7 ms·

Chinese students at Cornell “taunt” Uyghur classmate

80 points by ilamont 5y ago

tomrod 5y ago
What a mess. Nothing in the student's question can be construed as offensive -- she asked in a forum why the US hasn't responded to genocide and oppression of the Uyghurs (her brother has been detained since 2017 by the Chinese government). In response, the Chinese students in the audience jeered, booed, and left the room. Through a representative group, which may or may not actually represent the students: "[w]e left today’s colloquium because we felt that the atmosphere in that room was extremely hostile towards us . . . [a]t that moment, we were not sitting in a classroom; we were crucified in a courtroom for crimes that we did not commit." If they were asked to personally answer for their nation's genocide, I could see this remark having validity. However, they weren't, but by rudely interjecting into a clear question they made it about them, and facts and morality are not on their government's side. In addition to this being extremely rude decorum, their response shows a loyalist's denial of reality.
- foepys 5y ago
  This has been the Chinese MO for quite a while now. Always play the victim. Never engage in conversations, never answer anything. Just blame the other side to be offensive to Chinese culture. This is happening everywhere, all the way to the top.
  - ganzuul 5y ago
    So if they are always going to play the victim it's best that they actually are victimized?
    - tomrod 5y ago
      Can you walk me through how you got from the grandparent's comment's point that they observed CCP leadership and loyalists play the victim, to your pointed question that they should be victimized? I'm confused, because the grandparent identified a thought-terminating cliched approach, and your point seems to be unrelated, so I feel like I'm missing steps between.
      - ganzuul 5y ago
        It's the allegory of the boy who cried wolf. Thank you for asking, instead of dimly downvoting. =)
        tomrod 5y ago
        Gotcha!
  - kderbyma 5y ago
    The CCP is offensive to Chinese culture
    - tomrod 5y ago
      How so?
- bko 5y ago
  It was rude and incredibly offensive, but is it really newsworthy? What should the school do? Hunt down and reprimand these students? Prevent them from standing up during a Q&A? Send them to mandatory education programs on the subject? I personally don't want my university to have a public stance on these issues, no matter how one sided. Just provide educational services and a safe environment to learn (safe as in physically safe)
  - ledauphin 5y ago
    news is exactly what it is. News is in fact the appropriate alternative to "hunting down", "reprimanding", etc. Thankfully, there isn't a binary choice between "imprison for life" and "never speak publicly about bad behavior".
  - 14 5y ago
    How about forcing them to sign a declaration acknowledging the genocide of their government or be expelled. We know it is happening we don’t need shitty people in our country if they want to deny it.
    - bko 5y ago
      Yeah, I would be against that as well. That sounds awful, kind of like a loyalty test. It reminds me of terrible stories after 9/11 from Middle Eastern American's getting eyed suspiciously and having their loyalties questioned. Imagine being an Arab and some school making you sign something like "9/11 was bad"?
      - 14 5y ago
        We already have companies cut ties with Russia I don’t see this as being any different. Cut ties with people with oppressive views. Screw them is my feelings.
        simonh 5y ago
        Economic sanctions are a very, very different thing from coerced 'confessions' from individuals. There are governments that engage in such practices, but they have no place in a free society.
- bramgn 5y ago
  Makes you wonder how a person can get in such frame of mind that it is fine in their head te respond like that
  - ashwagary 5y ago
    If you believe the genocide claims are false and being amplified by a community with an agenda, that could easily result in such behavior.
- mytailorisrich 5y ago
  "There was audible booing and jeering going on from the Chinese students partway through her question, and during the answer they started to get up and just walked out of the room," Let's not go over the top, the reaction is not uncommon in public events when a person or a group very strongly objects to what is being said. Whether this is rude or disrespectful is another issue but the point is that this happens all the time. It's not really newsworthy. Now, a key issue here and in your comment is the choice of terms. China and the vast majority of Chinese people will object and be offended by the use of the term "genocide". The term really is pushed in order to frame the narrative, and it has proved extremely effective (as can be seen here), but is not established fact.
