We were just talking about Bill Clinton rhetoric — 2 posts down, here — but that was about "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" and the topic was Biden's denials of involvement in his son's influence peddling.
Dowd is writing about the "pathetic display" put on by the presidents of Harvard, M.I.T. and the University of Pennsylvania "when they were asked if calling for genocide against Jews counted as harassment." Dowd only uses the word "harassment" once and doesn't seem to see any need to define it or discuss it in any depth. When is an ugly/cruel/immoral/hateful statement harassment? Dowd — like many others, and unlike the "pathetic" presidents — glides immediately over to the much easier matter: It's ugly, cruel, immoral, and hateful to call for genocide, against the Jews or against any people.
And by the way, as I've always thought and may have mentioned on this blog once or twice, Bill Clinton was correct. It did depend on "what the meaning of 'is' is"!
Clinton had agreed with Monica Lewinsky's affidavit — "There’s nothing going on between us" — and it was phrased in the present tense. Clinton's full statement began with the memorable and unwise "It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is," but he went on, immediately, to explain what he meant:
"If the—if he—if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. … Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."
What Clinton did and what these university presidents did was to make a statement that seemed apt and technically, legally correct but not to realize how it would feel to the larger audience.
Speaking of context!
ADDED: Over at The Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin has a column with a similar headline to Dowd's — "University presidents flunk the humanity test."
Like Dowd, Rubin fails to look into the question when offensive speech becomes harassment. I don't see that she even notices it:
Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) called Magill’s comments “offensive,” and said “calling for the genocide of Jews is antisemitic and harassment, full stop.”
Does Rubin even see that there's a difference between saying something offensive and engaging in behavior that constitutes "harassment"?
Rubin quotes someone identified only as "Shapiro" (I had to click through a link to discover it's the governor of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro):
"That was an unacceptable statement from the president of Penn,” Shapiro said in response to Magill not condemning calls for genocide. “Frankly, I thought her comments were absolutely shameful. It should not be hard to condemn genocide.”...
How sloppily was this column thrown together? Don't you see that there's a big difference between condemning genocide and committing to the proposition that a statement endorsing genocide is always harassment? Is this willful blindness or a conscious effort to seize an oozingly ripe opportunity for constricting the freedom of speech?
Rubin continues:
The Anti-Defamation League also weighed in, with a written statement: “This utter failure to show moral clarity at a time when antisemitism is surging on college campuses is dangerous. This is not a question of free speech, but rather a question of whether genocidal calls on campus will be met with consequences. The only acceptable answer is yes. They couldn’t say it. Will your president do so now?”
How is it not a question of free speech? Can we at least debate what free speech is here? If you try to dictate what is and is not a question of freedom of speech, you don't sound as though you give a damn about freedom of speech. This is where your commitment to freedom of speech is truly tested, when the speech is revoltingly offensive.
Speaking of flunking a test!
UPDATE: "Penn’s Leadership Resigns Amid Controversies Over Antisemitism/The president, Elizabeth Magill, and the chairman of the board of trustees, Scott L. Bok, are leaving after intense pressure from donors, politicians and alumni" (NYT).
The announcement... followed months of intense pressure from Jewish students, alumni and donors, who claimed that she had not taken their concerns about antisemitism on campus seriously.... Ms. Magill, a lawyer, is expected to remain at Penn as a faculty member in the law school.... With students deeply divided over the war, university presidents have tried to balance pro-Palestinian protesters’ right to free speech with concerns that some of their language has been antisemitic....
Posts
98 comments:
Stefanik - It took 17 asks.
The only reason these leftist pro-Hamas over-paid elite university baby-sitter woke presidents are starting to cave....
money. and they might get fired.
Firing someone is also a form of free speech.
Emotive politics, tales, etc.
A couple, a couplet; a baby, a fetus; a rape, a rape-rape; a time for peace, a time for ceasefire; a war, a Spring; a hole, a whore; a diversity of individuals, a diversity of colors; a benefit, a tax; a sex, a gender; a vaccine, a therapeutic; a moral religion, an ethical religion; an equality, a congruence; an insurance, a subsidy; a top hole, a back hole, a front hole... sex or sexual relations are par for the course.
For the university presidents, the most relevant context is not Congress or the public or Jews, but their own lefty constituencies. That's what they had in mind when they suddenly discovered "1A principles."
But here, for once, it's clear even to some fellow progs that the Ivy League "flunks out." They'll circle the wagons soon enough: further criticism of these women is sexist, and intifada promoters should be able to speak freely, and speech is not conduct after all, and academia should not bow to rich Jews, and so on. But perhaps it will occur to some progs, perhaps a few Jews here and there, that this is not the only instance where the Ivies flunk out.
Just a reminder that Jennifer Rubin has roundly praised the denigration and thought policing of white people and is now roundly condemning the denigration and thought policing of Jews by these university presidents.
Clinton fucked the help, making it clear he would fuck anyone, and thus was unfit for office.
The university presidents sided with those calling for genocide, making it clear they would not protect their own students, and thus are unfit for office.
It really isn't complicated.
they all grovel so resolutely for Qatari cash it should be unseemly,
Dowd still comes up with the weakest take, and the week hasn't ended yet,
"Is this willful blindness or a conscious effort to seize an oozingly ripe opportunity for constricting the freedom of speech?"
I've already said it's willful blindness. These people are fanatics. They're not thinking, and not self-aware. But the latter is on purpose,...
