5 ms·

In other, recent, non-related news, Columbia University revoked the diplomas of some pro-Palestine protestors[1]. The CBS headline buries the lede, but revoking

In other, recent, non-related news, Columbia University revoked the diplomas of some pro-Palestine protestors[1]. The CBS headline buries the lede, but revoking diplomas is not too low for American universities. 1. https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/columbia-university-protest-expulsions-suspension/ https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/columbia-university-pro...

srslythrowaway 2y ago
[flagged]
- catlover76 2y ago
  [dead]
- hackyhacky 2y ago
  So you don't support freedom of speech? Or you support it only for people who agree with you? Do you believe the government should pressure institutions to punish people who express messages the government doesn't like? It's interesting that Columbia protesters get their degrees revoked but J6 protesters get pardons. How do you explain the difference?
  - srslythrowaway 2y ago
    J6 protestors are lawbreakers. IMO, they should not get pardons, but Trump is a despot with the power to issue pardons. I can't do anything about that. The people at Columbia were not mere "protestors". They were physically abusive bigots who trampled the freedoms of people around them. If they were Jews chanting islamophobic slurs, destroying property, and preventing anyone with a keffiyeh from attending class, they should suffer the same consequences. I get that "peaceful protest" can be seen as an oxymoron. But what happened at Columbia should have been stopped the moment it started. It is bigotry. It is hypocrisy. But even if you ignore the moral and ethical failings, it was against the rules.
    - hackyhacky 2y ago
      > They were physically abusive bigots who trampled the freedoms of people around them. If true, ok, charge them with a crime. That's why we have courts. Implementing a punishment, under pressure from the president, without due process or a chance to defend themselves, is contrary to American law and values.
- cpursley 2y ago
  We already have laws on the books to deal with physical violence. As for verbal abuse, welcome to America - aka sticks and stones country (as guaranteed by our constitution). Anyways, why should a particular faith get special privileges?
  - srslythrowaway 2y ago
    When people physically block your access to classes you paid for, on a campus you have an equal right to be at, and they're blocking you on the basis of your faith or ethnicity, that's not "sticks and stones". Edit: clarity about the basis
    - cpursley 2y ago
      There's laws on the books to deal with blocking access and movement. You mentioned verbal abuse, that's different. If campus safety nor law is not getting enforced, there's avenues for addressing it.
      - srslythrowaway 2y ago
        There are laws on the books for hate speech as well. This was hate speech dressed up as "protest"
- arunabha 2y ago
  It's clear that you hold these positions pretty strongly, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, I am wondering why you felt compelled to post your closely held personal positions from a throwaway account? It minimizes the statement quite a bit and makes it looks like a drive by posting.
  - srslythrowaway 2y ago
    Because I have a life and I have no desire to become a target for the mob, "woke" or otherwise. This is a sensitive subject. People hate. Anonymity here allows me to speak my mind in safety. It's the opposite of drive-by posting. Also, I don't need people digging into my identity and using that to deconstruct what I say.
- beepbooptheory 2y ago
  Doesn't the sheer amount of dissonance make you think twice though? Maybe just a little bit? Consider the commitments you need to make and secondary beliefs you need to have, just to keep this narrative alive right now. You have pretty much implied this point yourself. I can't truly imagine what it must be like to live in the world you do, and I am sorry. I mean, the world is not much better for the other side I guess, but at least there there is sense of international solidarity, fighting for a common struggle; that the bad guys are specific and nuance in everything is structurally required. It just seems like you need to literally sign on to having gang stalker mentality about the whole world, all because there is one big thing you can't possibly question. I am truly sorry for how this has affected you, nothing bad deserves to happen to you either way, truly.