  - mercutio2 5y ago
    I strongly agree. Words have meaning. Genocide is not “horrible mistreatment of a group I believe is sympathetic”. The Chinese treatment of Uighurs is deplorable, and should be loudly condemned. Russian invasion and shelling of Ukrainian cities is deplorable and should be even more loudly condemned. It’s much worse than Chinese treatment of Uighurs. Neither are genocide. Genocide is slaughtering people with the explicit purpose of eliminating a particular type of person. Attempting to suppress a culture is bad, and on a spectrum whose terminal point is genocide, but when we jump to the terminal point, we lose all ability to distinguish shades of grey in bad behavior.
    - tomrod 5y ago
      Actions considered genocide[0]: [A] Killing members of the group [B] Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group [C] Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction [D] Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group [E] Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Uyghurs' experience absolutely qualifies.[1] Links [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Acts [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
      - 5y ago
- dirtyid 5y ago
  > can be construed as offensive ... > loyalist's denial of reality Uyghur student adopting State Department propaganda that XJ is genocide is offensive to PRC nationalist who doesn't view XJ as genocide seems pretty straight forward. One sides facts and morality is just another sides definition of useful idiot / propaganda. "Crimes they did not commit" is not about answering for their nations "genocide", it's denying there's any crimes are being committed at all.
cphoover 5y ago
They should be disciplined for violating decorum
- linksnapzz 5y ago
  Disciplined by whom? The Cornell administration? Which has just been wheedling their dads for donations to buy a new biomed building, and fund another 114 worthless administrative jobs on campus? Those guys? Please, this is a business. Standards for behavior can be found at the Finger Lakes Little League, if you so desire.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
linksnapzz 5y ago
We need to have a table: "who can act like an ass towards whom, without repercussions, on campus today". So long as gigabucks from the PRC-connected continues to flow into the Ivies, Uyghurs should get used to being rarely seen and not heard there.
downrightmike 5y ago
Expel them, I'm sure they have an honor code at the school. If they can't be respectful and behave, they should be disciplined.
- batrachos 5y ago
  > I'm sure they have an honor code at the school Why are you sure about this? Honor codes tend to be a thing at Southern schools.
  - downrightmike 5y ago
    They just call it a code of conduct, those students did harass, disorderly conduct, and did disrupt a university activity, which are prohibited and their actions are against all six of Cornell's Core Values. >"In determining the appropriate sanctions for a violation of sections addressing assault and endangerment, harassment, and hazing, the decision-maker shall consider whether the behavior towards an individual has been demonstrated to have been was motivated by a person’s or group’s age, race, ethnicity, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, political affiliation, sex, gender identity or expression, disability, predisposing genetic characteristics, familial status, or marital status." https://scl.cornell.edu/sites/scl/files/documents/Cornell%20Student%20Code%20of%20Conduct%20Approved%20by%20the%20Board%2012.10.20%20Final.pdf https://scl.cornell.edu/sites/scl/files/documents/Cornell%20...
windex 5y ago
Time for them to be ex-cornell students. This should not be tolerated.
- thesausageking 5y ago
  Students aren't allowed to boo and leave in protest for a speaker they disagree with? No, thanks. I find their position detestable, but I support their right to express it.
  - octonion 5y ago
    There aren't two sides to genocide.
    - cphoover 5y ago
      This. I wonder how people would have viewed this if this were a talk on the holocaust and students were laughing/jeering.