Is it weather or climate? Is it anthropogenic or natural? Is it mild or catastrophic? Is it origin or expression? Is it radiative or thermal? Is it energy or heat? Is it white or albino? Is it equal or "="? Is it a girl or a boy? Is it speech or incitement? Is it a riot or chaos? Is it inclusive or exclusive? Is it an abortion or homicide? Six weeks of separation.
Again, Althouse, kudos to you:
(A) On timely revisiting "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is," and;
(B) For your determined and ceareful analysis of the university-president-Congressional-testimony kerfuffle.
I never once voted for a Clinton or a Gore (although I now certainly regret my 2016 Trump vote), and I also feel like I have no dog in the fight over the universty presidents' testimony.
I just like to see clear thinking and incisive analysis in print.
You can argue the technical aspects of Clinton’s ‘truthful’ denial or the Ivy guild president’s ‘it depends on the contest’ all you want. If there wasn’t a double standard, more people might accept those arguments. But those arguments only go one way. CNN gives us ‘mostly peaceful protests’ when the left engages in looting, burning and murder. What does a Trump J6 supporter get? Months and years in prison and the full weight of the DOJ in their lives. If Clinton said: “Look, she gave me a blow job. That’s it. I screwed up and shouldn’t have let he suck me off. I’m sorry it was a mistake and I regret it.” And you know what, most people would have said, yeah, big mistake. And moved on and the Republicans would have been left hanging because most people would understand “it was just a blow job.”
A white student who stands in front of a black owned business yelling he thinks they should all die will go to jail.
Any student who stands in front of a Jewish owned business yelling she thinks they should all die will get an A in her poli-sci class.
Somebody needs to give Elise Stefanik her due. She did what Republican men can never do: Take the moral high ground, expose and destroy her opponents, and do it with absolute precision and authentic outrage. It was a stunning performance, the best I’ve ever seen in congressional hearings.
Ann Althouse, "Dowd is writing about the "pathetic display" put on by the presidents of Harvard, M.I.T. and the University of Pennsylvania "when they were asked if calling for genocide against Jews counted as harassment."
That pathetic display was fully expected.
Those three are in a liberal echo chamber of group think. No Socratic questioning going on there. The lawyers hired to prep all three should be fired. They knew that question was coming but the answer was terrible. And coordinated between all three.
Not a single one of those presidents belong in those jobs. They were DEI hires. The Harvard president only published 11 papers in her entire career and not a single book. Creighton's President recently published a book while raising millions for a new campus in AZ.
The larger issue is that we can now see how corrupt and damaging identity politics is. At least for those who can see. Identity politics will destroy the Dem party and I, for one, will enjoy it. The Dems brought it on themselves.
What's in a word? Would a word reparsed mean any less? We have dictionaries, experts, lawyers, and urban interpretation. It depends on who is to be the master.
Hunter cannot influence peddle without his father in the 2nd to top spot. Also Biden was in charge of Ukraine... visited Ukraine many many times. As VP.
how on earth would Hunter be able to accomplish family grift without Joe?
I read the Dowd column. Don't come away with a favorable opinion of Dowd from the brief snippet quoted. She goes on to say that Netenyahu with his arrogance and failure to heed intelligence warnings is also culpable. She also thinks that Israel is wrong to continue its bombing.....The first few paragraphs condemning the college presidents might just have been cover to lend more credence to her denunciation of Netenyahu and the way the war against Hamas is being fought by Israel......Hamas would dearly love to wage a genocidal war against Israel. Israel's response is deliberately disproportionate. Action; reaction. The purpose is not just to kill Hamas fighters but to give Palestinians an awareness that such attacks are counterproductive....I don't know what is just the right amount of devastation to visit upon Gaza, but this is a war that Hamas started... Maybe Israel should announce that it will cease all bombing if all the hostages are released. Put the onus back on Hamas.
furthermore this dodge is what enabled weinstein do what was known as the casting couch, which suddenly became the grounds for me too, a generation later, when all the beneficiaries of same, no longer needed him
Bill Clinton getting kicked twice in the same day raises the question, who kicked first, Dowd or Turley?
The chief linguistic contribution of it all was a new noun, a Lewinski.
It brought blow jobs into the public discourse so that Julia Roberts could claim to have gotten 600 consent forms signed with sexual favors, "600 blow jobs," in Erin Brockoovich (2000).
How did you do this?
Seeing as how I have no brains or legal expertise...and Ed was losing all faith.
Completely. No faith.
I went out there and performed sexual favours. 600 blowjobs in five days. I'm really quite tired.
What is failing is treating the question like a law school exam answer where you are imagining a call for genocide that doesn’t amount to harassment. Does the Harvard President’s clarification pass:
“There are some who have confused a right to free expression with the idea that Harvard will condone calls for violence against Jewish students. Let me be clear: Calls for violence or genocide against the Jewish community or any religious or ethnic group are vile, they have no place at Harvard, and those who threaten our Jewish students will be held to account.”
Crack: "I've already said it's willful blindness. These people are fanatics. They're not thinking, and not self-aware. But the latter is on purpose,..."
Interestingly, a group Crack identifies with and does NOT believe are willfully blind fanatics: Hamas 7th Century Death Cult Terrorist murderers/rapists/torturers/kidnappers of Jewish women and children.
But that is on purpose....
sexual relations
======
were deposing lawyers ever able to parse/provide definition of 'sexual relations' from/to POTUS?
is it even possible to do so now?
I want to preface this by saying my very own daughter has been a high profile, high achiever at several firms in Manhattan's Financial District for almost 25 years. She is the best at what she does.
That said, these three people running our 'best' schools might as well be named Larry, Curly and Moe. In my opinion, they are emblematic of a huge problem with our education system - it is dominated by woke women far more interested in feelings than facts.