  - srslythrowaway 2y ago
    Thankfully I enjoy anonymity behind my throwaway handle. There is no justification for mobs chanting for the death of me and mine. Their coded slogans are not very coded. "Anti-genocide" protests who call for genocide are not honest nor legitimate. There is not justification why several decades after Brown v Board of Education, there needs to be any gray area around equal access. A durable mob preventing people from feeling safe going to classes they paid for is no different from the KKK. No matter whose politics they espouse. You're not _truly_ sorry if you're concern trolling. The Israel/Palestine conflict is my lived experience of nearly half a century. My opinions are opinions, but they are very far from uninformed. I have no way to prove this to you.
    - beepbooptheory 2y ago
      I am not trolling! I guess I am just pointing out that what you are saying is quite literally shocking, and would be to anyone who believes this is what is going on. And you don't have to listen to me and you can keep wishing whatever pain you want on strangers or whatever; but I think it would at least behoove you to step back sometimes and appreciate just how dissonant things are from this perspective. Like how do you even explain this level of generalized evil in the world? What do you think happened to this culture all of the sudden, to step it up to this level? Even being more grounded, what could be going on, in your view, at the admissions office at Columbia et al to allow in so many literal Nazis in, so to speak?? Like, truly, I can't imagine how you are grounded at all, I definitely would be going crazy. Like is there anyway you could even appreciate the Occam's razor here that at the very least, the protestors in this case may actually minimally think they are doing the right thing? You can believe people to be trying to be virtuous even if they are misguided or deluded or somehow led astray. Is that too worthy of such punishment and ire? Is it really the case you can see only prejudice and hate from the other side here? That this many just ordinary people (read annoying liberal arts kids) are just pure evil? There is no room or evidence at all to see that we are all just fumbling around, reacting to the terror and pain we are all disproportionally exposed to? What sickness, what trauma could be so universally applied to all of us to create such a universal and bewildering hate? This is not rhetorical, I am truly curious.
infamouscow 2y ago
[flagged]
7e 2y ago
Their diplomas were not revoked for being pro-Palestine, they were revoked for seizing a building, trespassing and vandalism. That's a false equivalence to what is happening in Turkey.
- overfeed 2y ago
  2 questions: 1. Why now (for Columbia)? 2. Why now (for Turkey)? The fact that it's in the realm of possibility that the answer is the same for both (political expedience) is a stain on America/Columbia U.
  - Aurornis 2y ago
    The Columbia incident was only a few months ago and they’ve been going through the process of building a case, pursuing legal options, and reviewing evidence. The article says there were over 40 people involved and they’ve been building cases against each of them. I don’t think there’s a conspiracy here. These things are a lot of work, involve a lot of lawyers, and take a lot of time. It’s only been a few months.
    - overfeed 2y ago
      You don't think the fact that the current White House has withdrawn funding as leverage, and is pressuring universities to suppress pro-Palestinian sentiment is relevant? Not so long ago it wasn't enough for justice to be done, but it has to be seen to be done.
- echoangle 2y ago
  Still crazy that diplomas can be revoked for non-academic problems. Diplomas should only be able to be revoked if it turns out they were gained using academic misconduct (in my opinion). If I murder someone during my diploma, get the diploma, and then get caught, will the diploma be taken away? How does that make sense?
  - sneak 2y ago
    If you murder someone on the campus of the university, then yes, they might cancel your degree.
