10 ms·

Oh hey, Wesleyan on HN! I’m an alumnus (matriculated a year or two after Roth became president). Wesleyan has a rich history of activism and protest, and not al

by necubi 2y ago

Oh hey, Wesleyan on HN! I’m an alumnus (matriculated a year or two after Roth became president). Wesleyan has a rich history of activism and protest, and not always entirely peaceful (Roth’s predecessor, Doug Bennet, had his office firebombed at one point). I’ve had a few opportunities to speak with Roth since the Gaza war started, and I’ve always found him particularly thoughtful about balancing freedom of expression with a need to provide a safe and open learning environment for everyone on campus. In particular, he never gave in to the unlimited demands of protestors while still defending their right to protest. In part, he had the moral weight to do that because—unlike many university presidents—he did not give in to the illiberal demands of the left to chill speech post-2020, which then were turned against the left over the past year. I don’t see any particularly good outcome from any of this; the risk of damaging the incredibly successful American university system is high. Certainly smart foreign students who long dreamed of studying in the US will be having second thoughts if they can be arbitrarily and indefinitely detained. But I hope the universities that do make it through do with a stronger commitment to the (small l) liberal values of freedom of expression , academic freedom, and intellectual diversity.

mlindner 2y ago
[flagged]
- lqstuart 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - nl 2y ago
    Who was in the US illegally?
- nl 2y ago
  Who is supporting terrorist groups? Pro-Palestinian protesting is not support for terrorism.
  - jl6 2y ago
    This guy perhaps? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c934y9kv07eo.amp https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c934y9kv07eo.amp
  - adhamsalama 2y ago
    Nothing in that article implies supporting terrorism. They support Palestine. People conflating supporting Palestine with supporting terrorism should be ashamed of themselves, as Israel is the biggest terror state in the world.
    - thyristan 2y ago
      Well, when it comes to conflating, I'll take your calling Israel a terror state as a standard: The democratically elected government of Gaza-Palestine is the Hamas, which is a terrorist organisation. Thus by your conflation regarding Israel to be a terror state, the Gaza strip part of Palestine is as well. Its population chose a known terrorist organisation, everything is run by a terrorist organisation, they did terrorist things such as bombings, abductions and murders of innocent civilians. Thus (Gaza-)Palestine is therefore a terror state. Supporting it is therefore supporting terrorism. Thus either you apply your conflating standard equally, Palestine and Israel are both terror states, and any support of them is supporting terrorism. Or you rather differentiate, and separate Palestine as an abstract concept of a hypothetical future homestead of the Palestinians from the Hamas, the Fatah and other (mostly terrorist) organisations that govern it, and the population that, in parts, is governed by them and elects and supports or opposes them and their actions. But if you do that, you will also have to differentiate between Israel as a state, its military, government, parties, population and their respective support and actions. In that second case you can support Palestine as an abstract idea without supporting terrorism, you can support the population and their rights, hopes and struggle. As you can do with Israel and their people. However, on pro-Palestine protests, I've never really seen this kind of differentiation applied, I've seen far too many Hamas flags, heard far too many calls to wipe Israel from the map, far too many praises for terrorists (called "martyrs"). Thus, in practically all cases, I'd without hesitation call supporters of Palestine supporters of terrorism.
- _fizz_buzz_ 2y ago
  > Many countries completely ban non citizens from joining political protests, even ostensibly western countries. Which ones?
  - immibis 2y ago
    Germany bans pro-Palestine protests (officially they're still legal, but they've been arresting people since it began and they've just started deporting people for participating in completely legal protests) but I think that's a slightly different criterion than the one you asked for.
    - 3D30497420 2y ago
      Correct. Here's a DW video on it: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-deport-pro-palestinian-protesters/video-72132041 https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-deport-pro-palestinian-prot... There is a fight over this being done with or without due process.
      - mpweiher 2y ago
        Incorrect: "They are accused of indirectly supporting Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist organization in Germany." 2nd sentence from your link. Supporting terrorist organizations is not legal in Germany. Supporting terrorist organizations is not the same a being Pro-Palestinian. Unless you think that all Palestinians are terrorists, which I do not.
        immibis 2y ago