They don't 'have to' be unfit for their jobs but too many of them are. DEI has done little but bloat budgets and egos and entitled us to invent our personal genders, languages and 'trigger points'. Makes a person long for the days of the Garden Variety Pointy-Headed Intellectual.
Apologies to the millions and millions of women who work their asses off everyday, doing every task under the sun wonderfully and making our lives better.
Women don't have to be Marie Curie (possibly the most brilliant person who ever lived) to be the best they can be. But they damn sure shouldn't get Nobel Prizes in two scientific disciplines because it's a 'woman's turn'. If you think this view is crude overstatement, ask yourself how many women you know believe our next president should be a woman.
Peace to all.
Narciso and Crack are on point.
Once again, I hate to side with Pol Pot, albeit with rebar irony, but, first, kill all the intellectuals. For consistency, go ahead and include me. We have destroyed this country.
"Is this willful blindness or a conscious effort to seize an oozingly ripe opportunity for constricting the freedom of speech?"
I think you are a bit off-target here, Althouse. The university presidents weren't making an effort to "seize an oozingly ripe opportunity for constricting the freedom of speech", nor are Rubin and Dowd trying to do so in their essays- that opportunity was already being seized.
What caused the university presidents a problem, and why they were so evasive when being questioned on the matter, is the double-standards they were already applying in deciding what is permissible for students to say and not say. At UPenn, for example, it will assuredly get a student expelled to openly state the Israelis should relocate all the Palestinians into Egypt and Jordan- not even kill them, just relocate them. You can probably even get yourself expelled by openly stating that men are superior at higher mathematics, for example- that would definitely be defined by the universities as sexual harassment/verbal abuse.
I think the students who were protesting against Israel should be free to make their statements without the university penalizing them. I am a free speech absolutist in this regard and for very good reasons- those reasons being exactly the things these same three university presidents have already decided students aren't allowed to say. The university presidents couldn't make a definitive case for allowing the free speech in this case because of these double standards- it is the intellectually indefensible double-standards they want to apply that caused them so much problem when testifying. They aren't very bright people, but they were bright enough to understand that they didn't have any principles that were logically consistent.
The problem for the university presidents wasn't the question asked, but the follow-up question that would have followed the logical 'yes' answer if they had given it: "if it's a violation of policy what have you done about it?" As bad from a PR standpoint as their waffling was, an answer to the follow-up question would have led to far worse.
ADF: "This is not a question of free speech, but rather a question of whether genocidal calls on campus will be met with consequences."
Althouse: "How is it not a question of free speech?"
How is it not a question of consequences? Does free speech mean a private university cannot have a code of conduct imposing consequences for speech or expression harassing or threatening others?
Universities impose consequences on students and faculty for expressing "unwoke" opinions. That is the broader context here.
the ceasefire, went from june 2021 to October 6th, how do they walk and chew up
This is driving me crazy. None of these Pro-palestinian groups called for "Genociding Jews". None. This is the zionists playing the same game the left does. The protesters say something like "Palestine free from the river to the sea". And the Zionists then screech "That means Genociding the Jews. Its code words!".
And everyone runs around saying "They were chanting kill all the Jews". Its propaganda at is worst. Meanwhile, isreal is killing 12, 000 civilans and truly committing genocide.
You have the same dishonesty over J6. A few J6'ers attacked the police and broke in. But the vast majority of J6ers were let in the Capital. Or just walked in when the doors were open. But the Left MSM then characterized this as an "attempted coup" an "Insurrection" a "Deadly riot" an "attack on Democracy". And these lies are repeated over and over and over. SO, now we have an ex-POTUS being criminally charged with "inciting a riot" or whatever. And people think its acceptable and Normal!
Its all based on a lie. But repeat lies enough, and the mob believes its the truth.
Dowd is a dud.
One of the presidents said it could be harassment if the speech (calling for the genocide of jews) were to become actions (actually committing genocide presumably). My jaw literally dropped hearing that. The left of our society is in free fall.
“Like Dowd, Rubin fails to look into the question when offensive speech becomes harassment.”
There is more to to it than that, which was only Elise Stefanik’s first question:
“At Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment?”
Claudine Gay answered that rather well, which led to this followup question:
“So the answer is yes, that calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard code of conduct, correct?” Stefanik asked.
That broadens the subject from bullying and harassment to code of conduct. This is where Gay stumbled. The best answer was Yes, with her first answer already there for the nuance, but instead she said, “It can be, depending on the context.”
But if we are going to debate this, let’s make the question more direct. What is the legitimate free speech objection to a policy that says advocating torture, rape, murder, or genocide gets you thrown out of the university, whether student, staff, or faculty? Why aren’t there some positions so vile that you get bounced even though they are not directed to the bullying and harassment of a particular person?
keep in mind.. According to Higher Education;
using the wrong pronoun is ACTUAL VIOLENCE, to be punished by Expulsion
calling for genocide (of jews (or whites)) is "just free speech", and is to be REWARDED
calling for minors Not have their breasts (or penises) lopped off.. is ACTUAL GENOCIDE
clear?? do you get it yet? Let me give you a guide:
ANYTHING that They want, is not just allowed; but is to be PRAISED
ANYTHING that They DON'T want, is EVIL! and MUCH BE CONDEMNED
clear Now? i thought so
Let's bring it all around:
"Burleigh, for the uninitiated, is the reporter who infamously said she would be "happy to give [Bill Clinton] a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal." Burleigh formerly was the White House correspondent for Time Magazine and covered the Clinton White House."