      - thesausageking 5y ago
        It wouldn't change my view. The only way to have free speech is to also protect someone's right to say the most vile, repugnant things.
    - dirtyid 5y ago
      There are multiple sides to attributing whether XJ is a genocide vs crimes against humanity vs COIN/deradicalization. Deradicalization has plurality of global support, followed by crimes against humanity, absolute minority position is genocide. Are foreign students expected to fully align with US foreign policy when they study in US?
  - avianlyric 5y ago
    Leaving in protest, fine. But jeering, booing and taunting, that’s a step too far. That no longer protesting a speaker as part of a free debate, but instead attacking them as an individual in the hopes of cowing them into submission. There’s no space for that kind of behaviour in a university debate. The individual in question wasn’t a celebrity or politician knowingly stepping into the lions den, but just a student asking an honest and fair question.
qiskit 5y ago
[flagged]
- tomrod 5y ago
  Actions considered genocide[0]: [A] Killing members of the group [B] Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group [C] Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction [D] Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group [E] Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Uyghurs' experience absolutely qualifies.[1] Links [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Acts [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
  - qiskit 5y ago
    Using your definition of genocide, then anything qualifies as genocide cause everyone is a member of a group. To show you how absurd your definition is, the ughyur classmate committed genocide because she caused serious mental harm to members of a group ( cornell's chinese students assocation ) [B]. > [D] Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group Yeah, I used to believe that to, but uyghurs got preferential treatment. AKA they were allowed to have more babies than the average chinese. > Links Wikipedia is highly suspect, unreliable and untrustworthy in matters involving politics. In a genocide, why did the chinese government only detain her brother and leave her, her parents, rest of siblings, cousins, etc alone? How did the uyghur population increase during the genocide? If china is committing genocide, why aren't millions of ughyurs fleeing to neighboring countries? Why are there tens of thousands of kazakhs, mongols, kyrgz, russians, etc in xinjiang? How come they don't see any genocide? You do realize that there are tons of vlogs of foreigners in xinjiang right? Examples of genocide -> native americans, holocaust. Now compare those with alleged uyghur genocide.
    - tomrod 5y ago
      I find it mildly curious how much you're struggling here to make your point against something that is exceptionally well documented. My definition is the UN Genocide Convention of 1948's definition. The acts are 1:1 to the definition. Your points on "politics" in wikipedia and associated whataboutisms aren't relevant, but aside from that attempt at a side-step I highly encourage you to read the very well sourced article that is accessible for people who have no idea that the Uyghur's are the target of a genocide, link repeated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
auxfil 5y ago
Let evil live in broad daylight, so that all may see it.
- quantified 5y ago
  Better yet, put a giant magnifying glass between it and the sun to make it really, really bright.
ledauphin 5y ago
This is gross behavior by the Chinese students, but let's hold off on calls for expulsion, formal discipline, etc. There's such a thing as a "reputation" for a reason. It's a way societies can hold people accountable for behaviors that are legally protected. It should be legal to publish a list of names of students who walked out, and it should be considered reasonable for people to express that we believe their conduct is shameful.
- waffleiron 5y ago
  So cancel culture?
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    No. Nobody said that those students shouldn't be allowed to speak, even to speak publicly.
    - chucksta 5y ago
      So what is the purpose of the list?
- imbnwa 5y ago
  Just don't get any of those names wrong on that list
quantified 5y ago
Any audio clip would help commenters determine whether the “taunt” and “jeer” words are justified. If they are, the students that walked out are dicks, and since they were contributing to the discussion are just as worthy of naming in the story as the Uighur questioner.
