Here's what the ADL's take on how those presidents should have answered: > The line of questioning was hard and designed to box Claudine Gay and the others in,

Here's what the ADL's take on how those presidents should have answered: > The line of questioning was hard and designed to box Claudine Gay and the others in, but what Gay didn’t say and could have said was that political chants are one thing and calls for ‘intifada’ may arguably also be protected as free speech, [but] they come awfully close to incitement to violence,” Steinberg said. So "may arguably be protected" but "come awfully close" to not being protected. And here's two presidents answer: > Magill answered: “If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment, yes.” > Gay said that such speech would violate Harvard’s policies if it was “targeted at an individual.” She added that “antisemitic rhetoric, when it crosses into conduct that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation — that is actionable conduct. We do take action.” So, basically the same stance as the ADL, might be protected but might not. But since you get your news from propagandists, you think giving an answer in a hostile cross examination on a complex topic which is broadly in line with what the ADL says in a later written interview on the topic is a signal to destroy American universities and illegally imprison their students because they are run by out of control anti-semites? We're well into "those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" territory now.