--Real Clear Politics
I agree with FIRE, Steve Pinker and Jonathan Haidt -- Let's get rid of speech codes and have free speech. The 3 presidents testified as though that's what we have. We don't. H cannot pretend that stating there are 2 genders or mis-gendering a trans person is hate speech/harassment but that calling for the murder of all Jews is not.
Also, agree that this won't happen -- the only positive result of all this will be the acceleration of the collapse of the ivys' reputation.
Bittersweet. Half of my family went to H. We sent our oldest there, but our youngest (son) to ASU. He got a great education (for free) and noone tried to brainwash him.
So…at Harvard calling someone fat is against their harassment and bullying policy.
But saying someone should die because of their faith is not?
What kind of stupid horseshit is this?
Rubin and Dowd flunk the humanity test every time they write.
Rubin + Dowd + the three university presidents = five wicked witches.
Sounds like the Penn president Liz Magill is going down. That's good. Of the three, it is the smirk and smile on her face during her answer which adds to her arrogant stupidity.
We all know Magill is now sick to her stomach. Some other university will pick her up and pay her. It's all a scam. But she knows this is her fifteen minutes of fame. Now her legacy. Well-deserved and earned. Sadly, the defining / failure moment of her career.
Enjoy the fact that Magill knows conservative MAGA Rep. Elise Stefanik took her down. Someone she thought was beneath her. Like...Jewish people.
But words are violence, right?
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/02/experts-debate-the-regulation-of-hateful-speech-on-campus/
Haven't a number of Presidents fucked the help starting with Jefferson?
'Does Rubin even see that there's a difference between saying something offensive and engaging in behavior that constitutes "harassment"?'
Few do. Look at what happens here, daily. You hold this Salon. You throw out topics for discussion. I contribute. A certain group of people elect themselves Hall Monitors or some shit, to ignore the topic and attack me personally. It's harassment. My latest crime: "You inflicted upon all of us your profound ignorance". It always reminds me of white's notorious reputation for "discovering" other people and lands, just to start attacking them and declaring themselves the new authority on everything.
We are in the grips of Zionist fanaticism. They know most people haven't heard of the Nakba, and they also know those who learn about it immediately grok a crime occurred, and consider the oversight dishonest. But, they also know, screaming "antisemitism" is the third rail after a lifetime of Holocaust movies, so they keep the dishonesty going, by adding to it. It's a small thing, when you're talking about accepting responsibility for killing children, to claim stolen land. The idea of an actual discussion is NOT wanted. They want - no, demand - co-signers.
No one can say I'm doing anything because I'm trying to please our host or be "in" with the cool kids. I think a massive crime is playing out as I type this and no one's given me a good reason to change my mind. Maybe I'm just too ignorant. Or maybe assholes are just bad teachers. But Zionism sucks donkey dicks.
I'm sure Jennifer Rubin would disagree.
What Clinton did and what these university presidents did was to make a statement that seemed apt and technically, legally correct but not to realize how it would feel to the larger audience.
Speaking of context!
...
How is it not a question of free speech? Can we at least debate what free speech is here?
If memory serves, Shakespeare had the perfect line for this. From memory: they are hoist on their own petard.
This is not a question of free speech, because each of these universities moderated speech; by definition, moderated speech isn't free.
Had these university presidents, and pretty much every other elite institution of higher indoctrination, moderated speech even handedly, that is, with viewpoint neutrality, then they wouldn't have been in their respective hot seats.
Why? Because all progressive transgressions of campus speech codes would have been treated the same as conservative transgressions — which would have meant far fewer jeremiads against conservatives.
But since they didn't employ viewpoint neutrality, and there, by definition, wasn't free speech on their campuses, they were left with two choices.
The first one, that they took, was to retreat to quibbling about context.
The second, and it is astonishing that second in line didn't take it, never mind the third, could have been: "These reprehensible incidents, and our failure to address them appropriately, show that our speech codes, as well intentioned as they are, cannot be fairly applied by human beings. We need to eliminate these codes, so we can better know who people are."
Their progressivism — by definition, disagreeing with a progressive is diagnostic of stupidity, ignorance, or malignance — trapped them.
Jennifer Rubin - LOL. hack.
wow - those pesky zionists sure do get around.
Have you seen one? A Zionist?
Hey RCOCEAN - give us an example of a "zionist". A name or two.
Who are these "zionists" you speak of? They must be identifiable.
TaeJohnDo said...
"A white student who stands in front of a black owned business yelling he thinks they should all die will go to jail."
In both of these examples you fail to recognize the difference between occupier and occupied. The white guy has an established history of doing that to the black guy, who did nothing to him. It's so bad there has to be laws put in place to stop him, because simple appeals to his humanity are worthless.
"Any student who stands in front of a Jewish owned business yelling she thinks they should all die will get an A in her poli-sci class."
While no one should attack a Jewish owned business just for being one - that would be antisemitic - the mitigating factor currently is Zionists stealing land and killing babies, being completely ignored even in this breakdown - which is as wrong as telling Israel's history without mentioning the Nakba - as though such an outrageous crime wouldn't and shouldn't be known or provoke strong emotions amongst moral people.
Dishonesty of that kind is at the heart of the pushback we're seeing now. Zionists are all - collectively - lying. And everybody's catching onto it. As they're murdering people by the thousands. It's never going to be a good look.
@Yancey
I've discussed the double standard problem in other posts.
Apart from trying to parse morality, the sheer inability of these women to comprehend the perception of their statements shows there total inadequacy to lead major academic universities.