kderbyma 5y ago
hate to say it ... but while fine and they can do what they want....is it perhaps telling that they aren't fit to be leaders....and should probably be watched for spying.
anikan_vader 5y ago
I wonder if it's in the interests of the United States to have these international students studying here. If they are unable to contribute to the academic debate in any way besides maintaining the CCP line of genocide denial, should their visas be revoked? Would such an action by the federal government be in violation of the 1st Amendment? It may seem like an extreme suggestion, but surely a group of international students that engaged in Holocaust denial in Germany would be on the next flight home.
compsciphd 5y ago
During my time at Columbia, I would generally enter the gates at 116th and walk to the Engineering corner via college walk. Occasionally, if there was an anti-israel protest going on, the simple fact that I wear a kippa (skullcap, i.e. obviously jewish) would make me a target for harassment by those "protesting". I ignored it and moved on, there was no point of engaging with them. though I can't say it didn't bother or stick with me during the day making those days less or non productive. Do I understand why they are protesting Israel? yes. do I disagree with them yes? Do I think they have a right to protest, yes. However, all schools should have codes of conduct that relate to how one deals with their peers. If one can't deal with their peers in a respectful manner they don't deserve the right to be at the school. If the only way to protest is by shouting a speaker you dislike down, you are treating the speaker and the students who came to hear him speak with disrespect. There's no reason on/adjacent to a college campus one can't protest peacefully. A silent protest with signs that everyone has to see as they enter the building would get their point across while treating their fellow students in the manner that they demand to be treated as well. The problem becomes when you "excuse" those who you feel are weaker for acting in a way while only criticizing those who you view as stronger/powerful for acting that way. Why? because the strong/powerful are the strong and powerful, if you excuse it for the weak, they'll just do it as well and with more impact. One has to not accept it anywhere and therefore not give the "powerful" any room to behave this way against the "weak". It's the main reason I dislike the concept of "punching up" vs "punching down". if you excuse "punching up", those above will end up "punching down" much harder. this is a problem on both the left and right in the US (a pox on all their houses). The problem for most of us is that do a terrible time calling out those who are closer to what we consider our ideological allies than calling out those who are further from our ideological circles.
- spacemanmatt 5y ago
  > if you excuse "punching up", those above will end up "punching down" much harder. this is unjust and it happens whether we excuse it or not
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > The problem becomes when you "excuse" those who you feel are weaker for acting in a way while only criticizing those who you view as stronger/powerful for acting that way. We don't excuse it completely, but we focus our attention on the risks, and the risk of the powerful abusing the weak is far greater - far more harm is done, from slavery to lynching to what is happening to the Uyghur, and if humans are to have freedom and justice, it's the weak who are threatened. > if you excuse "punching up", those above will end up "punching down" much harder That seems like Orwellian double-talk (if I remember Orwell's terminology well enough). The powerful have punched down forever, with or without the other happening. We don't need to appease them to avoid their wrath - what a dysfunctional society that would be. They also are in far less danger; it's just words to them, not a threat to their lives or livelihoods. It's also incredible that we spend our time finding ways to protect the powerful. Not only can they take care of themselves (by definition), we have far better things to attend to. I'm sure some Chinese Communist Party members face discrimination in Xinjiang, and some Russian soliders face it in Ukraine.
throwoutway 5y ago
Harassing a student like this should be grounds for expulsion, no?

