4 ms·
"Great"* explanation. That none of those highly-paid, very select heads of prestigious universities were able to give. Which should lead them to lose their jobs
by aredox 3y ago
"Great"* explanation. That none of those highly-paid, very select heads of prestigious universities were able to give. Which should lead them to lose their jobs anyway.
*Being in Europe, we won't agree with the very low bar the US has for free speech - to us it's as absurd as the mad "right to bear arms" as applied in the US (note I am in Switzerland, which also allows to bear arms but... without the crazyness). But Popehat is a lawyer, he's not here to rewrite laws.
- ceejayoz 3y agoRead the whole thing. > Stefanik’s purpose was transparent. No matter how the college presidents answered, she won. If they answered accurately — that the question depended on the context - she could shriek neeeeeerrrrrrdddd like a football player bullying a kid with glasses, and credulous people would eat it up. If the presidents answered inaccurately but simply “yes,” she could make her next point: then why aren’t you punishing people who advocate intifada? Why aren’t you expelling students for saying “from the river to the sea”? Why aren’t you punishing people for accusing Israel of genocide? That was her express, explicit purpose…
- flappyeagle 3y agoThey are wrong on all those points. She won when they showed up because they self-owned already. She brought them in front of America to chew them out for their anti-Semitic BS. they were chewed.
- aredox 3y agoWhich is like... Yeah? You fire or demote professors and students because they make their colleagues "uncomfortable" with "micro-aggressions". What is this then? And he's jumping from a clear call for genocide to things that are more debatable WRT that...