How to handle this difficult situation with a friend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other Columbia faculty wrote and signed a response letter to this one.

Also, it is amazing to me that people cannot see that the tone and perspective of the first letter has bias. Its main point isn’t about that, but its examples and support are presented as unbiased when they are, in fact, disputed by many.

I’m sorry so many are gaslighting OP and her husband. The signers of the letter have a particular view, which they take great pains not to say explicitly, but which they show through their sourcing.

As for how to proceed, I echo others and say pull back and do not engage right now.

Of course the letter has bias. So does the response you are describing. Bias existing is not in question. That is actually why campuses being places in which multiple, conflicting, and sometimes upsetting points of view can be explored is so important.

The question is: is this letter itself anti-Semitic or biased in a way that betrays anti-Semitism in all of its signers by definition?

To neither question is the answer “yes.”

I agree with you. I don’t think signers of the letter are all automatically anti-Semitic. I do think it’s possible some are, particularly with unconscious bias. And given the plausibility that the OP’s friend may or may not be in that category, it is reasonable that she and her husband now feel discomfort. At the very least, they feel that by signing this letter, the professor aligns with folks condoning the messages the students put out. Some of those messages were unquestionably anti-Semitic.

This may be. But as faculty, they have an obligation for the protection of robust exchange on controversial issues--an obligation that is uniquely theirs, and that obligation is the reason for this letter. Assuming that the friend is instead engaged in an attempt to communicate or endorse anti-Semitism suggests that the OP and husband might be well-advised to take a deep breath before attempting to further discuss this.

Taking nothing away from the great grief and stress the OP and husband are experiencing, not all discomfort is a sign that others need to explain themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best way to handle this:

You stand down. No engagement unless she reaches out. Then you suggest grabbing coffee…just the two of you.

Exchange pleasantries, etc. and eventually say, “Hey, I wanted to let you know that Dave saw the letter you signed since he’s an alum. Needless to say, it hurt him. And I’d be lying if I said it didn’t surprise me. I don’t want to get into a whole big thing, but I’m wondering if you feel comfortable talking about this? I’m curious what prompted you to sign it?”

Then be silent. Give her time to explain. Don’t interrupt. Just listen.

Discuss.

I suspect you two can salvage your friendship on some level assuming you want to.

But I don’t think you can vacation together with your husband, so gently flag that.

I wouldn't even ask what prompted your friend to sign the letter - what answer are you going to get that is going to help things?

She might say she felt obligated to sign?

It is interesting to me that both you and OP assume the friend felt external pressure to sign the letter, when it's clear that OP would like to pressure on the friend to NOT sign, or recant the letter.

I would presume this friend signed because she agrees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh man. This is happening to me too. I’m totally fine with people wanting a ceasefire and being mad at Netanyahu - who sucks and I agree about ceasefire - but the folks who are insinuating that there’s any justification for killing civilians (on either side) or throwing around terms like ‘open air prison’ and suggesting the Israelis are white occupiers (they are the same color as Palestinians) I’m kind of done with. I would not be having a conversation. I just unfollowed and it’s done.

From my pov it’s very easy to support a 2 state solution, be anti killing civilians, be anti terrorist. Honestly anyone who has some other hot take pov I just want them to be quiet

1. How is it not an open-air prison?
2. I believe people mean that Israelis have much more power and are much less vulnerable, overall, than Palestinians on averag

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Other Columbia faculty wrote and signed a response letter to this one.

Also, it is amazing to me that people cannot see that the tone and perspective of the first letter has bias. Its main point isn’t about that, but its examples and support are presented as unbiased when they are, in fact, disputed by many.

I’m sorry so many are gaslighting OP and her husband. The signers of the letter have a particular view, which they take great pains not to say explicitly, but which they show through their sourcing.

As for how to proceed, I echo others and say pull back and do not engage right now.

Of course the letter has bias. So does the response you are describing. Bias existing is not in question. That is actually why campuses being places in which multiple, conflicting, and sometimes upsetting points of view can be explored is so important.

