4 ms·

She didn't say it's okay. She said that whether it's against Harvard's CoC is dependent on the context, which is obviously true.

gruez 3y ago
That's be fine if they didn't have a history of shutting down dissenting speech on campus.
ejb999 3y ago
[flagged]
- jjulius 3y ago
  This feels like you're putting words in that user's mouth.
- noitpmeder 3y ago
  Are you intentionally being obtuse? The GP made no statement as to his personal beliefs, just as to whether or not the statements violated a university's CoC, which none of us have more insight into than the current (now prior) president of said university.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- recursive 3y ago
  Stop it. It's about whether it's a violation of a code of conduct. Not being "OK".
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- woodruffw 3y ago
  I'm Jewish. It's clear to me that her actual statement has been significantly distorted; in context, it's clearly a very minor flub (and factually correct, with respect to Harvard's policies). (Evidence of her plagiarism is also overwhelming, and she should not be Harvard's president with that record. It remains to be seen what percent of academics would stand up to that level of scrutiny.)
thorum 3y ago
The fact that it’s technically true doesn’t really help her. Getting hung up on the technical details of Harvard’s code of conduct just comes across as uncaring about the big picture issue, that is, the thing people outside Harvard actually care about. Part of the job involves clear and sensitive public communication about politically charged topics, and that’s where she failed.
pgeorgi 3y ago
To quote the exchange (taken from https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/8/gay-apology-congressional-remarks/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/8/gay-apology-con...): “At Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment?” Stefanik asked. “It can be, depending on the context,” Gay responded. But Stefanik pressed Gay to give a yes or no answer to the question about whether calls for the genocide of Jews constitute a violation of Harvard’s policies. “Antisemitic speech when it crosses into conduct that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation — that is actionable conduct and we do take action,” Gay said. Stefanik tried again. “So the answer is yes, that calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard code of conduct, correct?” Stefanik asked. “Again, it depends on the context,” Gay said. --- The middle part with its "that is actionable conduct and we do take action" could mean that she understood the question as "does the university take action?", and that truly depends on the context: There are situations that aren't the university's business but law enforcement's. (even though I'm not saying that she took it that way, I don't know what she thought at that moment, but it seems like it wasn't a lot.) Even with such a 'most charitable' interpretation her communication sucks though, which makes her unsuitable for a role that's to a larger part that of a figure head. And with any other interpretation, she's even less suitable for basic decency reasons.

gruez 3y ago

That's be fine if they didn't have a history of shutting down dissenting speech on campus.

ejb999 3y ago

[flagged]

jjulius 3y ago
This feels like you're putting words in that user's mouth.
noitpmeder 3y ago
Are you intentionally being obtuse? The GP made no statement as to his personal beliefs, just as to whether or not the statements violated a university's CoC, which none of us have more insight into than the current (now prior) president of said university.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
recursive 3y ago
Stop it. It's about whether it's a violation of a code of conduct. Not being "OK".
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
woodruffw 3y ago
I'm Jewish. It's clear to me that her actual statement has been significantly distorted; in context, it's clearly a very minor flub (and factually correct, with respect to Harvard's policies). (Evidence of her plagiarism is also overwhelming, and she should not be Harvard's president with that record. It remains to be seen what percent of academics would stand up to that level of scrutiny.)

thorum 3y ago

The fact that it’s technically true doesn’t really help her. Getting hung up on the technical details of Harvard’s code of conduct just comes across as uncaring about the big picture issue, that is, the thing people outside Harvard actually care about. Part of the job involves clear and sensitive public communication about politically charged topics, and that’s where she failed.

pgeorgi 3y ago

To quote the exchange (taken from https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/8/gay-apology-congressional-remarks/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/8/gay-apology-con...): “At Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment?” Stefanik asked. “It can be, depending on the context,” Gay responded. But Stefanik pressed Gay to give a yes or no answer to the question about whether calls for the genocide of Jews constitute a violation of Harvard’s policies. “Antisemitic speech when it crosses into conduct that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation — that is actionable conduct and we do take action,” Gay said. Stefanik tried again. “So the answer is yes, that calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard code of conduct, correct?” Stefanik asked. “Again, it depends on the context,” Gay said. --- The middle part with its "that is actionable conduct and we do take action" could mean that she understood the question as "does the university take action?", and that truly depends on the context: There are situations that aren't the university's business but law enforcement's. (even though I'm not saying that she took it that way, I don't know what she thought at that moment, but it seems like it wasn't a lot.) Even with such a 'most charitable' interpretation her communication sucks though, which makes her unsuitable for a role that's to a larger part that of a figure head. And with any other interpretation, she's even less suitable for basic decency reasons.