        Yes, and Germany considers protests against anything Israel does in Gaza to be support for Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist organization in Germany. That's why I told you: officially, protesting is legal, but they still arrest and deport people for protesting. This newspaper may not think they're the same thing, but the police do.
        2y ago
- rob_c 2y ago
  I strongly agree, unfortunately they feel strongly differently after spending a lot of money to get on the courses. Frankly the law of the land is the latter, but this is one of the problems with cladding cultures and attitudes which needs addressing rather than glossing over...
- ok_dad 2y ago
  > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
- adhamsalama 2y ago
  Supporting Palestinians that Israel has been killing for over a year (+50k killed, most were women and children), while starving the rest and ethnically cleansing them, is not supporting terrorism.
  - kitd 2y ago
    Too many have been killed, for sure, but you should probably use sources other than the Hamas Health Ministry: https://www.euronews.com/2025/04/03/hamas-run-health-ministry-quietly-removes-thousands-from-gaza-death-toll-researchers-find https://www.euronews.com/2025/04/03/hamas-run-health-ministr...
    - tome 2y ago
      >Too many have been killed How many killed would have been "not too many"?
      - settrans 2y ago
        That depends on your vantage point. If you accept the mainstream Palestinian viewpoint, i.e. the one that endorses Hamas and the Simchat Torah massacre, there is no such thing as too many, because every Palestinian death furthers the jihadist cause of demonizing Israel. If you accept the mainstream Israeli viewpoint, all of these deaths were unnecessary because they directly resulted from an unprovoked onslaught against innocent civilians, and all of the casualties could have been avoided but for the Gazan misadventure of October 7th. I'm not sure which camp GP subscribes to, however.
  - LtWorf 2y ago
    Not supporting Palestine is supporting terrorism.
  - settrans 2y ago
    1. Hamas bears the moral responsibility for all of the suffering in the war they started on October 7th, and the Palestinian people bear the moral responsibility of electing and supporting them (and participating in the invasion, and not returning the hostages). 2. Even Hamas now admits most deaths have been military aged males: https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-848592 https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-848592 3. How can you argue that Gaza has been starved and ethnically cleansed when the population of the Gaza strip has increased since the start of the war?
- LtWorf 2y ago
  Except that in USA "You're brown, I don't like you" is terrorism.
  - tremon 2y ago
    Except when the government is doing it.
- matteoraso 2y ago
  >It's not that hard as a foreign student to not join political protests in favor of terrorist groups. I obviously don't support terrorism, but people unambiguously have the right to protest in favour of terrorist groups. It's only when they provide material support to these groups that they actually commit a crime.
beepbooptheory 2y ago
Ok, I'll bite: in your view, what were the illiberal "demands" post-2020? Reading tfa, this kind of rendering feels a little too pat for him. Namely, its one thing to argue against the kind of knee-jerk moralism of well-meaning woke liberal arts kids, its quite another to imply a kind of "capital L" program to "chill speech." Like, c'mon, are we really still doing this now? Roth himself is sensible enough to not be, in his words, "blaming the victim" at this point, what calls you to essentially do it for him anyway? It's nothing but out of touch at this point, and adds nothing to the discourse but conspiratorial noise. If I may assume a rough age based on your forthrightness, any single kid in school in 2020 was and is a lot less culpable for this current moment than you or I. We can set an example and be mature enough to own that, instead of, I don't know, forever being tortured by the real or perceived condescension of kids.
- throwaway389234 2y ago
  It is a smaller step to further the justifications than to deal with the often severe implications (to the self-image) of having been wrong. The more obvious it becomes having been wrong, the more necessary the justifications are and the more absurd they become. As having someone accepting your absurd justifications becomes proof of being blameless.
  - throwaway389234 2y ago
    I should add that I'm not referring to beepbooptheory, but in response to "are we really still doing this now?".
- throwawayqqq11 2y ago