The question is: is this letter itself anti-Semitic or biased in a way that betrays anti-Semitism in all of its signers by definition?

To neither question is the answer “yes.”

I agree with you. I don’t think signers of the letter are all automatically anti-Semitic. I do think it’s possible some are, particularly with unconscious bias. And given the plausibility that the OP’s friend may or may not be in that category, it is reasonable that she and her husband now feel discomfort. At the very least, they feel that by signing this letter, the professor aligns with folks condoning the messages the students put out. Some of those messages were unquestionably anti-Semitic.

This may be. But as faculty, they have an obligation for the protection of robust exchange on controversial issues--an obligation that is uniquely theirs, and that obligation is the reason for this letter. Assuming that the friend is instead engaged in an attempt to communicate or endorse anti-Semitism suggests that the OP and husband might be well-advised to take a deep breath before attempting to further discuss this.

Taking nothing away from the great grief and stress the OP and husband are experiencing, not all discomfort is a sign that others need to explain themselves.

I agree 100 percent as faculty they have an obligation for the robust exchange on controversial issues. However, I feel they have an even greater obligation as faculty to ensure all students feel safe from from hate speech and danger. In their effort to protect the students who were getting doxxed as a result of their inflammatory statements, they made other students and members of the university community feel unsafe and in in danger.

[Anonymous]

No one who publicly signed their name to a letter is getting doxxed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one who publicly signed their name to a letter is getting doxxed.

It's not accurate to say the students were merely doxxed. What happened is that 20 students who had signed these statements from Palestinian student groups were targeted by a "doxxing truck" which drove around campus displaying their names, photos, a URL linked to their name, and the statement "Columbia's Leading Antisemites."

It is honestly insane to me that people don't see that as a threatening behavior that endangers those students. They signed their names to the statements willingly, they obviously are comfortable having their names associated with those statements. But what the doxxing truck did went FAR beyond calling out the statements or the groups that signed them. It placed targets on these students, described them as "leading antisemites" and harassed them on campus, while associating a URL with their names with the intention of making it a top or high Google result associated with their names. These are Palestinian students on a campus that is over 22% Jewish and comparatively small Arab student population.

Oh, and guess who paid for the doxxing truck? Far right media watchdog "Accuracy in Media."

It was harassment and the faculty statement OP's friend signed was released to address this specific behavior and to ask the university to take action to protect the safety of students on campus from this kind of OUTSIDE harassment.

I get why some folks might be bothered by some of what was in those student statements (I personally am not bothered by it, but I have enough close friends who are Jewish to have heard a wide variety of opinions on Israel and this conflict and to understand the argument for why those statements would be considered problematic or antisemitic by some). But this is not an acceptable or productive response and I'm grateful to the Columbia faculty for standing up to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one who publicly signed their name to a letter is getting doxxed.

It's not accurate to say the students were merely doxxed. What happened is that 20 students who had signed these statements from Palestinian student groups were targeted by a "doxxing truck" which drove around campus displaying their names, photos, a URL linked to their name, and the statement "Columbia's Leading Antisemites."

It is honestly insane to me that people don't see that as a threatening behavior that endangers those students. They signed their names to the statements willingly, they obviously are comfortable having their names associated with those statements. But what the doxxing truck did went FAR beyond calling out the statements or the groups that signed them. It placed targets on these students, described them as "leading antisemites" and harassed them on campus, while associating a URL with their names with the intention of making it a top or high Google result associated with their names. These are Palestinian students on a campus that is over 22% Jewish and comparatively small Arab student population.

Oh, and guess who paid for the doxxing truck? Far right media watchdog "Accuracy in Media."

It was harassment and the faculty statement OP's friend signed was released to address this specific behavior and to ask the university to take action to protect the safety of students on campus from this kind of OUTSIDE harassment.

I get why some folks might be bothered by some of what was in those student statements (I personally am not bothered by it, but I have enough close friends who are Jewish to have heard a wide variety of opinions on Israel and this conflict and to understand the argument for why those statements would be considered problematic or antisemitic by some). But this is not an acceptable or productive response and I'm grateful to the Columbia faculty for standing up to it.