80 points by ilamont 5y ago

What a mess. Nothing in the student's question can be construed as offensive -- she asked in a forum why the US hasn't responded to genocide and oppression of the Uyghurs (her brother has been detained since 2017 by the Chinese government). In response, the Chinese students in the audience jeered, booed, and left the room. Through a representative group, which may or may not actually represent the students: "[w]e left today’s colloquium because we felt that the atmosphere in that room was extremely hostile towards us . . . [a]t that moment, we were not sitting in a classroom; we were crucified in a courtroom for crimes that we did not commit." If they were asked to personally answer for their nation's genocide, I could see this remark having validity. However, they weren't, but by rudely interjecting into a clear question they made it about them, and facts and morality are not on their government's side. In addition to this being extremely rude decorum, their response shows a loyalist's denial of reality.

foepys 5y ago
This has been the Chinese MO for quite a while now. Always play the victim. Never engage in conversations, never answer anything. Just blame the other side to be offensive to Chinese culture. This is happening everywhere, all the way to the top.
- ganzuul 5y ago
  So if they are always going to play the victim it's best that they actually are victimized?
  - tomrod 5y ago
    Can you walk me through how you got from the grandparent's comment's point that they observed CCP leadership and loyalists play the victim, to your pointed question that they should be victimized? I'm confused, because the grandparent identified a thought-terminating cliched approach, and your point seems to be unrelated, so I feel like I'm missing steps between.
    - ganzuul 5y ago
      It's the allegory of the boy who cried wolf. Thank you for asking, instead of dimly downvoting. =)
      - tomrod 5y ago
        Gotcha!
- kderbyma 5y ago
  The CCP is offensive to Chinese culture
  - tomrod 5y ago
    How so?
bko 5y ago
It was rude and incredibly offensive, but is it really newsworthy? What should the school do? Hunt down and reprimand these students? Prevent them from standing up during a Q&A? Send them to mandatory education programs on the subject? I personally don't want my university to have a public stance on these issues, no matter how one sided. Just provide educational services and a safe environment to learn (safe as in physically safe)
- ledauphin 5y ago
  news is exactly what it is. News is in fact the appropriate alternative to "hunting down", "reprimanding", etc. Thankfully, there isn't a binary choice between "imprison for life" and "never speak publicly about bad behavior".
- 14 5y ago
  How about forcing them to sign a declaration acknowledging the genocide of their government or be expelled. We know it is happening we don’t need shitty people in our country if they want to deny it.
  - bko 5y ago
    Yeah, I would be against that as well. That sounds awful, kind of like a loyalty test. It reminds me of terrible stories after 9/11 from Middle Eastern American's getting eyed suspiciously and having their loyalties questioned. Imagine being an Arab and some school making you sign something like "9/11 was bad"?
    - 14 5y ago
      We already have companies cut ties with Russia I don’t see this as being any different. Cut ties with people with oppressive views. Screw them is my feelings.
      - simonh 5y ago
        Economic sanctions are a very, very different thing from coerced 'confessions' from individuals. There are governments that engage in such practices, but they have no place in a free society.
bramgn 5y ago
Makes you wonder how a person can get in such frame of mind that it is fine in their head te respond like that
- ashwagary 5y ago
  If you believe the genocide claims are false and being amplified by a community with an agenda, that could easily result in such behavior.
mytailorisrich 5y ago
"There was audible booing and jeering going on from the Chinese students partway through her question, and during the answer they started to get up and just walked out of the room," Let's not go over the top, the reaction is not uncommon in public events when a person or a group very strongly objects to what is being said. Whether this is rude or disrespectful is another issue but the point is that this happens all the time. It's not really newsworthy. Now, a key issue here and in your comment is the choice of terms. China and the vast majority of Chinese people will object and be offended by the use of the term "genocide". The term really is pushed in order to frame the narrative, and it has proved extremely effective (as can be seen here), but is not established fact.
- mercutio2 5y ago
  I strongly agree. Words have meaning. Genocide is not “horrible mistreatment of a group I believe is sympathetic”. The Chinese treatment of Uighurs is deplorable, and should be loudly condemned. Russian invasion and shelling of Ukrainian cities is deplorable and should be even more loudly condemned. It’s much worse than Chinese treatment of Uighurs. Neither are genocide. Genocide is slaughtering people with the explicit purpose of eliminating a particular type of person. Attempting to suppress a culture is bad, and on a spectrum whose terminal point is genocide, but when we jump to the terminal point, we lose all ability to distinguish shades of grey in bad behavior.
  - tomrod 5y ago
    Actions considered genocide[0]: [A] Killing members of the group [B] Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group [C] Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction [D] Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group [E] Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Uyghurs' experience absolutely qualifies.[1] Links [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Acts [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
    - 5y ago
dirtyid 5y ago
> can be construed as offensive ... > loyalist's denial of reality Uyghur student adopting State Department propaganda that XJ is genocide is offensive to PRC nationalist who doesn't view XJ as genocide seems pretty straight forward. One sides facts and morality is just another sides definition of useful idiot / propaganda. "Crimes they did not commit" is not about answering for their nations "genocide", it's denying there's any crimes are being committed at all.

cphoover 5y ago

They should be disciplined for violating decorum

linksnapzz 5y ago
Disciplined by whom? The Cornell administration? Which has just been wheedling their dads for donations to buy a new biomed building, and fund another 114 worthless administrative jobs on campus? Those guys? Please, this is a business. Standards for behavior can be found at the Finger Lakes Little League, if you so desire.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

linksnapzz 5y ago

We need to have a table: "who can act like an ass towards whom, without repercussions, on campus today". So long as gigabucks from the PRC-connected continues to flow into the Ivies, Uyghurs should get used to being rarely seen and not heard there.

downrightmike 5y ago

Expel them, I'm sure they have an honor code at the school. If they can't be respectful and behave, they should be disciplined.