  It's nothing but out of touch at this point, and adds nothing to the discourse Exactly. Its a communications problem. Its hard to have a decent critical conversation when one side has a biased view about $symbol. Both communicating parties need to reach the same interpretation of a message, otherwise the conversation is broken. Thats why you shouldnt say the N-word or throw out a heil heart on stage (unless you want to hide behind this ambiguity). Or why its so difficult to have critical conversations with strong believers, for you its just evolution or vaccines but for the other side it may affect the core of their identity and the ape goes defense mode. The result is that the discourse does not deal with differentiated cases but _only_ with simplistic labels like "chill speech", "woke", etc. because the more biased side drags it down into the mud. For instance, the "chill speech" label is actually dependent on the "racist" label that initiated it. If a case shows clear racist behavior, then dismissing the lefts reaction as censorship is unjustified or biased. The other way works too, if there is no racist behavior, the censorship blame would be justified. And since you cant look into peoples heads to clearly identify racist intentions, it falls back to interpreting messages. The problem with biased people is, they are not aware even of their unawareness. If you would ask Musk whether he is a neo-nazi, his response would be something like "hell no". Fast forward the dystopian timeline and his response might be "always have been". The left has IMO more unbiased awareness about systemic issues -- but is not free of bias either. The right is in its core biased indentity politics about $culture -- but is not totally host to tribalism either. My advise, avoid popular symbols at all cost and if you come close to using one, augment it with case specific background, even a vague "_unjustified_ chill of speech" would suffice. If someone opens with "the woke left" and shows no signs of differentiation -- or even better, acknowledgement of core leftist topics -- i mentally turn away. The comment you replied to was about personal anekdotes and projections and the one symbol that rubs me the wrong way too, even before trumps abuse.
kubb 2y ago
They'll make it through if they bend the knee. Otherwise the regime will destroy them, and the conclusion will be that it's all because of these darned radical leftists.
- lelanthran 2y ago
  > They'll make it through if they bend the knee. Otherwise the regime will destroy them, and the conclusion will be that it's all because of these darned radical leftists. Well, it is, isn't it? They required complete loyalty to the ideology before accepting any faculty: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/08/us/ucla-dei-statement.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/08/us/ucla-dei-statement.htm... They shouldn't have gone that far.
  - kubb 2y ago
    > University of Toronto I understand you’re fighting for what you believe in. Keep going, you’re almost there.
    - lelanthran 2y ago
      > I understand you’re fighting for what you believe in. In your mind, what do you think I believe in? I ask this because the only point I made in that message was in response to the "bend the knee" comment. The one side required "bend the knee". Now the other side requires it. Why be surprised?
brightlancer 2y ago
> Wesleyan has a rich history of activism and protest, and not always entirely peaceful (Roth’s predecessor, Doug Bennet, had his office firebombed at one point). Arson is not protest. Arson is a VIOLENT type of activism, which is legally classified as terrorism. Trump (or anybody) shouldn't be allowed to punish folks for speech or peaceful protest. Unfortunately, folks are calling VIOLENT acts like arson and battery "protest", and threats of bodily harm "speech" ("harassment" or "assault" under most US criminal law) -- we should be in favor of the government stepping in to protect people from arson, battery, and assault/ harassment. > he did not give in to the illiberal demands of the left to chill speech post-2020, Roth has been president since 2007. What was his response to Nick Christakis's struggle session (plenty of video of that) or Erika Christakis leaving Yale, after she penned an e-mail that students should be able to handle Halloween costumes they find offensive? The American Left has been illiberal and going after speech for decades; it didn't start post-2020.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  Just so. The First Amendment assures the right to peacefully assemble and speak your mind, not to commit arson. Violent attacks aren't free speech and should always be prosecuted.
- cess11 2y ago
  If the state is illegitimate then it is permissible or perhaps an obligation to topple it, according to people like the revolutionaries that founded the USA. That is, it doesn't necessarily matter what is legal or not, if the state misbehaves then you should put it to the guillotine or fire or bear arms or whatever suits you. As an outsider it's always funny to see people write about the "American Left", as if there were any leftist movements of national importance in the US. As if Food Not Bombs had at some point had a majority in congress or something, it's just a ridiculous idea. If that happened there would be a bloody purge, Pinochet style but bigger.
- ath3nd 2y ago
  > The American Left has been illiberal and going after speech for decades; it didn't start post-2020. Good that the free-speech absolutist Musk is there to ban everyone on Twitter who calls him out on his lies, trying to buy democratic elections, and do nazi salutes. > Arson is a VIOLENT type of activism, which is legally classified as terrorism. Lithium-ion batteries in badly made cars are prone to ...combustion.
turtlesdown11 2y ago
ah, some both sides claims while people are disappeared
MPSFounder 2y ago
[flagged]