And yet, the Columbia faculty letter didn’t say any of what you said, which was that the truck and the response placed targets on the students and harassed them. A letter with that message would have been something I think everyone could have come together to agree upon. The faculty letter missed a huge opportunity to unify and instead came off as divisive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one who publicly signed their name to a letter is getting doxxed.

It's not accurate to say the students were merely doxxed. What happened is that 20 students who had signed these statements from Palestinian student groups were targeted by a "doxxing truck" which drove around campus displaying their names, photos, a URL linked to their name, and the statement "Columbia's Leading Antisemites."

It is honestly insane to me that people don't see that as a threatening behavior that endangers those students. They signed their names to the statements willingly, they obviously are comfortable having their names associated with those statements. But what the doxxing truck did went FAR beyond calling out the statements or the groups that signed them. It placed targets on these students, described them as "leading antisemites" and harassed them on campus, while associating a URL with their names with the intention of making it a top or high Google result associated with their names. These are Palestinian students on a campus that is over 22% Jewish and comparatively small Arab student population.

Oh, and guess who paid for the doxxing truck? Far right media watchdog "Accuracy in Media."

It was harassment and the faculty statement OP's friend signed was released to address this specific behavior and to ask the university to take action to protect the safety of students on campus from this kind of OUTSIDE harassment.

I get why some folks might be bothered by some of what was in those student statements (I personally am not bothered by it, but I have enough close friends who are Jewish to have heard a wide variety of opinions on Israel and this conflict and to understand the argument for why those statements would be considered problematic or antisemitic by some). But this is not an acceptable or productive response and I'm grateful to the Columbia faculty for standing up to it.

And yet, the Columbia faculty letter didn’t say any of what you said, which was that the truck and the response placed targets on the students and harassed them. A letter with that message would have been something I think everyone could have come together to agree upon. The faculty letter missed a huge opportunity to unify and instead came off as divisive.

Literally the first paragraph of the faculty letter:

The most recent devastating violence in Israel and Gaza that began on October 7, 2023 has had very disturbing reverberations on our campus – for all of us, students, faculty, staff, and the larger Columbia community. We write now to express grave concerns about how some of our students are being viciously targeted with doxing, public shaming, surveillance by members of our community, including other students, and reprisals from employers. These egregious forms of harassment and efforts to chill otherwise protected speech on campus are unacceptable, and we implore every person in the Columbia University community - faculty, administrators, students, alums, public safety - to do more to protect all of our students while preserving Columbia University as a beacon for “fostering critical thinking and opening minds to different points of view,” as President Shafik wrote to the community in her October 18th message about upholding our collective values.

[Anonymous]

The professors are more concerned about the students being “doxxed” (an inaccurate term here) than those being targeted by antisemitism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one who publicly signed their name to a letter is getting doxxed.

It's not accurate to say the students were merely doxxed. What happened is that 20 students who had signed these statements from Palestinian student groups were targeted by a "doxxing truck" which drove around campus displaying their names, photos, a URL linked to their name, and the statement "Columbia's Leading Antisemites."

It is honestly insane to me that people don't see that as a threatening behavior that endangers those students. They signed their names to the statements willingly, they obviously are comfortable having their names associated with those statements. But what the doxxing truck did went FAR beyond calling out the statements or the groups that signed them. It placed targets on these students, described them as "leading antisemites" and harassed them on campus, while associating a URL with their names with the intention of making it a top or high Google result associated with their names. These are Palestinian students on a campus that is over 22% Jewish and comparatively small Arab student population.

Oh, and guess who paid for the doxxing truck? Far right media watchdog "Accuracy in Media."

It was harassment and the faculty statement OP's friend signed was released to address this specific behavior and to ask the university to take action to protect the safety of students on campus from this kind of OUTSIDE harassment.

