> the presidents backpedaled and offered a series of legalistic defenses when asked by Rep. Elise Stefanik about whether calling for the genocide of Jews violat

> the presidents backpedaled and offered a series of legalistic defenses when asked by Rep. Elise Stefanik about whether calling for the genocide of Jews violated their respective bullying and harassment policies. This is a remarkable description of a "free speech" position, from a person who later on says he's only being offered crackdowns on Palestinian speech, which he doesn't want because he's a liberal. He's totally thrown them under the bus, and it's not even clear why, because they've taken exactly the liberal, you can say whatever you want, stance he claims to advocate for. The ACLU supported their position, and FIRE ran an op-ed supporting them, so it's pretty unimpeachably a free speech stand to take. (https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/ronald-kl-collins-first-amendment-news/special-post-stephen-rohde-university-presidents https://www.thefire.org/news/blogs/ronald-kl-collins-first-a...) So how does this support his "University SJWs support terrorism and Liberals support Israel" division? If anything it shows Republicans leveraging Jewish identity politics against free speech.