It makes me ponder how the got their jobs and who thought they were qualified? Seems they checked off certain categories and political perspectives without regard to intellectual rigor. There was a presumption of superiority in their response, in that they could with rhetorical flourish perform a verbal prestidigitation that us lesser would be in awe of. Unfortunately for them, living in the real world has real world consequences, and thus most people who have not been indocritnated have develop a BS detector.
It is interesting that institutions that prided skepticism and self questioning even 60 years ago, are now dominated by progressive dogma that is not subject to critical examination.
For the biblical reference, even Paul only denied Jesus three times, not 17.
There is a problem of universities being overly constrictive about free speech, as we see elsewhere. In this case, they are acting as though they are upholding higher standards. That part is good, and I want them held to those higher standards.
Idiots who use the word 'Zionists" - are no different that idiots who use the term "gender affirming care"... or pronoun police, or morons who deny our open southern border...
I would have liked, during the hearings, for the question to have been altered into its more "WOKE" context, replacing Jews with the N-word, or other special-group, like trans-genders, and then have the same people who defended their position 17 times, defend the flip side of the coin.
That would have been a lose-lose scenario. To maintain consistency, they would have to piss off their constituency or else show their hypocrisy.
RCOCEAN: "This is driving me crazy. None of these Pro-palestinian groups called for "Genociding Jews". None."
Rcocean is playing the semantic word games, like Bill Clinton. These groups have supported Hamas wholeheartedly and called for 'liberation by any mean'. Maybe they have not explicitly said "genocide" or "kill all the Jews" but they have called for killing Jews and not just in the Middle East.
The claim is often made that they are supporting the Palestinian people but not Hamas. But they put Hamas in control, and I don't see any antiHamas protest in the West Bank or Gaza. This rings as hollow as saying one supports the German people but not their warring government, therefore we should not bomb Germany.
If it was as easy as that, we would not have any wars. Also Hamas could end the conflict by surrendering. But for some odd reason, when Hamas murders Jews, it is the Jews fault, and Jews kill Arabs in a war, it is also the Jews fault.
https://www2.cbn.com/news/world/palestinian-authority-issues-call-murder-jews-tells-islamic-leaders-incite-violence
https://nypost.com/2023/10/28/metro/9k-pro-palestinian-protestors-take-over-brooklyn-bridge-call-for-elimination-of-jewish-state-by-any-means/
Why is Dowd complaint about lefties for? They eventually reveal themselves to be the illogical idiots they are.
It is a context-dependent decision
President Magill looked out her window, saw hundreds of antisemites marching over the campus and was disgusted. Then she thought, "Those are our antisemites now."
I've discussed the double standard problem in other posts.
But the double standard is the main issue. I'm old enough to remember when a UPenn student (who by no coincidence was a religious Israeli), got charged with violating the university's racial harassment code for the using the term Water Buffalo.
I say no coincidence because the term "behema" in Hebrew is a common expression for someone who is behaving like a wild animal. That's why he used the word, or its translation into English. It's not clear he even knew the students were black, as he shouted it at night from an upstairs window at a group of students that was being noisy.
Then there was UPenn's treatment of Amy Waxman, as noted by Congressman Banks.
It is also a free speech issue, but a private university can set its rules, so long as it doesn't discriminate. We can discuss whether the rules should be more lenient, but whatever they are they have to be enforced evenly for everyone.
The definition of any word is going to include words that themselves aren’t defined in the definition of the word. So then you have to keep flipping through the dictionary in an endless loop.
Words are important. Being more specific in certain situations is important.
Politicians and lawyers often take it too far. That’s part of the reason they are despised.
Word Games
"Zionism sucks donkey dicks."
Crack, you need to sell bumper stickers and T-shirts. Don't wait. Strike while the iron is hot. These fashion trends never last long. Also sell "Hamas sucks donkey dicks" swag.
Don't forget about me when you're flush with cash.
William : "Maybe Israel should announce that it will cease all bombing if all the hostages are released. Put the onus back on Hamas."
I believe the Israelis said basically the same thing very early in the military campaign -- release all the hostages and we'll pull back, or something close to that.
Althouse, I know you have, but in this particular post and situation, they aren't reaching for a way to restrict speech- they are simply caught in a trap of their own illogical "standards", and they clearly know it- it is why their clearly rehearsed answers were so awful- that is what happens when you are forced to defend the indefensible- you end up looking stupid or dishonest, and they managed the feat of doing both.
See Crack at 12:31 for the double-standard the university professors are trying to defend. To Crack's credit, he just admits it is a double-standard without any embarrassment.
"Maybe Israel should announce that it will cease all bombing if all the hostages are released. Put the onus back on Hamas."
"I believe the Israelis said basically the same thing very early in the military campaign -- release all the hostages and we'll pull back, or something close to that."
No. They are there to eliminate Hamas and have said so explicitly.
A mob affirms and authorizes itself to steal, kill and destroy. That’s REALITY.
Rioting that way against Jews is a traditional Catholic Pogram. The demon controlled Hitler ordered his own mob to conduct an industrialized Pogram to the FINAL death of all of the Jews.
Since 1945 Americans have committed to defending the Jews. And we are blessed for that. The Orange Bad Man did that right. The woke idiots destroying our colleges want to justify the Pograms. The Jews and their friends need to buy guns and ammunition fast.
"That part is good, and I want them held to those higher standards."
And who do you see doing that?
The mainstream media? They're all in with restricting unapproved speech.
The government? Same as above.
"How is it not a question of free speech?"
It's not a question of free speech because the rules are not applied equally.