by necubi 2y ago

mlindner 2y ago

[flagged]

lqstuart 2y ago
[flagged]
- nl 2y ago
  Who was in the US illegally?
nl 2y ago
Who is supporting terrorist groups? Pro-Palestinian protesting is not support for terrorism.
- jl6 2y ago
  This guy perhaps? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c934y9kv07eo.amp https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c934y9kv07eo.amp
- adhamsalama 2y ago
  Nothing in that article implies supporting terrorism. They support Palestine. People conflating supporting Palestine with supporting terrorism should be ashamed of themselves, as Israel is the biggest terror state in the world.
  - thyristan 2y ago
    Well, when it comes to conflating, I'll take your calling Israel a terror state as a standard: The democratically elected government of Gaza-Palestine is the Hamas, which is a terrorist organisation. Thus by your conflation regarding Israel to be a terror state, the Gaza strip part of Palestine is as well. Its population chose a known terrorist organisation, everything is run by a terrorist organisation, they did terrorist things such as bombings, abductions and murders of innocent civilians. Thus (Gaza-)Palestine is therefore a terror state. Supporting it is therefore supporting terrorism. Thus either you apply your conflating standard equally, Palestine and Israel are both terror states, and any support of them is supporting terrorism. Or you rather differentiate, and separate Palestine as an abstract concept of a hypothetical future homestead of the Palestinians from the Hamas, the Fatah and other (mostly terrorist) organisations that govern it, and the population that, in parts, is governed by them and elects and supports or opposes them and their actions. But if you do that, you will also have to differentiate between Israel as a state, its military, government, parties, population and their respective support and actions. In that second case you can support Palestine as an abstract idea without supporting terrorism, you can support the population and their rights, hopes and struggle. As you can do with Israel and their people. However, on pro-Palestine protests, I've never really seen this kind of differentiation applied, I've seen far too many Hamas flags, heard far too many calls to wipe Israel from the map, far too many praises for terrorists (called "martyrs"). Thus, in practically all cases, I'd without hesitation call supporters of Palestine supporters of terrorism.
_fizz_buzz_ 2y ago
> Many countries completely ban non citizens from joining political protests, even ostensibly western countries. Which ones?
- immibis 2y ago
  Germany bans pro-Palestine protests (officially they're still legal, but they've been arresting people since it began and they've just started deporting people for participating in completely legal protests) but I think that's a slightly different criterion than the one you asked for.
  - 3D30497420 2y ago
    Correct. Here's a DW video on it: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-deport-pro-palestinian-protesters/video-72132041 https://www.dw.com/en/germany-to-deport-pro-palestinian-prot... There is a fight over this being done with or without due process.
    - mpweiher 2y ago
      Incorrect: "They are accused of indirectly supporting Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist organization in Germany." 2nd sentence from your link. Supporting terrorist organizations is not legal in Germany. Supporting terrorist organizations is not the same a being Pro-Palestinian. Unless you think that all Palestinians are terrorists, which I do not.
      - immibis 2y ago
        Yes, and Germany considers protests against anything Israel does in Gaza to be support for Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist organization in Germany. That's why I told you: officially, protesting is legal, but they still arrest and deport people for protesting. This newspaper may not think they're the same thing, but the police do.
        2y ago
rob_c 2y ago
I strongly agree, unfortunately they feel strongly differently after spending a lot of money to get on the courses. Frankly the law of the land is the latter, but this is one of the problems with cladding cultures and attitudes which needs addressing rather than glossing over...
ok_dad 2y ago
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
adhamsalama 2y ago
Supporting Palestinians that Israel has been killing for over a year (+50k killed, most were women and children), while starving the rest and ethnically cleansing them, is not supporting terrorism.
- kitd 2y ago
  Too many have been killed, for sure, but you should probably use sources other than the Hamas Health Ministry: https://www.euronews.com/2025/04/03/hamas-run-health-ministry-quietly-removes-thousands-from-gaza-death-toll-researchers-find https://www.euronews.com/2025/04/03/hamas-run-health-ministr...
  - tome 2y ago
    >Too many have been killed How many killed would have been "not too many"?
    - settrans 2y ago
      That depends on your vantage point. If you accept the mainstream Palestinian viewpoint, i.e. the one that endorses Hamas and the Simchat Torah massacre, there is no such thing as too many, because every Palestinian death furthers the jihadist cause of demonizing Israel. If you accept the mainstream Israeli viewpoint, all of these deaths were unnecessary because they directly resulted from an unprovoked onslaught against innocent civilians, and all of the casualties could have been avoided but for the Gazan misadventure of October 7th. I'm not sure which camp GP subscribes to, however.
- LtWorf 2y ago
  Not supporting Palestine is supporting terrorism.
- settrans 2y ago
  1. Hamas bears the moral responsibility for all of the suffering in the war they started on October 7th, and the Palestinian people bear the moral responsibility of electing and supporting them (and participating in the invasion, and not returning the hostages). 2. Even Hamas now admits most deaths have been military aged males: https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-848592 https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-848592 3. How can you argue that Gaza has been starved and ethnically cleansed when the population of the Gaza strip has increased since the start of the war?
LtWorf 2y ago
Except that in USA "You're brown, I don't like you" is terrorism.
- tremon 2y ago
  Except when the government is doing it.
matteoraso 2y ago
>It's not that hard as a foreign student to not join political protests in favor of terrorist groups. I obviously don't support terrorism, but people unambiguously have the right to protest in favour of terrorist groups. It's only when they provide material support to these groups that they actually commit a crime.