I get why some folks might be bothered by some of what was in those student statements (I personally am not bothered by it, but I have enough close friends who are Jewish to have heard a wide variety of opinions on Israel and this conflict and to understand the argument for why those statements would be considered problematic or antisemitic by some). But this is not an acceptable or productive response and I'm grateful to the Columbia faculty for standing up to it.

And yet, the Columbia faculty letter didn’t say any of what you said, which was that the truck and the response placed targets on the students and harassed them. A letter with that message would have been something I think everyone could have come together to agree upon. The faculty letter missed a huge opportunity to unify and instead came off as divisive.

Literally the first paragraph of the faculty letter:

The most recent devastating violence in Israel and Gaza that began on October 7, 2023 has had very disturbing reverberations on our campus – for all of us, students, faculty, staff, and the larger Columbia community. We write now to express grave concerns about how some of our students are being viciously targeted with doxing, public shaming, surveillance by members of our community, including other students, and reprisals from employers. These egregious forms of harassment and efforts to chill otherwise protected speech on campus are unacceptable, and we implore every person in the Columbia University community - faculty, administrators, students, alums, public safety - to do more to protect all of our students while preserving Columbia University as a beacon for “fostering critical thinking and opening minds to different points of view,” as President Shafik wrote to the community in her October 18th message about upholding our collective values.

Should note emphasis is mine -- I bolded it because PP said most people would agree with a letter that said the doxing truck placed targets on students and harassed them. Which is exactly what the letter says.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The professors are more concerned about the students being “doxxed” (an inaccurate term here) than those being targeted by antisemitism.

Which students are bing targeted by antisemitism?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one who publicly signed their name to a letter is getting doxxed.

It's not accurate to say the students were merely doxxed. What happened is that 20 students who had signed these statements from Palestinian student groups were targeted by a "doxxing truck" which drove around campus displaying their names, photos, a URL linked to their name, and the statement "Columbia's Leading Antisemites."

It is honestly insane to me that people don't see that as a threatening behavior that endangers those students. They signed their names to the statements willingly, they obviously are comfortable having their names associated with those statements. But what the doxxing truck did went FAR beyond calling out the statements or the groups that signed them. It placed targets on these students, described them as "leading antisemites" and harassed them on campus, while associating a URL with their names with the intention of making it a top or high Google result associated with their names. These are Palestinian students on a campus that is over 22% Jewish and comparatively small Arab student population.

Oh, and guess who paid for the doxxing truck? Far right media watchdog "Accuracy in Media."

It was harassment and the faculty statement OP's friend signed was released to address this specific behavior and to ask the university to take action to protect the safety of students on campus from this kind of OUTSIDE harassment.

I get why some folks might be bothered by some of what was in those student statements (I personally am not bothered by it, but I have enough close friends who are Jewish to have heard a wide variety of opinions on Israel and this conflict and to understand the argument for why those statements would be considered problematic or antisemitic by some). But this is not an acceptable or productive response and I'm grateful to the Columbia faculty for standing up to it.

And yet, the Columbia faculty letter didn’t say any of what you said, which was that the truck and the response placed targets on the students and harassed them. A letter with that message would have been something I think everyone could have come together to agree upon. The faculty letter missed a huge opportunity to unify and instead came off as divisive.

Literally the first paragraph of the faculty letter:

The most recent devastating violence in Israel and Gaza that began on October 7, 2023 has had very disturbing reverberations on our campus – for all of us, students, faculty, staff, and the larger Columbia community. We write now to express grave concerns about how some of our students are being viciously targeted with doxing, public shaming, surveillance by members of our community, including other students, and reprisals from employers. These egregious forms of harassment and efforts to chill otherwise protected speech on campus are unacceptable, and we implore every person in the Columbia University community - faculty, administrators, students, alums, public safety - to do more to protect all of our students while preserving Columbia University as a beacon for “fostering critical thinking and opening minds to different points of view,” as President Shafik wrote to the community in her October 18th message about upholding our collective values.

I stand corrected. Apologies for my mistake. I have no issue with that part of the statement and think it is reasonable, except the part where they think they can dictate to future employers what they should consider in their job applicants. That’s a bit of overreach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one who publicly signed their name to a letter is getting doxxed.