bawolff 2y ago
From the article it sounds like they were revoked due to causing property damage to the university. Even if you disagree with that move, it seems like a rather different situation.
- onemoresoop 2y ago
  That sounds like an excuse to do whatever they were going to do.
- cjbgkagh 2y ago
  I think in such situations it can be withheld but not withdrawn, it's pretty common for universities to hold back credentials until debts are paid. But once it's been given I think the only scenario which it can be withdrawn is if it was given under fraudulent circumstances. Like a newspaper retraction, it can only be retracted if the original statement was found to be false. The perpetrator should be sued for damages which is the normal thing to happen. Withdrawing properly received credentials opens the door to yet another extra-judicial punishment and we already have too many of those. (EDIT) I've since googled around a bit and am surprised that there does seem to be a degree of discretion available to the university to revoke degrees that I was unaware of. I had always considered degrees to be like an affidavit, a statement of a fact as the institution understands it. There are plenty of horrible people who have done heinous things and I've never heard of their degrees being taken away. Perhaps one difference here is that the behavior under question was during their undergrad.
  - bawolff 2y ago
    I actually tend to agree with this (once its given i think morally its too late to take it away, except maybe if they cheated). I still think its a totally different situation than the turkey one though.
    - matthewdgreen 2y ago
      They are both situations in which a University was politically pressured by the government to revoke degrees for political purposes. The difference is just the specific goals of the government doing the pressuring. You don’t think Columbia just coincidentally decided to take this action months after the fact, after having its funding pulled by the US administration, do you?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
upofadown 2y ago
How would they revoke someone's degree in either country? Do they break into someone's house and steal the piece of paper? A degree is awarded by the institution but I don't see how they could then claim that they did not meet the requirements for the degree retroactively absent some proof of academic misconduct. What possible difference would such a renovation make to anyone outside the university?
- sophacles 2y ago
  They will deny that you have a degree from them if asked. The difference it can make: When a future employer has degree requirements, the university will say "no, he has no degree from here" when someone calls to check, closing off all sorts of jobs. If someone is doing a background check, the "claims a fancy degree but the school denies it" line is not going to look good. Etc. Sure the person still has the education, but they haven't got the right credentials in a verifiable way.
- spwa4 2y ago
  The value of a degree is in that the institution confirms, at any request, that said person has that degree. It's not the paper.
  - nothercastle 2y ago
    Definitely not the education that occurred there it seems
    - klipt 2y ago
      You can get education for free on Kahn Academy ... but not the networking or confirmation of credentials.
  - Aurornis 2y ago
    That’s an unnecessarily reductionist take. The value is obviously having demonstrated that you’ve completed the studies required. The degree is simply the formal proof. If a degree is revoked, that’s a secondary signal that the studies were marked as completed at one time but something later happened that was so egregious that the university felt the need to rescind any endorsements. Discovery of rampant cheating to achieve graduation would do it. Taking over a campus building and vandalizing it seems like a reasonable thing to cause the university to want to rescind their endorsement of you.
psychlops 2y ago
TIL, diplomas are not actually owned by the recipient.
booleandilemma 2y ago
But they earned that degree and received it upon graduating right? Isn't this like trying to erase the past? Did they graduate from the university or didn't they? It feels like just another sign of the fabric of our society coming apart.