beepbooptheory 2y ago

Ok, I'll bite: in your view, what were the illiberal "demands" post-2020? Reading tfa, this kind of rendering feels a little too pat for him. Namely, its one thing to argue against the kind of knee-jerk moralism of well-meaning woke liberal arts kids, its quite another to imply a kind of "capital L" program to "chill speech." Like, c'mon, are we really still doing this now? Roth himself is sensible enough to not be, in his words, "blaming the victim" at this point, what calls you to essentially do it for him anyway? It's nothing but out of touch at this point, and adds nothing to the discourse but conspiratorial noise. If I may assume a rough age based on your forthrightness, any single kid in school in 2020 was and is a lot less culpable for this current moment than you or I. We can set an example and be mature enough to own that, instead of, I don't know, forever being tortured by the real or perceived condescension of kids.

throwaway389234 2y ago
It is a smaller step to further the justifications than to deal with the often severe implications (to the self-image) of having been wrong. The more obvious it becomes having been wrong, the more necessary the justifications are and the more absurd they become. As having someone accepting your absurd justifications becomes proof of being blameless.
- throwaway389234 2y ago
  I should add that I'm not referring to beepbooptheory, but in response to "are we really still doing this now?".
throwawayqqq11 2y ago
It's nothing but out of touch at this point, and adds nothing to the discourse Exactly. Its a communications problem. Its hard to have a decent critical conversation when one side has a biased view about $symbol. Both communicating parties need to reach the same interpretation of a message, otherwise the conversation is broken. Thats why you shouldnt say the N-word or throw out a heil heart on stage (unless you want to hide behind this ambiguity). Or why its so difficult to have critical conversations with strong believers, for you its just evolution or vaccines but for the other side it may affect the core of their identity and the ape goes defense mode. The result is that the discourse does not deal with differentiated cases but _only_ with simplistic labels like "chill speech", "woke", etc. because the more biased side drags it down into the mud. For instance, the "chill speech" label is actually dependent on the "racist" label that initiated it. If a case shows clear racist behavior, then dismissing the lefts reaction as censorship is unjustified or biased. The other way works too, if there is no racist behavior, the censorship blame would be justified. And since you cant look into peoples heads to clearly identify racist intentions, it falls back to interpreting messages. The problem with biased people is, they are not aware even of their unawareness. If you would ask Musk whether he is a neo-nazi, his response would be something like "hell no". Fast forward the dystopian timeline and his response might be "always have been". The left has IMO more unbiased awareness about systemic issues -- but is not free of bias either. The right is in its core biased indentity politics about $culture -- but is not totally host to tribalism either. My advise, avoid popular symbols at all cost and if you come close to using one, augment it with case specific background, even a vague "_unjustified_ chill of speech" would suffice. If someone opens with "the woke left" and shows no signs of differentiation -- or even better, acknowledgement of core leftist topics -- i mentally turn away. The comment you replied to was about personal anekdotes and projections and the one symbol that rubs me the wrong way too, even before trumps abuse.