batrachos 5y ago
> I'm sure they have an honor code at the school Why are you sure about this? Honor codes tend to be a thing at Southern schools.
- downrightmike 5y ago
  They just call it a code of conduct, those students did harass, disorderly conduct, and did disrupt a university activity, which are prohibited and their actions are against all six of Cornell's Core Values. >"In determining the appropriate sanctions for a violation of sections addressing assault and endangerment, harassment, and hazing, the decision-maker shall consider whether the behavior towards an individual has been demonstrated to have been was motivated by a person’s or group’s age, race, ethnicity, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, political affiliation, sex, gender identity or expression, disability, predisposing genetic characteristics, familial status, or marital status." https://scl.cornell.edu/sites/scl/files/documents/Cornell%20Student%20Code%20of%20Conduct%20Approved%20by%20the%20Board%2012.10.20%20Final.pdf https://scl.cornell.edu/sites/scl/files/documents/Cornell%20...

windex 5y ago

Time for them to be ex-cornell students. This should not be tolerated.

thesausageking 5y ago
Students aren't allowed to boo and leave in protest for a speaker they disagree with? No, thanks. I find their position detestable, but I support their right to express it.
- octonion 5y ago
  There aren't two sides to genocide.
  - cphoover 5y ago
    This. I wonder how people would have viewed this if this were a talk on the holocaust and students were laughing/jeering.
    - thesausageking 5y ago
      It wouldn't change my view. The only way to have free speech is to also protect someone's right to say the most vile, repugnant things.
  - dirtyid 5y ago
    There are multiple sides to attributing whether XJ is a genocide vs crimes against humanity vs COIN/deradicalization. Deradicalization has plurality of global support, followed by crimes against humanity, absolute minority position is genocide. Are foreign students expected to fully align with US foreign policy when they study in US?
- avianlyric 5y ago
  Leaving in protest, fine. But jeering, booing and taunting, that’s a step too far. That no longer protesting a speaker as part of a free debate, but instead attacking them as an individual in the hopes of cowing them into submission. There’s no space for that kind of behaviour in a university debate. The individual in question wasn’t a celebrity or politician knowingly stepping into the lions den, but just a student asking an honest and fair question.

qiskit 5y ago

[flagged]

tomrod 5y ago
Actions considered genocide[0]: [A] Killing members of the group [B] Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group [C] Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction [D] Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group [E] Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Uyghurs' experience absolutely qualifies.[1] Links [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Acts [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
- qiskit 5y ago
  Using your definition of genocide, then anything qualifies as genocide cause everyone is a member of a group. To show you how absurd your definition is, the ughyur classmate committed genocide because she caused serious mental harm to members of a group ( cornell's chinese students assocation ) [B]. > [D] Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group Yeah, I used to believe that to, but uyghurs got preferential treatment. AKA they were allowed to have more babies than the average chinese. > Links Wikipedia is highly suspect, unreliable and untrustworthy in matters involving politics. In a genocide, why did the chinese government only detain her brother and leave her, her parents, rest of siblings, cousins, etc alone? How did the uyghur population increase during the genocide? If china is committing genocide, why aren't millions of ughyurs fleeing to neighboring countries? Why are there tens of thousands of kazakhs, mongols, kyrgz, russians, etc in xinjiang? How come they don't see any genocide? You do realize that there are tons of vlogs of foreigners in xinjiang right? Examples of genocide -> native americans, holocaust. Now compare those with alleged uyghur genocide.
  - tomrod 5y ago
    I find it mildly curious how much you're struggling here to make your point against something that is exceptionally well documented. My definition is the UN Genocide Convention of 1948's definition. The acts are 1:1 to the definition. Your points on "politics" in wikipedia and associated whataboutisms aren't relevant, but aside from that attempt at a side-step I highly encourage you to read the very well sourced article that is accessible for people who have no idea that the Uyghur's are the target of a genocide, link repeated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide

auxfil 5y ago

Let evil live in broad daylight, so that all may see it.

quantified 5y ago
Better yet, put a giant magnifying glass between it and the sun to make it really, really bright.

