day in every major city and most of the political establishment seem basenghi
”More than any other member of Congress, Ms. Stefanik represents to Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans the worst of what happened to the G.O.P. under the sway of Mr. Trump...."
No, “best” is not spelled w-o-r-s-t.
Blogger Iman said...
Out: CHAT-GPT
IN: Rich-PCP
Heh.
ctoria said...
She's running for re-election, it was all an act to get DJT to notice her. She has never been a zionist at all. Now, she is? Please. Pure performance art.
Vicky does not consider that one need not be a "Zionist" to reject anti-Semitism. I went to Catholic school grades 1-12. I also joined the "Young Men's Jewish Council" because they had a better gym than the YMCA. Vicky, in her TDS, has lost her humanity.
Jews will talk back, even dispute, when accused of misbehavior. So will Christians. Muslims tend to begin their protests against being called out for misbehavior by demanding the death of the heretics doing the accusing. And then becoming more demanding of redress for even having their misbehavior noticed.
This is why it will take a Muslim civil war to stop Islamic depredations upon the rest of the world. Not Sharia v. Sunni. More like Modern v. Traditional, where "Modern" does not exist yet in the Muslim religion. Much like the Catholic/Protestant wars from Luther at Wittenburg to Sinn Fein in Belfast, which have led to peaceful disagreements between Xtian faiths, (Eno Phillips notwithstanding), a Muslim religion that does NOT demand the death of nonbelievers is required by all of society, including especially the Muslims of the world, for progress to be achieved in living in peace together.
Until then, unconditional surrender by all Hamas and all supporters, military trials under military, not civil law, and punishment to fit their crimes. Show the world that Hamas is not a supporter of Islam, but a criminal cancer upon it.
victoria from pasadena: "She's running for re-election, it was all an act to get DJT to notice her. She has never been a zionist at all. Now, she is? Please. Pure performance art."
LOL
Confronted with the clear, overwhelming, passionate and wide spread lefty/dem support for the Hamas 7th century death cultists, victoria pulls another lie out of her arse by insinuating Stefanik does not support even the existence of Israel!
I wonder if victoria will be joining her fellow dems/leftists at the Jewish Hostages Poster Pulldown Party tonight?
It gets "better"...
victoria from pasadena: "I don't condone what they did, or how they presented themselves to the committee. but...."
LOL
Remember, victoria still cant bring herself to criticie Joe Biden showering with and sexualizing his own adolescent daughter.
And now this.
Keep digging victoria. Keep digging.
Kudos to Stefanik. Those Emperors have no clothes.
In a nutshell: Wokeism has set us back.
A big tell is having to make Trump the boogie man.
Well, Jews are white so fuck 'em.
Tribe is a perfect example of what I call a 'smart idiot.'
He is clearly smart but mostly wrong on everything. He (and others) just wave his credentials around.
The three ladies up for questioning are the result of affirmative action hiring practices. It is shocking that only one of them is black.
“Had Liners” must be truth tellers in a world that says everybody is entitled to their own truth..,EXCEPT Jews and Christians of course.
'See Liz Magill's pathetic groveling walk back video from yesterday - posted after a Penn donor threatened to withdraw his $100 million donation if she isn't fired.'
Elon Musk is a Penn alum...I wonder how much he gives?
'Lynching is to black people as intifada is to Jewish people.'
Don't mention the 'L' word. It makes Democrats both excited and nostalgic...
Maybe the death of George Floyd depends on the context.
Three leading universities, three unimpressive female presidents. Does anyone else think affirmative action hiring may be part of the problem?
“ Sorry, I'm mostly with Popehat on this one. Stefanik was just pure grandstanding, and had no interest in eliciting anything other than stuttering confusion on the part of the elites (which was somewhat painfully fun to watch).”
I don’t know why you are saying sorry because that’s not inconsistent with what I said. Look carefully. I said nothing about what Stefanik was doing. I was only talking about the University presidents. In fact, in my opinion, Stefanik was also failing to engage, but I don’t think the University presidents had any idea what to do about it, so I was very lame of them. Really they should be on a higher level intellectually. She was behaving like a politician and they should’ve anticipated it and done better.
