3 ms·

How hard is it to say calling for genocide of a group would probably make individuals of that group less safe, and therefore a violation of university policy? U

How hard is it to say calling for genocide of a group would probably make individuals of that group less safe, and therefore a violation of university policy? University Presidents at some of the most prestigious universities didn't get outmaneuvered by a slick operator, they just let it slip how they felt about a certain group.

wolverine876 3y ago
If we put aside the alt-realities of political polarization, that seems like a very unlikely explanation to me. Why would we believe these people are antisemetic? Is there any evidence otherwise? I know that at least one of the universities (Penn?) they otherwise suppressed pro-Palestinian speech, including banning groups and presentations.
- megaman821 3y ago
  Whether they are antisemitic or just indifferent to the plight of Jews is hard to say. Universities have felt compelled in the past to make statements and offer safe spaces to other vulnerable groups. What is different about Jews? One could speculate, but you would have to ask them.
  - wredcoll 3y ago
    Why do you say "jews" when you're trying to refer to citizens of the state of israel? Why did the congresswoman use the same wording?
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > Whether they are antisemitic or just indifferent to the plight of Jews is hard to say. Of course the premise is that the answer must be one of the two, but you need to establish that premise. It's the claim of a heavily polarized group (which doesn't make it false, but I'm not taking it at face value either). Is there evidence of it? In all the claims I've seen, I haven't seen evidence.
dekhn 3y ago
I think the simplest way I can explain this is: There is a long tradition of permitting academics to say things that we wouldn't normally allow people to say. The people saying these things normally need to back up their words in a long written argument with citations, etc, and do so in a fairly passive way (IE, publish it as an article in a journal, rather than an op-ed in a newspaper, or during a protest). Even then there can be a firestorm (see the response to The Bell Curve). I'm pretty sure if we look back we can see historically that academics called for violence against Jews, Asians, Muslims, and many other ethnicities. At times, people have completely supported academics in their privilege, typically when the statements align with their own philosophies. Imagine what people said right after Pearl Harbor. University presidents want to keep everybody happy- that includes professors, students, and people outside the university. A president like Gay probably thought that by making the statements she did, she was pissing off the fewest people- preserving academic freedom for professors while also carving out a space for protestors to say rather violent things. That sort of subtlety doesn't work when you're being grilled in front of congress- they want you to say "yes or no" (notice all three presidents were asked, and confirmed, their believe that Israel has a right to exist) with no context. If Gay had said "no it's not OK" then she would have returned to a firestorm by students on her campus, and if she said it was OK, then she would have returned to a different firestorm on campus. I think a lot of the news coverage around this has unnecessarily heightened the level of severity in the claims of the protestors. I imagine many people who called for intifada didn't realize that some folks would perceive that as a direct attack on their lives. We already know many students don't know which river, or which sea is being referenced. Of the three presidents, Kornbluth of MIT is the only one who will survive this. She has an excellent publication record, the full and total support of her institution, she is much smarter than Stefanik, and it helps that she's Jewish, because people levelling "antisemitism" claims against her just look kind of silly.
unethical_ban 3y ago
Yes, they did get outmaneuvered. We clearly disagree.

wolverine876 3y ago

If we put aside the alt-realities of political polarization, that seems like a very unlikely explanation to me. Why would we believe these people are antisemetic? Is there any evidence otherwise? I know that at least one of the universities (Penn?) they otherwise suppressed pro-Palestinian speech, including banning groups and presentations.

megaman821 3y ago
Whether they are antisemitic or just indifferent to the plight of Jews is hard to say. Universities have felt compelled in the past to make statements and offer safe spaces to other vulnerable groups. What is different about Jews? One could speculate, but you would have to ask them.
- wredcoll 3y ago
  Why do you say "jews" when you're trying to refer to citizens of the state of israel? Why did the congresswoman use the same wording?
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > Whether they are antisemitic or just indifferent to the plight of Jews is hard to say. Of course the premise is that the answer must be one of the two, but you need to establish that premise. It's the claim of a heavily polarized group (which doesn't make it false, but I'm not taking it at face value either). Is there evidence of it? In all the claims I've seen, I haven't seen evidence.

dekhn 3y ago

I think the simplest way I can explain this is: There is a long tradition of permitting academics to say things that we wouldn't normally allow people to say. The people saying these things normally need to back up their words in a long written argument with citations, etc, and do so in a fairly passive way (IE, publish it as an article in a journal, rather than an op-ed in a newspaper, or during a protest). Even then there can be a firestorm (see the response to The Bell Curve). I'm pretty sure if we look back we can see historically that academics called for violence against Jews, Asians, Muslims, and many other ethnicities. At times, people have completely supported academics in their privilege, typically when the statements align with their own philosophies. Imagine what people said right after Pearl Harbor. University presidents want to keep everybody happy- that includes professors, students, and people outside the university. A president like Gay probably thought that by making the statements she did, she was pissing off the fewest people- preserving academic freedom for professors while also carving out a space for protestors to say rather violent things. That sort of subtlety doesn't work when you're being grilled in front of congress- they want you to say "yes or no" (notice all three presidents were asked, and confirmed, their believe that Israel has a right to exist) with no context. If Gay had said "no it's not OK" then she would have returned to a firestorm by students on her campus, and if she said it was OK, then she would have returned to a different firestorm on campus. I think a lot of the news coverage around this has unnecessarily heightened the level of severity in the claims of the protestors. I imagine many people who called for intifada didn't realize that some folks would perceive that as a direct attack on their lives. We already know many students don't know which river, or which sea is being referenced. Of the three presidents, Kornbluth of MIT is the only one who will survive this. She has an excellent publication record, the full and total support of her institution, she is much smarter than Stefanik, and it helps that she's Jewish, because people levelling "antisemitism" claims against her just look kind of silly.

unethical_ban 3y ago

Yes, they did get outmaneuvered. We clearly disagree.