ledauphin 5y ago

This is gross behavior by the Chinese students, but let's hold off on calls for expulsion, formal discipline, etc. There's such a thing as a "reputation" for a reason. It's a way societies can hold people accountable for behaviors that are legally protected. It should be legal to publish a list of names of students who walked out, and it should be considered reasonable for people to express that we believe their conduct is shameful.

waffleiron 5y ago
So cancel culture?
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  No. Nobody said that those students shouldn't be allowed to speak, even to speak publicly.
  - chucksta 5y ago
    So what is the purpose of the list?
imbnwa 5y ago
Just don't get any of those names wrong on that list

quantified 5y ago

Any audio clip would help commenters determine whether the “taunt” and “jeer” words are justified. If they are, the students that walked out are dicks, and since they were contributing to the discussion are just as worthy of naming in the story as the Uighur questioner.

kderbyma 5y ago

hate to say it ... but while fine and they can do what they want....is it perhaps telling that they aren't fit to be leaders....and should probably be watched for spying.

anikan_vader 5y ago

I wonder if it's in the interests of the United States to have these international students studying here. If they are unable to contribute to the academic debate in any way besides maintaining the CCP line of genocide denial, should their visas be revoked? Would such an action by the federal government be in violation of the 1st Amendment? It may seem like an extreme suggestion, but surely a group of international students that engaged in Holocaust denial in Germany would be on the next flight home.

compsciphd 5y ago

During my time at Columbia, I would generally enter the gates at 116th and walk to the Engineering corner via college walk. Occasionally, if there was an anti-israel protest going on, the simple fact that I wear a kippa (skullcap, i.e. obviously jewish) would make me a target for harassment by those "protesting". I ignored it and moved on, there was no point of engaging with them. though I can't say it didn't bother or stick with me during the day making those days less or non productive. Do I understand why they are protesting Israel? yes. do I disagree with them yes? Do I think they have a right to protest, yes. However, all schools should have codes of conduct that relate to how one deals with their peers. If one can't deal with their peers in a respectful manner they don't deserve the right to be at the school. If the only way to protest is by shouting a speaker you dislike down, you are treating the speaker and the students who came to hear him speak with disrespect. There's no reason on/adjacent to a college campus one can't protest peacefully. A silent protest with signs that everyone has to see as they enter the building would get their point across while treating their fellow students in the manner that they demand to be treated as well. The problem becomes when you "excuse" those who you feel are weaker for acting in a way while only criticizing those who you view as stronger/powerful for acting that way. Why? because the strong/powerful are the strong and powerful, if you excuse it for the weak, they'll just do it as well and with more impact. One has to not accept it anywhere and therefore not give the "powerful" any room to behave this way against the "weak". It's the main reason I dislike the concept of "punching up" vs "punching down". if you excuse "punching up", those above will end up "punching down" much harder. this is a problem on both the left and right in the US (a pox on all their houses). The problem for most of us is that do a terrible time calling out those who are closer to what we consider our ideological allies than calling out those who are further from our ideological circles.

spacemanmatt 5y ago
> if you excuse "punching up", those above will end up "punching down" much harder. this is unjust and it happens whether we excuse it or not
wolverine876 5y ago
> The problem becomes when you "excuse" those who you feel are weaker for acting in a way while only criticizing those who you view as stronger/powerful for acting that way. We don't excuse it completely, but we focus our attention on the risks, and the risk of the powerful abusing the weak is far greater - far more harm is done, from slavery to lynching to what is happening to the Uyghur, and if humans are to have freedom and justice, it's the weak who are threatened. > if you excuse "punching up", those above will end up "punching down" much harder That seems like Orwellian double-talk (if I remember Orwell's terminology well enough). The powerful have punched down forever, with or without the other happening. We don't need to appease them to avoid their wrath - what a dysfunctional society that would be. They also are in far less danger; it's just words to them, not a threat to their lives or livelihoods. It's also incredible that we spend our time finding ways to protect the powerful. Not only can they take care of themselves (by definition), we have far better things to attend to. I'm sure some Chinese Communist Party members face discrimination in Xinjiang, and some Russian soliders face it in Ukraine.

throwoutway 5y ago

Harassing a student like this should be grounds for expulsion, no?