There's AI and there's Rich. AI formulates something seemingly responsive, but then struggles to answer followups before it defaults to repeating. Rich simply starts a sentence with one or two references to the blogged subject, before turning it to wattabout dat Trump. AI and not very I.
"Their mistake was the rote repetition of stock phrases in place of real engagement about the line between speech and conduct."
Well, Big Surprise!~
Any of us that have worked in an organization know very well that there are sh*t-weasels that climb the corporate ladder by parroting right-think and making sure they are perfect reflections of the 'current thing'. But a reflection is by definition insubstantial. They are cowards, almost every single one of them, too scared and unperceptive, not capable of stepping outside their crafted persona to evaluate what is the right thing to do. This has been a chronic problem for a long time. It just took a Hot-Button issue to elevate how bad it is.
They are cowards. The fear that they will be targeted by the same people whom they have condoned when they target republicans.
Blogger Ann Althouse said..."In fact, in my opinion, Stefanik was also failing to engage, but I don’t think the University presidents had any idea what to do about it, so I was very lame of them."
You are right, except for the "Stefanic was also failing to engage" part. She succeeded in spades at what she wanted to do, which was not to engage but to create a 3-minute video showing just how pathetic these university presidents were.
Our leftist elites have a problem reconciling the diverse, progressive incongruities of their religious philosophy.
Go back through the posts Althouse had on the Gaza situation over the last two months. There are numerous comments advocating genocide, not only of the Palestinians, but for Muslims in general.
Horseshit. Demanding the ass-kicking of the people who - unprovoked - raped and killed innocent civilians on October 7th isn't a call for genocide.
Defending terrorists isn't a good look, Freder. Not surprising, but still not a good look.
Evident that Rich was losing his hardon against DJT so he brought him up into this thread (even though it had nothing to do with the subject thrown out there by Ann) to get his jollies going again.
I suppose that Rich is a ranked poster at IMGUR, the far left-wing meme site.
MarcusB. THEOLDMAN
(Who frequents FunnyJunk and shakes his head at the hate spewed at Jews, blacks and women therein -- though some of them are sorta funny if offensive as hell)
"Really they should be on a higher level intellectually. She was behaving like a politician and they should’ve anticipated it and done better."
Do DEI adherents put a premium on intellect? If so, it's not immediately obvious. Perhaps they did the best they were able to?
I wanted someone to ask about the "action" criteria. Does it have to be pre-meditated violence/murder or does it include "heat of the moment" killings like the professor who struck the elderly Jew causing him to die?
How many beaten, raped or murdered students are across the line from speech to "action".
"Really they should be on a higher level intellectually. She was behaving like a politician and they should’ve anticipated it and done better."
I couldn't help noticed the college presidents had something in common. I could be wrong, I haven't checked their pronouns.
Someone should have asked if the government should still give student visas to antisemite foreign students. I would have loved to hear that answer when the full payers were threatened.
robother: "Rich simply starts a sentence with one or two references to the blogged subject, before turning it to wattabout dat Trump."
Remember, LLR-democratical Chuck set the standard by deflecting every negative item/story/narrative post about any democratical into a smear post about conservatives, including Trump while also trying to drive a wedge between Althouse and her readers.
When LLR-democraticals Rich and lonejustice showed up, not only did they do these creepy back-and-forth praise posts between themselves and Chuck but they immediately exhibited every single tactic Chuck employed for years.
So transparent a child could see it is a concerted effort to try to disrupt and channel organic discussion for pro-dem purposes. This is a common occurrence/tactic the leftists/NeverTrumpers employ on influential blog sites.
Viki from pasacrapula.
Stefanik is fighting against leftwing anti-semitism. Thankfully some democrats appreciate it.
sorry you're so dumb.