kubb 2y ago

They'll make it through if they bend the knee. Otherwise the regime will destroy them, and the conclusion will be that it's all because of these darned radical leftists.

lelanthran 2y ago
> They'll make it through if they bend the knee. Otherwise the regime will destroy them, and the conclusion will be that it's all because of these darned radical leftists. Well, it is, isn't it? They required complete loyalty to the ideology before accepting any faculty: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/08/us/ucla-dei-statement.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/08/us/ucla-dei-statement.htm... They shouldn't have gone that far.
- kubb 2y ago
  > University of Toronto I understand you’re fighting for what you believe in. Keep going, you’re almost there.
  - lelanthran 2y ago
    > I understand you’re fighting for what you believe in. In your mind, what do you think I believe in? I ask this because the only point I made in that message was in response to the "bend the knee" comment. The one side required "bend the knee". Now the other side requires it. Why be surprised?

brightlancer 2y ago

> Wesleyan has a rich history of activism and protest, and not always entirely peaceful (Roth’s predecessor, Doug Bennet, had his office firebombed at one point). Arson is not protest. Arson is a VIOLENT type of activism, which is legally classified as terrorism. Trump (or anybody) shouldn't be allowed to punish folks for speech or peaceful protest. Unfortunately, folks are calling VIOLENT acts like arson and battery "protest", and threats of bodily harm "speech" ("harassment" or "assault" under most US criminal law) -- we should be in favor of the government stepping in to protect people from arson, battery, and assault/ harassment. > he did not give in to the illiberal demands of the left to chill speech post-2020, Roth has been president since 2007. What was his response to Nick Christakis's struggle session (plenty of video of that) or Erika Christakis leaving Yale, after she penned an e-mail that students should be able to handle Halloween costumes they find offensive? The American Left has been illiberal and going after speech for decades; it didn't start post-2020.

lupusreal 2y ago
Just so. The First Amendment assures the right to peacefully assemble and speak your mind, not to commit arson. Violent attacks aren't free speech and should always be prosecuted.
cess11 2y ago
If the state is illegitimate then it is permissible or perhaps an obligation to topple it, according to people like the revolutionaries that founded the USA. That is, it doesn't necessarily matter what is legal or not, if the state misbehaves then you should put it to the guillotine or fire or bear arms or whatever suits you. As an outsider it's always funny to see people write about the "American Left", as if there were any leftist movements of national importance in the US. As if Food Not Bombs had at some point had a majority in congress or something, it's just a ridiculous idea. If that happened there would be a bloody purge, Pinochet style but bigger.
ath3nd 2y ago
> The American Left has been illiberal and going after speech for decades; it didn't start post-2020. Good that the free-speech absolutist Musk is there to ban everyone on Twitter who calls him out on his lies, trying to buy democratic elections, and do nazi salutes. > Arson is a VIOLENT type of activism, which is legally classified as terrorism. Lithium-ion batteries in badly made cars are prone to ...combustion.

turtlesdown11 2y ago

ah, some both sides claims while people are disappeared

MPSFounder 2y ago

[flagged]