srslythrowaway 2y ago

[flagged]

catlover76 2y ago
[dead]
hackyhacky 2y ago
So you don't support freedom of speech? Or you support it only for people who agree with you? Do you believe the government should pressure institutions to punish people who express messages the government doesn't like? It's interesting that Columbia protesters get their degrees revoked but J6 protesters get pardons. How do you explain the difference?
- srslythrowaway 2y ago
  J6 protestors are lawbreakers. IMO, they should not get pardons, but Trump is a despot with the power to issue pardons. I can't do anything about that. The people at Columbia were not mere "protestors". They were physically abusive bigots who trampled the freedoms of people around them. If they were Jews chanting islamophobic slurs, destroying property, and preventing anyone with a keffiyeh from attending class, they should suffer the same consequences. I get that "peaceful protest" can be seen as an oxymoron. But what happened at Columbia should have been stopped the moment it started. It is bigotry. It is hypocrisy. But even if you ignore the moral and ethical failings, it was against the rules.
  - hackyhacky 2y ago
    > They were physically abusive bigots who trampled the freedoms of people around them. If true, ok, charge them with a crime. That's why we have courts. Implementing a punishment, under pressure from the president, without due process or a chance to defend themselves, is contrary to American law and values.
cpursley 2y ago
We already have laws on the books to deal with physical violence. As for verbal abuse, welcome to America - aka sticks and stones country (as guaranteed by our constitution). Anyways, why should a particular faith get special privileges?
- srslythrowaway 2y ago
  When people physically block your access to classes you paid for, on a campus you have an equal right to be at, and they're blocking you on the basis of your faith or ethnicity, that's not "sticks and stones". Edit: clarity about the basis
  - cpursley 2y ago
    There's laws on the books to deal with blocking access and movement. You mentioned verbal abuse, that's different. If campus safety nor law is not getting enforced, there's avenues for addressing it.
    - srslythrowaway 2y ago
      There are laws on the books for hate speech as well. This was hate speech dressed up as "protest"
arunabha 2y ago
It's clear that you hold these positions pretty strongly, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, I am wondering why you felt compelled to post your closely held personal positions from a throwaway account? It minimizes the statement quite a bit and makes it looks like a drive by posting.
- srslythrowaway 2y ago
  Because I have a life and I have no desire to become a target for the mob, "woke" or otherwise. This is a sensitive subject. People hate. Anonymity here allows me to speak my mind in safety. It's the opposite of drive-by posting. Also, I don't need people digging into my identity and using that to deconstruct what I say.
beepbooptheory 2y ago
Doesn't the sheer amount of dissonance make you think twice though? Maybe just a little bit? Consider the commitments you need to make and secondary beliefs you need to have, just to keep this narrative alive right now. You have pretty much implied this point yourself. I can't truly imagine what it must be like to live in the world you do, and I am sorry. I mean, the world is not much better for the other side I guess, but at least there there is sense of international solidarity, fighting for a common struggle; that the bad guys are specific and nuance in everything is structurally required. It just seems like you need to literally sign on to having gang stalker mentality about the whole world, all because there is one big thing you can't possibly question. I am truly sorry for how this has affected you, nothing bad deserves to happen to you either way, truly.
- srslythrowaway 2y ago
  Thankfully I enjoy anonymity behind my throwaway handle. There is no justification for mobs chanting for the death of me and mine. Their coded slogans are not very coded. "Anti-genocide" protests who call for genocide are not honest nor legitimate. There is not justification why several decades after Brown v Board of Education, there needs to be any gray area around equal access. A durable mob preventing people from feeling safe going to classes they paid for is no different from the KKK. No matter whose politics they espouse. You're not _truly_ sorry if you're concern trolling. The Israel/Palestine conflict is my lived experience of nearly half a century. My opinions are opinions, but they are very far from uninformed. I have no way to prove this to you.
  - beepbooptheory 2y ago
    I am not trolling! I guess I am just pointing out that what you are saying is quite literally shocking, and would be to anyone who believes this is what is going on. And you don't have to listen to me and you can keep wishing whatever pain you want on strangers or whatever; but I think it would at least behoove you to step back sometimes and appreciate just how dissonant things are from this perspective. Like how do you even explain this level of generalized evil in the world? What do you think happened to this culture all of the sudden, to step it up to this level? Even being more grounded, what could be going on, in your view, at the admissions office at Columbia et al to allow in so many literal Nazis in, so to speak?? Like, truly, I can't imagine how you are grounded at all, I definitely would be going crazy. Like is there anyway you could even appreciate the Occam's razor here that at the very least, the protestors in this case may actually minimally think they are doing the right thing? You can believe people to be trying to be virtuous even if they are misguided or deluded or somehow led astray. Is that too worthy of such punishment and ire? Is it really the case you can see only prejudice and hate from the other side here? That this many just ordinary people (read annoying liberal arts kids) are just pure evil? There is no room or evidence at all to see that we are all just fumbling around, reacting to the terror and pain we are all disproportionally exposed to? What sickness, what trauma could be so universally applied to all of us to create such a universal and bewildering hate? This is not rhetorical, I am truly curious.

infamouscow 2y ago

[flagged]

7e 2y ago

Their diplomas were not revoked for being pro-Palestine, they were revoked for seizing a building, trespassing and vandalism. That's a false equivalence to what is happening in Turkey.