When a hated Democrat says something good and true, conservatives are like "Wow, I agree with Sen. Fetterman. Good for him for standing up for what's right. Any chance we can see more of that?"
When a hated Republican says something good and true, liberals are like, "Oh my god! How is it possible I agree with Rep. Stefanik? Is the sky falling? This is terrible!"
Leftists (they're not liberals) are collectivists. If they ever have thoughts that contradict leftist groupthink, that's a personal failing- after all, it's the group that's important, not the individual. Conservatives are more likely to be okay with their own opinion if they find it conflicts with others.
“ You are right, except for the "Stefanic was also failing to engage" part. She succeeded in spades at what she wanted to do, which was not to engage but to create a 3-minute video showing just how pathetic these university presidents were.” be very, very careful.
I agree that she succeeded in failing to engage. As I said in my comment, she behaved like a politician, and the University presidents should’ve anticipated that and been intelligent about dealing with it.
"I can't be bothered to find the exact post..."
Of course not.
"Couldn't they find a male college president to chastise?"
You think a male could do a better job of justifying their institution's position on genocide than a female? That's sexist, isn't it?
These women desire prestigious positions but don't want to do the work of demonstrating they're deserving of what's been handed to them? This (heh) is my shocked face.
"and the University presidents should’ve anticipated that and been intelligent about dealing with it."
Have you considered the possibility that they dealt with it as intelligently as they were able?
Far right achieves the unthinkable. Well, fasten your seatbelts....
I don't think so, if the president engage in academic verbiage to hide their responsibilities to the communities which they serve,
Glenn Reynolds had a way better take at his SubStack. If these institutions had a track record of principled support for free speech then answering this question would have been an easy home run. They don't, because they selectively suppress viewpoints they don't like, and they have no answer for a truly vile viewpoint that has been festering for decades.
These schools discriminate against Asian students in admissions, so it's not surprising that they discriminate against Jewish students in condoning antisemitism. They operate out of a color hierarchy, with BIPOC at the top of the moral ladder. Jews are white, and Asians are white adjacent.
do I have this right?
yelling fire is prohibited
kill the jews is perfectly Otay?
I have a well thought out position on free speech. It is not complicated.
Sullivan lays out the parameters of what constitutes speech triggering civil wrongs. It is obvious that speech that puts people in danger, triggers criminal consequences. Everything else is a civil right protected by the constitution.
Simple examples help. Like the ACLU defending the right of the KKK to march in Skokie Illinois(If those Presidents are reading this, Skokie is a suburb of Chicago with a very dense Jewish population, because the Deans live an extremely siloed existence, and don't know stuff)
Or
"I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It" an unattributed quote, oft repeated
The elephant in the room? How can Deans, supposedly leaders of young skulls of mush. Not have a core set of VALUES?
Granted there are tough concepts in life, super tough if you have zero values to retreat to and start at the beginning
Pro tip. Woke is not any type of value. Sure as hell not a core value.
Universities often cancel speakers because of contrary views.
But they havent this time.
Do you see?
Do you SEE?
They operate out of a color hierarchy, with BIPOC at the top of the moral ladder.
Diversity (i.e. color judgment, class bigotry), yes.
Not a moral ladder, but rather a ladder where color and class are the rungs and leverage for their ascent. And their religion is ethical or relativistic, not moral or universal, internally, externally, and mutually consistent. Their religion is Pro-Choice.
Here is how I put it to some friends.
This was not posed to these three women as a free speech issue; it was posed as a code of conduct issue. Stefanik very specifically tried to get the three women to simply say "yes," that an endorsement of genocide of the Jews would violate their codes of conduct. If this were a free speech issue, the women would have been right to say such comments would be protected unless they posed an imminent threat of violence (which standard by the way they could not even articulate accurately). But what Stefanik asked was not about free speech rights at all, it was about codes of conduct. Private institutions have always had the right to impose speech restrictions on their members as a part of their codes of conduct.