'The white guy has an established history of doing that to the black guy, who did nothing to him.'
The Democrat has an established history of doing that to the black guy, who did nothing to him.
Fixed it...
Hamas 7th Century Death Cult Fanboy Crack: "Dishonesty of that kind is at the heart of the pushback we're seeing now. Zionists are all - collectively - lying. And everybody's catching onto it. As they're murdering people by the thousands. It's never going to be a good look."
Over 95% of Jews support the existence of Israel and will not accept Crack's psychotic demands that they be driven into the sea as his Hamas support clearly requires.
Like all historically ignorant haters of Jews, Crack is thus calling 95%+ of all Jews liars and murderers.
The only remaining question: in which islamic supremacist mosque will Crack be "celebrating" Hanukkah?
rcocean: 'None of these Pro-palestinian groups called for "Genociding Jews".'
You must have been napping on October 7th when Hamas terrorists killed every Jew in sight. You must not have read the Hamas '88 charter calling for killing Jews. You must not be aware of Hamas leaders promising to repeat October 7th or demonstrators justifying it as "resistance." You may not understand that Israeli Jews will not leave their country and so "from the river to the sea" and "by any means necessary" on the protestors' signs contemplates their annihilation.
You may be unaware that, as the AP points out, "From its establishment in the late 1980s, on the eve of the first Palestinian intifada, or uprising, Hamas has been committed to armed struggle and the destruction of Israel." Perhaps you don't get what the intifadas are about. Or maybe you don't know what "genocide" means or believe the Hamas apologists are using it correctly.
The protestors support Palestinians. Palestinians applaud Hamas. Hamas is about killing Jews. It's not complicated.
Crack, now that your mouthy cowardly Hamas 7th Century Death Cult heroes are crying like little biatches like you and crying to mama (after they FAFO) and are surrendering in large groups after stealing everything from the Gazan people for 17 years with your now full post-hoc approval, its never too early to get on the Imprisoned Hamas Child Murderer Terrorist PenPal List!
Here's hoping you get a "good" one.....you know, one that can share the details of what they did with innocent women and little Zionist children which you'll clearly enjoy.
When the person being questioned is a lawyer or law professor, it is perfectly fine for the witness to give a legalistic answer based on their knowledge of the First Amendment. But when the witness is just another academic bureaucrat, legalistic answers are not expected. Moreover, everyone knows that if the question concerned speeches and rallies calling for mass murders of immigrants, Black people or any minority other than Jews, these three elitist academics would have said, I'm not an expert on the First Amendment, but I do know that whether such speech is legal or not, it is absolutely evil and people who call for genocide against any group have no place in any American university and should be totally condemned by all segments of our society."
"Blogger Ann Althouse said...
There is a problem of universities being overly constrictive about free speech, as we see elsewhere. In this case, they are acting as though they are upholding higher standards. That part is good, and I want them held to those higher standards.
12/9/23, 12:36 PM"
The practical application of that is to give these colleges a full free pass for the faculty NOW, and if they once again show their two faced, ideologically driven standards, well, the Professor gets to quietly tut tut and say 'they shouldn't do that.'
So I am not in the market of giving them a free pass. I would like them to face the consequences of their choices absent the free speech protections that they deny so many other people, because they don't throw away the shoes until they start pinching painfully.
Hombre: The topic Harvard and Pro-palestinian ivy League/Harvard students chanting "Palestine river to the sea" and other pro-palestine chants at their AMERICAN protests.
Its not what Hamas in GAZA said or did on October 7th.
Look, if want to express your hatred towards Arabs, be my guest. Just leave me out of it.
I love how people accuse me of "playing word games". Palestine River to the Sea is not a call for GENOCIDE. To claim it, is itself a "word game" and dishonest. It relies on the old "Code word" trope used by dishonest people.
How does it work? You mind read someone, like say some one calls for "Law and order" in the midst of a crime wave and you say "You racist, You hate black people. "Law and Order" is a code word for genociding black people".
And then if you ask "where's the proof?", they reply "You implied it". And if you say, "Well, how can non-racists call for law and order and not be racist" the "Code word" accusers just change the subject.
Because its a dishonest propaganda technique. A smear/lie.
Zionist are just using this same Commie/Leftwing technique.
Hey RCOCEAN - give us an example of a "zionist". A name or two.
Maybe you can look up the Personnel listing of AIPAC. And their donors. Or the ADL. Or maybe the entire Israeli Government. Or every Jewish Billionaire who's been doxxing Palestinian supporters and withholding funding of colleges due to the GAZA protests and so-called antisemitism. Or all the pundits and talking heads who've been calling for "Standing by Israel, no matter what".
Or you could look up the names of people who call themselves "Christian Zionists". Or ask people like David Brooks who have sons in the IDF. Or Jeffry Goldberg who served in the IDF. Or list out the names of Jews in the USA and around the world who have Dual citizenship. Or all the non-Jews who give money to Israel.
This has to be dumbest question, I've ever been asked. Go look up the definition and look around. Not every Jew is a Zionist. And many Gentiles are.
Those university presidents were perfect representatives of their employers. Ask any DEI administrator about racism and you will get a similar dance. Since the Democrats supported segregation and the Klan, it seems appropriate that they are going back to segregation.
Crack's team in action: https://twitter.com/MichaelRapaport/status/1713184702905852031?t=44gNgRirLjWxbL9M0LA_Ug&s=19
If you understand the geopolitics, history, demographic and Islamists, it is clear that anti-Zionists are anti-Semites. Displacing Israelis will require annihilating them.