It's not accurate to say the students were merely doxxed. What happened is that 20 students who had signed these statements from Palestinian student groups were targeted by a "doxxing truck" which drove around campus displaying their names, photos, a URL linked to their name, and the statement "Columbia's Leading Antisemites."

It is honestly insane to me that people don't see that as a threatening behavior that endangers those students. They signed their names to the statements willingly, they obviously are comfortable having their names associated with those statements. But what the doxxing truck did went FAR beyond calling out the statements or the groups that signed them. It placed targets on these students, described them as "leading antisemites" and harassed them on campus, while associating a URL with their names with the intention of making it a top or high Google result associated with their names. These are Palestinian students on a campus that is over 22% Jewish and comparatively small Arab student population.

Oh, and guess who paid for the doxxing truck? Far right media watchdog "Accuracy in Media."

It was harassment and the faculty statement OP's friend signed was released to address this specific behavior and to ask the university to take action to protect the safety of students on campus from this kind of OUTSIDE harassment.

I get why some folks might be bothered by some of what was in those student statements (I personally am not bothered by it, but I have enough close friends who are Jewish to have heard a wide variety of opinions on Israel and this conflict and to understand the argument for why those statements would be considered problematic or antisemitic by some). But this is not an acceptable or productive response and I'm grateful to the Columbia faculty for standing up to it.

And yet, the Columbia faculty letter didn’t say any of what you said, which was that the truck and the response placed targets on the students and harassed them. A letter with that message would have been something I think everyone could have come together to agree upon. The faculty letter missed a huge opportunity to unify and instead came off as divisive.

Literally the first paragraph of the faculty letter:

The most recent devastating violence in Israel and Gaza that began on October 7, 2023 has had very disturbing reverberations on our campus – for all of us, students, faculty, staff, and the larger Columbia community. We write now to express grave concerns about how some of our students are being viciously targeted with doxing, public shaming, surveillance by members of our community, including other students, and reprisals from employers. These egregious forms of harassment and efforts to chill otherwise protected speech on campus are unacceptable, and we implore every person in the Columbia University community - faculty, administrators, students, alums, public safety - to do more to protect all of our students while preserving Columbia University as a beacon for “fostering critical thinking and opening minds to different points of view,” as President Shafik wrote to the community in her October 18th message about upholding our collective values.

I stand corrected. Apologies for my mistake. I have no issue with that part of the statement and think it is reasonable, except the part where they think they can dictate to future employers what they should consider in their job applicants. That’s a bit of overreach.

On the other hand, part of the goal of the doxing truck was to associate each targeted student's name with the word "antisemite" in Google searches, and thus impact their future employment.

It is one thing for an employer to Google a prospective hire, find this letter, read it, and conclude they don't want to hire that student. The students chose to sign the statements.

It is something else for an employer to Google a prospective hire, discover a URL put together by a far right organization explicitly to associate the person's name with antisemitism, and decide they don't want anything to do with that student.

The latter is especially problematic when you consider that most of the students targeted by the doxing campaign are racial or ethnic minorities.

I appreciate you recognizing that you have made a mistake in interpreting this letter and its contents. I think you should also consider how may people have done the same thing, with both the faculty letter and the student statements, how easily people have leapt to the conclusion that these students or these faculty members are anti-semites on the basis of rumor, innuendo, and in some cases organized media campaigns to slander them.

[Anonymous]

https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vRYUSR01Cb6zV50rDtm88q0ppSz-bn40oJ28YTG5cYJGpAjNF4hkiCAwQKya2iI5h--cb633CbeAtL6/pub?urp=gmail_link

This faculty letter which is a response to the first one outlines the issues with the first letter (and the student letter) and also describes the antisemitism that has increased in recent weeks.

I live in nyc but I’m not affiliated with Columbia. Last week my daughter’s friend had her Star of David necklace ripped off her neck on the subway on the upper west side. To say Jews are afraid is an understatement. The level of antisemitism has escalated so quickly. I would not engage with the professor and would find excuses for not interacting going forward. As long as her daughter isn’t talking politics with yours then leave them alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one who publicly signed their name to a letter is getting doxxed.

