4 ms·

>And at a congressional hearing last month, I fell into a well-laid trap. That trap and the subsequent actions that follow it will, in the long run, greatly in

>And at a congressional hearing last month, I fell into a well-laid trap. That trap and the subsequent actions that follow it will, in the long run, greatly increase anti-Semitism in the United States and elsewhere. The message is clear, don't you dare, accidentally or otherwise, allow anyone to come to the conclusion that Palestinians are humans, or worthy of rights. It's best to stand with the Onion[1] in this case. [1] https://www.theonion.com/the-onion-stands-with-israel-because-it-seems-like-yo-1850922505 https://www.theonion.com/the-onion-stands-with-israel-becaus...

junofan 3y ago
Gotta disagree. The President of Harvard should be stellar in front of Congress. Otherwise don’t go. I watched bits and pieces of President Gay’s remarks, and she was not stellar.
- hollerith 3y ago
  >Otherwise don’t go. If you're called to testify by a Congressional committee, and you don't show up, federal marshalls find you and drag you to the committee room or you get charged with contempt of congress.
  - meepmorp 3y ago
    That's only if you're subpoenaed. People are often invited to testify voluntarily, and they're free to decline in that case.
Whoppertime 3y ago
She didn't come to the conclusion that Palestinians are human. She came to the conclusion that calls for genocide of Jews would be punished based on context. I am guessing that context being if you are a white conservative that's the next Charlottesville so you can be penalized immediately but if you are a Muslim or Palestinian student calling for Israel to be wiped off the map it is fine until you start acting on those genocidal chants.
- mikewarot 3y ago
  It's entirely possible your interpretation is correct, but we'll never know because it was a show trial, not an honest inquiry. All nuance was quashed, so I can only assume things, and your assumptions are different.
  - raxxorraxor 3y ago
    It doesn't help that the culture cultivated in universities lately didn't leave room for nuance either. There were protests, pulled fire alarms, and general activism against people who had a slightly inconvenient opinion. Something anyone at a university should certainly be able to stomach. But leadership did not defend people with divergent opinions lately, even if that is foundational to academic teaching. To now do so in case of calling for genocide, summoning the broad excuse of context, is severely contradicting previous behavior and not convincing. Context can often explain something not obvious, but in this case that would still be very hard to do. Yes, it was a show trial. An easy one because the rules were laid out themselves by the accused. In my opinion, a change of leadership could benefit a few universities instead of their vanity around race, sex or their simple worldview of oppressor and oppressed that is mirrored by a lot of people I would describe as miseducated.

junofan 3y ago

Gotta disagree. The President of Harvard should be stellar in front of Congress. Otherwise don’t go. I watched bits and pieces of President Gay’s remarks, and she was not stellar.

hollerith 3y ago
>Otherwise don’t go. If you're called to testify by a Congressional committee, and you don't show up, federal marshalls find you and drag you to the committee room or you get charged with contempt of congress.
- meepmorp 3y ago
  That's only if you're subpoenaed. People are often invited to testify voluntarily, and they're free to decline in that case.

Whoppertime 3y ago

She didn't come to the conclusion that Palestinians are human. She came to the conclusion that calls for genocide of Jews would be punished based on context. I am guessing that context being if you are a white conservative that's the next Charlottesville so you can be penalized immediately but if you are a Muslim or Palestinian student calling for Israel to be wiped off the map it is fine until you start acting on those genocidal chants.

mikewarot 3y ago
It's entirely possible your interpretation is correct, but we'll never know because it was a show trial, not an honest inquiry. All nuance was quashed, so I can only assume things, and your assumptions are different.
- raxxorraxor 3y ago
  It doesn't help that the culture cultivated in universities lately didn't leave room for nuance either. There were protests, pulled fire alarms, and general activism against people who had a slightly inconvenient opinion. Something anyone at a university should certainly be able to stomach. But leadership did not defend people with divergent opinions lately, even if that is foundational to academic teaching. To now do so in case of calling for genocide, summoning the broad excuse of context, is severely contradicting previous behavior and not convincing. Context can often explain something not obvious, but in this case that would still be very hard to do. Yes, it was a show trial. An easy one because the rules were laid out themselves by the accused. In my opinion, a change of leadership could benefit a few universities instead of their vanity around race, sex or their simple worldview of oppressor and oppressed that is mirrored by a lot of people I would describe as miseducated.