Oh. And remember when the Zionist haters were shedding tears for the 2.3 million South Sudanese who were driven from their homes not long ago and before that, circa 1948, when a million Jews were driven from Arab territory where they had lived for centuries. Me neither. It's obvious what's going on here.
Weak men (and women) weep.
Your utter inability to stand tall and call it as it is will be your undoing.
People with jello legs rarely last long.
I now here the U. of Pennsylvania President has resigned. Two more to go now.
WWJB - Who would Jesus bomb?
"Harassment" is the key. When Harvard, etc. punishes some student or adjunct professor for calling a student "Mr.", but the student "identifies" as female, the magic word is "harassment". That's the way they're used to exercising their power. The presidents of these universities couldn't figure out how to apply that magic word to "Kill all Jews".
"Harassment" is the key. When Harvard, etc. punishes some student or adjunct professor for calling a student "Mr.", but the student "identifies" as female, the magic word is "harassment". That's the way they're used to exercising their power. The presidents of these universities couldn't figure out how to apply that magic word to "Kill all Jews".
No doubt, those three women wanted to go full 'Colonel Jessup' and scream "You're Goddamn right I did!" about their support of the pro-genocide protesters but they were either not brave enough to proceed with that or they were smart enough to remember how that movie ended. So they fell back on the 'Governor Lepetomane' approach from a different movie- "We've got to protect our phony-baloney jobs, ladies"- and instead, we ended up with a bunch of weaselly "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'genocide' is" blatherings.
Hamasholes.
19,000 illegal entrants are entering Arizona every week.
every. week.
considering their record, I wonder if those university presidents COULD discuss free speech. The question comes to them: "Is calling for the genocide of the Jews [in a university attended by Jews] harassment according to your speech code?" Now the question might have been framed as: Is calling for [a] genocide the same thing as studying within a university which of necessity must study literary and political speech calling for genocide as, for example, in studying the careers of Hitler and Ernest Sevier of the KKK." Was Rep. Stefanik asking about the study of significant figures who call for a genocide [of any group] or was she differentiating between studying and "calling for." If she was asking about studying, e.g., "When studying at a university is it permissible to discuss whether a genocide is ever legitimate?" then I might have said: "Ins't it in fact the case that on every US campus there are Muslims who believe in genocide? Will they change their minds without debate and discussion?" Studying", I would have said, is different from "calling for?"
BUT the people in question have track record of saying that two are the same. At least I think so. I think they've said or supported kicking people out of the university and out of prominent positions in government because of "misgendering" as in the case of Jordan Peterson or because people have been accused without evidence of sexual harassment like Clarence Thomas. I think the Three Witches have a track record of mingling "studying" and "calling for" as one single activity. How could they then try to say that chanting Hamas slogans which call for genocide is not "calling for" genocide.
Of course Rep. Stefanik trapped the Three Witches by not talking about specific events or slogans but by, instead, asking about general policy. This proffered a poisoned chalice. If the school policy opposes "calling for" genocide, then why are Hamas chants acceptable? or, still worse, if school policy does not oppose "calling for" genocide, why not? But Rep. Stefanik knew who she was talking to. People at Harvard, MIT and UPenn are losing tenure or being refused opportunities because of raising questions (about "misgendering" and "mispronouning", for example) and these attacks on free speech are happening with the approval of these Presidents. Clearly then silence on the use of Hamas chants calling for genocide means approval of genocide at those universities by those Presidents.
These women don't support genocide (let's be real) but they don't support free speech either and after October 7 the day of the Venn identity is over. Content of character is back, baby.
(The argument that present day Harvard students and professors are too stupid and/or ignorant to know what they're saying is a complete non-starter. It may be true but Harvard's present day rep won't allow that argument. Wait ten years.)
Okay one down and three to go. My bet is MIT falls next because Gay is too stubborn to go voluntarily (not that Magill had much choice given the emergency board meeting called for tomorrow).
According to rcocean one can support Hitler and yet theoretically oppose gassing Jews. That’s some slimshady nuance there.
“When is an ugly/cruel/immoral/hateful statement harassment?”
If a speaker at a campus meeting made vile, hateful statements against Jews including calling for the annihilation of the state of Israel, then according to the legal definition of harassment, that by itself would not be harassment. It would have to occur multiple times to fit the legal definition. However, that is not what is happening on campus. We have student mobs chanting threats such as from the river to the sea that is not only directed at Israelis, but all Jews. We had a student mob chanting those slogans and pounding on the door of a library where Jewish students had taken refuge. We have had many other similar incidents. Forget harassment, what we have is intimidation of Jewish students that makes them fear for their lives. Why was there no punishment for these acts? The reason is either that the university administration agreed with the sentiments expressed by the student mob, or they were afraid of what would happen if they attempted to punish any of those students. Is it really too hard for you to understand that student mobs calling for the death of Jews is not just an exercise in free speech. It goes beyond speech. It is threatening, it is intimidation, and it violates the law.
What are witnessing liberal university feminists learning about and facing accountability.
It's part of achieving equality.
Progress.
Its propaganda at is worst. Meanwhile, isreal is killing 12, 000 civilans and truly committing genocide.
rcocean, Every single dead civilian is dead because of hamas. Hamas broke the ceasefire on October 7th, and they broke the cease fire again last week. hamas is setting up their command and control in schools and hospitals. If you cared about the civilians you would personally destroy hamas, no mater how many innocents are lost.
You know I don't much care whether Billy Jeff was speaking under oath in some judicial proceeding or another when he said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". Perjury, disbarment, suspension of his law license? Whatever.