overfeed 2y ago
2 questions: 1. Why now (for Columbia)? 2. Why now (for Turkey)? The fact that it's in the realm of possibility that the answer is the same for both (political expedience) is a stain on America/Columbia U.
- Aurornis 2y ago
  The Columbia incident was only a few months ago and they’ve been going through the process of building a case, pursuing legal options, and reviewing evidence. The article says there were over 40 people involved and they’ve been building cases against each of them. I don’t think there’s a conspiracy here. These things are a lot of work, involve a lot of lawyers, and take a lot of time. It’s only been a few months.
  - overfeed 2y ago
    You don't think the fact that the current White House has withdrawn funding as leverage, and is pressuring universities to suppress pro-Palestinian sentiment is relevant? Not so long ago it wasn't enough for justice to be done, but it has to be seen to be done.
echoangle 2y ago
Still crazy that diplomas can be revoked for non-academic problems. Diplomas should only be able to be revoked if it turns out they were gained using academic misconduct (in my opinion). If I murder someone during my diploma, get the diploma, and then get caught, will the diploma be taken away? How does that make sense?
- sneak 2y ago
  If you murder someone on the campus of the university, then yes, they might cancel your degree.

bawolff 2y ago

From the article it sounds like they were revoked due to causing property damage to the university. Even if you disagree with that move, it seems like a rather different situation.

onemoresoop 2y ago
That sounds like an excuse to do whatever they were going to do.
cjbgkagh 2y ago
I think in such situations it can be withheld but not withdrawn, it's pretty common for universities to hold back credentials until debts are paid. But once it's been given I think the only scenario which it can be withdrawn is if it was given under fraudulent circumstances. Like a newspaper retraction, it can only be retracted if the original statement was found to be false. The perpetrator should be sued for damages which is the normal thing to happen. Withdrawing properly received credentials opens the door to yet another extra-judicial punishment and we already have too many of those. (EDIT) I've since googled around a bit and am surprised that there does seem to be a degree of discretion available to the university to revoke degrees that I was unaware of. I had always considered degrees to be like an affidavit, a statement of a fact as the institution understands it. There are plenty of horrible people who have done heinous things and I've never heard of their degrees being taken away. Perhaps one difference here is that the behavior under question was during their undergrad.
- bawolff 2y ago
  I actually tend to agree with this (once its given i think morally its too late to take it away, except maybe if they cheated). I still think its a totally different situation than the turkey one though.
  - matthewdgreen 2y ago
    They are both situations in which a University was politically pressured by the government to revoke degrees for political purposes. The difference is just the specific goals of the government doing the pressuring. You don’t think Columbia just coincidentally decided to take this action months after the fact, after having its funding pulled by the US administration, do you?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

upofadown 2y ago

How would they revoke someone's degree in either country? Do they break into someone's house and steal the piece of paper? A degree is awarded by the institution but I don't see how they could then claim that they did not meet the requirements for the degree retroactively absent some proof of academic misconduct. What possible difference would such a renovation make to anyone outside the university?

sophacles 2y ago
They will deny that you have a degree from them if asked. The difference it can make: When a future employer has degree requirements, the university will say "no, he has no degree from here" when someone calls to check, closing off all sorts of jobs. If someone is doing a background check, the "claims a fancy degree but the school denies it" line is not going to look good. Etc. Sure the person still has the education, but they haven't got the right credentials in a verifiable way.
spwa4 2y ago
The value of a degree is in that the institution confirms, at any request, that said person has that degree. It's not the paper.
- nothercastle 2y ago
  Definitely not the education that occurred there it seems
  - klipt 2y ago
    You can get education for free on Kahn Academy ... but not the networking or confirmation of credentials.
- Aurornis 2y ago
  That’s an unnecessarily reductionist take. The value is obviously having demonstrated that you’ve completed the studies required. The degree is simply the formal proof. If a degree is revoked, that’s a secondary signal that the studies were marked as completed at one time but something later happened that was so egregious that the university felt the need to rescind any endorsements. Discovery of rampant cheating to achieve graduation would do it. Taking over a campus building and vandalizing it seems like a reasonable thing to cause the university to want to rescind their endorsement of you.

psychlops 2y ago

TIL, diplomas are not actually owned by the recipient.

booleandilemma 2y ago

But they earned that degree and received it upon graduating right? Isn't this like trying to erase the past? Did they graduate from the university or didn't they? It feels like just another sign of the fabric of our society coming apart.