The three women defaulted to a defense of free speech rights to explain what has in fact been their institutions' indifference to the plight of Jews and their Jewish students. The real disgrace here is not their irrelevant defense of free speech rights in the abstract, it is their sheer hypocrisy in pretending to care about free speech rights at all. Harvard has in recent decades trampled on the free speech rights of many students and faculty even AS they fail to enforce any code of conduct on their leftwing students, who get to occupy buildings, intimidate other students, shout down invited speakers, etc., with impunity.
I also do not get the idea that Stefanik failed to engage. Sure, she acted "like a politician," since she is one and she had a political agenda. So are they and so did they. She asked politely, several times I believe to each, a very clear and perfectly reasonable question. About codes of conduct (not free speech). She wanted a yes or no answer, which given what she asked seemed a reasonable request to me. The political part is that she knows the mindset of these women will not permit them to give a clean honest yes or no answer. It was that mindset that the "politician" in her wanted to expose. They obliged. Hooray for her. It resulted in a very important turning point moment. Perhaps the most important turning point in the entire sorry DEI-besotted tragedy of higher ed of the past decade. The Mantle of Heaven has fallen from Harvard and the rest. It will not be restored.
Althouse @ 4:09: "...I was only talking about the University presidents. In fact, in my opinion, Stefanik was also failing to engage, but I don’t think the University presidents had any idea what to do about it, so I was very lame of them. Really they should be on a higher level intellectually. She was behaving like a politician and they should’ve anticipated it and done better."
Bingo. They can (and IMHO should) be fired for ineptitude, not ideological impurity. (I think they're guilty of the latter as well, and worse; but there's no need to go there). Ineptitude: they are the CEO's of multi-multi-multi-billion $ businesses, their entire product consists of clever wordslinging and soaring phrasemaking; and they get stopped cold, stymied, hornswoggled by a --gasp-- politician in a --gasp-- highly formalized encounter for which they are given ample time to prepare, where the kinds of questions they'll face are glaringly obvious, where the consequences of weak answers have been figured to the last degree?
And their best move is this pettifoggery, this paltering, this clumsy dance?
Schmucks.
Oh, please. These uni presidents are perfectly content to watch Jews get screwed over by these vicious little anti-semites because they are anti-semites themselves. Let a favored group, oh say, transeys receive that kind of treatment and these same presidents would be BE ALL OVER IT!
As I said in my comment, she behaved like a politician, and the University presidents should’ve anticipated that and been intelligent about dealing with it.
=================
is soneone claiming University Presidents are not politicians? politikers?
"Poll: Nearly 7 in 10 US Jews think Republican Party holds anti-Semitic views"
I lived in a Jewish neighborhood on the outskirts of Baltimore. It did not have a republican representative in 100 years. None of their complaints about the on-campus harassment will change their political preferences. They'll still send their kids to Harvard.
Christopher B said...
"Glenn Reynolds had a way better take at his SubStack. If these institutions had a track record of principled support for free speech then answering this question would have been an easy home run. They don't, because they selectively suppress viewpoints they don't like, and they have no answer for a truly vile viewpoint that has been festering for decades."
You can find women just like that, working in Human Resources, all across the country.
Norman Finkelstein Defends Donald Trump As He Slams Chuck Schumer
Two Live Jews: Jake Tapper VISIBLY DISGUSTED by Israeli Official's Victim Blaming
Chris Hedges "The Genocide in Gaza"
'"Truth" is now inverted,....That's how NewAge "works"'
- Yours Truly, Dec. 2021
"[Israel] does not deform the truth, it inverts it."
- Chris Hedges, Dec. 2023
Don't Forget - Zionism is not Judaism: Zen Master Instructs Israelis How To Kill WITHOUT Compassion
I did not know Israel is the world's #10 arms supplier, or that they sold weapons to Apartheid-era South Africa. Learn something new every day.
Those poor people need to protect themselves.
Laurence “wagging the dog of war” Tribe is disturbed by how Claudine Gray answered?
Normal Finkelstein is an a-hole.