It's not accurate to say the students were merely doxxed. What happened is that 20 students who had signed these statements from Palestinian student groups were targeted by a "doxxing truck" which drove around campus displaying their names, photos, a URL linked to their name, and the statement "Columbia's Leading Antisemites."

It is honestly insane to me that people don't see that as a threatening behavior that endangers those students. They signed their names to the statements willingly, they obviously are comfortable having their names associated with those statements. But what the doxxing truck did went FAR beyond calling out the statements or the groups that signed them. It placed targets on these students, described them as "leading antisemites" and harassed them on campus, while associating a URL with their names with the intention of making it a top or high Google result associated with their names. These are Palestinian students on a campus that is over 22% Jewish and comparatively small Arab student population.

Oh, and guess who paid for the doxxing truck? Far right media watchdog "Accuracy in Media."

It was harassment and the faculty statement OP's friend signed was released to address this specific behavior and to ask the university to take action to protect the safety of students on campus from this kind of OUTSIDE harassment.

I get why some folks might be bothered by some of what was in those student statements (I personally am not bothered by it, but I have enough close friends who are Jewish to have heard a wide variety of opinions on Israel and this conflict and to understand the argument for why those statements would be considered problematic or antisemitic by some). But this is not an acceptable or productive response and I'm grateful to the Columbia faculty for standing up to it.

And yet, the Columbia faculty letter didn’t say any of what you said, which was that the truck and the response placed targets on the students and harassed them. A letter with that message would have been something I think everyone could have come together to agree upon. The faculty letter missed a huge opportunity to unify and instead came off as divisive.

Literally the first paragraph of the faculty letter:

The most recent devastating violence in Israel and Gaza that began on October 7, 2023 has had very disturbing reverberations on our campus – for all of us, students, faculty, staff, and the larger Columbia community. We write now to express grave concerns about how some of our students are being viciously targeted with doxing, public shaming, surveillance by members of our community, including other students, and reprisals from employers. These egregious forms of harassment and efforts to chill otherwise protected speech on campus are unacceptable, and we implore every person in the Columbia University community - faculty, administrators, students, alums, public safety - to do more to protect all of our students while preserving Columbia University as a beacon for “fostering critical thinking and opening minds to different points of view,” as President Shafik wrote to the community in her October 18th message about upholding our collective values.

I stand corrected. Apologies for my mistake. I have no issue with that part of the statement and think it is reasonable, except the part where they think they can dictate to future employers what they should consider in their job applicants. That’s a bit of overreach.

On the other hand, part of the goal of the doxing truck was to associate each targeted student's name with the word "antisemite" in Google searches, and thus impact their future employment.

It is one thing for an employer to Google a prospective hire, find this letter, read it, and conclude they don't want to hire that student. The students chose to sign the statements.

It is something else for an employer to Google a prospective hire, discover a URL put together by a far right organization explicitly to associate the person's name with antisemitism, and decide they don't want anything to do with that student.

The latter is especially problematic when you consider that most of the students targeted by the doxing campaign are racial or ethnic minorities.

I appreciate you recognizing that you have made a mistake in interpreting this letter and its contents. I think you should also consider how may people have done the same thing, with both the faculty letter and the student statements, how easily people have leapt to the conclusion that these students or these faculty members are anti-semites on the basis of rumor, innuendo, and in some cases organized media campaigns to slander them.

To be clear, I didn’t mean I made a mistake interpreting this letter. I made a mistake that I didn’t realize they began the letter essentially saying the treatment of the students was not proportional or appropriate for what the students had put out into the world. I still personally believe the rest of the letter was biased and took a side rather than attempting to unify and help all students feel safe. I also don’t think the letter makes the professors automatically anti-semites at all, but it certainly doesn’t rule it out that some could be and are, and it also incited more divisiveness and resultant anti-Semitism campus-wide rather than tamping down.