What I did care about was when he came on national television, faced the nation, shoved his finger in my face and said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". Lie to a judge in some far off courtroom or in a deposition? Meh--I'm cynical enough to believe it happens on many occasions--including in some depositions or in courtrooms where I was present. Don't touch the stuff myself--but I saw it happen on more than one occasion.
What I do care about is when the lie is hurled personally at me--as Clinton did in that performance.
The Resignation of the "Penn Leadership" is quite amazing. Penn has an endowment of 21 BILLION dollars. That's almost over $4 million dollars for each of the 5000 faculty members. And penn state charges 58,000 dollars for tutition per student.
So why does Penn need Donors giving millions of dollars per year? And why does it care what the Donors think? Obviously, this is more about bribery and control, rather than some poor little College president being forced out or the college will go out of business.
This should be obvious to everybody reading this, but I will go ahead and say it anyway. Professor Althouse's policy regarding commenting is not much different from the policy for which the three college presidents are being attacked. There are two commenters here who disparage "Zionists" viciously, day in and day out. They are not criticizing the policies of the Israeli government. Rather, they are stating that people who believe in Jewish self-determination are evil. Most Jews are Zionists, so they are really saying that most Jews are evil. Why is that allowed on this blog? Would comments saying that most blacks or most gays are evil be tolerated?
As it is clear that this situation will not change, I urge everybody with a brain not to respond to comments from either of these two haters.
This should be obvious to everybody reading this, but I will go ahead and say it anyway. Professor Althouse's policy regarding commenting is not much different from the policy for which the three college presidents are being attacked. There are two commenters here who disparage "Zionists" viciously, day in and day out. They are not criticizing the policies of the Israeli government. Rather, they are stating that people who believe in Jewish self-determination are evil. Most Jews are Zionists, so they are really saying that most Jews are evil. Why is that allowed on this blog? Would comments saying that most blacks or most gays are evil be tolerated?
As it is clear that this situation will not change, I urge everybody with a brain not to respond to comments from either of these two haters.
I think evaluating the presidents' statements under the lense of Critical Rhetoric Theory (CRT), will allows to infer the scope of their radical ideology.
The admirable Mike Rowe had a mic drop moment today when he said, They were all so determined not to say the wrong thing, they couldn’t say the right thing.”
And that really is the crux of it.
While no one should attack a Jewish owned business just for being one - that would be antisemitic - the mitigating factor currently is Zionists stealing land and killing babies, being completely ignored even in this breakdown
The restaurant in Philadelphia is on land stolen from Palestine? And they killed babies?
Protesting some guy in Pennsylvania over something happening thousands of miles away is racism, not justice. There is no mitigating factor here.
Regarding RCOCEAN word games:
It is in reference to genocide vs killing. There are calls to kill Jews, but not necessarily exterminate then from earth. Hamas, like the Nazis wanted all Jews out of Europe, want all Jews out of the Middle East, and if that means killing all of them there, then so be it. This is not a secret or news.
There is a binary view that one side must be righteous and the other odious. In truth, is a mixture, both suck, but Hamas sucks worse.
I will not get into the details since this thread is about university presidents not condemning hate speech that is politically correct, but those who support Hamas support peace without Jews and they need to admit that them to themselves. One can support the people of Gaza and not Hamas, but what I see is people defending Hamas, based on the shit that happens to the people by the Israeli incursion. I have never once seen or heard one of these "moral" persons call for Hamas to surrender to stop the suffering.
were deposing lawyers ever able to parse/provide definition of 'sexual relations' from/to POTUS? is it even possible to do so now?
I expect this is the definition he was using:
Dictionary.com (and other dictionaries):
sexual relations
1. Sexual intercourse. Coitus.
Clinton did not have intercourse with Lewinsky.
Sometimes I wonder if Crack MC believes in archeology or has a crazy theory why Solomon’s second temple is buried under the Al Aqsa Mosque.
Looking back, Clinton should have said it was just locker room talk.
Narayanan said...
were deposing lawyers ever able to parse/provide definition of 'sexual relations' from/to POTUS?
Yes, they did. And they covered all the things Bill lied about, which is why the Prof's defense of him is garbage. They gave him a definition of sexual relations that included giving or receiving oral sex, and then they asked if he'd every had sexual relations, as defined by that sheet of paper, with monica Lewinsky. And he lied.
Like Dowd, Rubin fails to look into the question when offensive speech becomes harassment....
Does Rubin even see that there's a difference between saying something offensive and engaging in behavior that constitutes "harassment"?
...
How sloppily was this column thrown together? Don't you see that there's a big difference between condemning genocide and committing to the proposition that a statement endorsing genocide is always harassment?
...
How is it not a question of free speech? Can we at least debate what free speech is here? If you try to dictate what is and is not a question of freedom of speech, you don't sound as though you give a damn about freedom of speech. This is where your commitment to freedom of speech is truly tested, when the speech is revoltingly offensive.
This is one of your more shamefully dishonest posts, ever.
There is no free speech on college campuses in America today. You can not enforce "preferred pronouns" and respect free speech, it's one of=r the other.
You can not ban criticism of "affirmative action", or fire people for saying "the reason why there are more male mathematicians than female mathematicians is because males are better at it", and also have "free speech".
Everything the Left finds "offensive" is banned.
That ship has sailed, and it's been gone for years. So no, there is no "free speech" defense for the Jew hating, genocide loving "pro-palestinian" demonstrators, or the Administrators who love them, to hide behind.
A University that orders female students not to complain about guys claiming to be "trans women" and joining their team, is a University without a free speech defense for chanting "from the river to the sea"
Post a Comment