2017:
"Trump vowed to move the embassy to Jerusalem when he ran for president, and in making Wednesday’s announcement, he said he was fulfilling a campaign promise that previous presidents also made but failed to deliver.
“This is a long overdue step to advance the peace process,” Trump said. “Israel is a sovereign nation with the right like every other sovereign nation to determine its own capital.”"
Hamas kills Palestinians... not Zionists.
Hamas makes war - people die.
Innocent Germans died in Nazi Germany. Not everyone voted for Hitler.
Not everyone voted for Hamas. Many did.
Are you pro-Hamas jerks crying for lost Germans?
I stand w Isreal. Leftists, Mullahs, Hamas-Palistinian terrorists can suck it said...
Normal Finkelstein is an UNDEFEATED IN DEBATE a-hole.
FIFY
I stand w Isreal. Leftists, Mullahs, Hamas-Palistinian terrorists can suck it said...
"Not everyone voted for Hamas. Many did."
I love the dodgy way y'all lie: More than half of the Palestinians are people who were too young to vote in 2006, so you're killing people for something they had nothing to do with.
I stand w Isreal. Leftists, Mullahs, Hamas-Palistinian terrorists can suck it said...
"Innocent Germans died in Nazi Germany. Not everyone voted for Hitler.
Not everyone voted for Hamas. Many did.
Are you pro-Hamas jerks crying for lost Germans?"
Show me evidence Hamas killed 10,000 Jews-a-day, so this analogy works. I can show you evidence Zionist fascists kill people by the thousands.
Crack: what is the alternative?
I get it. But people have to rise up. And given the current stats on the terrorists in Gaza, they could.
The problem, as in America, is control of the schools by terrorists.
I feel for the people of Gaza who oppose the current atrocity. But they are, by internal polling, a very substantial minority. They could rise up. That they don't means they are lying and support the vicious rapes and murders.
Look to history. Look, to history.
A child is born in Israel. A child is born in Palestine. Now what do we do?
We can't all live together. Women pay the hardest part for this, treated as slaves in Palestine and citizens in Israel.
Which values do we sacrifice, Crack? I don't pretend to know the answer.
Stefanik is about as ferociously right wing as Susan Collins. It's just that by the exceptionally low standards of Republican members of Congress, she's reasonably articulate.
So when the Republicans are awarded a free throw, as a result of some egregiously blatant lefty nuttiness, she gets to take it.
Tina Trent said...
"Crack: what is the alternative?"
We could try telling the truth, for starters. This is Israel's problem. The Zionists made it. And they are murdering people to seal it.
"I get it. But people have to rise up. And given the current stats on the terrorists in Gaza, they could."
"The terrorists in Gaza" were funded by Netanyahu, so don't get it twisted. People are trying to rise up, but Zionists keep them down. It takes atrocities to even make people look at what's been happening to them.
"The problem, as in America, is control of the schools by terrorists."
So you're overlooking Zionists killing kids to blame the kids? Smart.
"I feel for the people of Gaza who oppose the current atrocity."
That's very specific. So the people who lost their land, maybe a few blonde ones, and their dignity - and are happy that somebody struck back - they can all die, right? They deserve no compassion because the Zionist's expectation is for them to just sit and die, correct?
"But they are, by internal polling, a very substantial minority."
Exactly. You're as bad as the Zionists. You want to kill everybody but just a few. How monstrous and Nazi-like is that?
"They could rise up."
You keep saying that, like serving the Zionists is some great goal. The goal is to get them off of those people's land.
"That they don't means they are lying and support the vicious rapes and murders."
They're lying? So you can't acknowledge the Zionists started this and they rape as well?
"Look to history. Look, to history."
I am, and you obviously are not, because it doesn't look good.
A child is born in Israel. A child is born in Palestine. Now what do we do?
We can't all live together. Women pay the hardest part for this, treated as slaves in Palestine and citizens in Israel.
Which values do we sacrifice, Crack? I don't pretend to know the answer.
Post a Comment