Penn President resigns

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is outrageous (if not surprising) that Ivy League presidents are being pushed out by monied interests. This exposes the academy for what it is: spineless, compromised, and beholden to the almighty dollar, just like everyone else. They blew their chance to stand on the side of the first amendment and freedom of thought.

This is not about antisemitism; it is about having a nuanced view of a complex situation. The silver lining is that Ackerman and others stand on such shaky ground that they resort to making threats about taking their money elsewhere. Everyone, including and especially college students, know the truth about what has happened to Palestinians in the Israeli occupation and the truth will win out in the end. This is a sad day for democracy.

What? No! Antisemitism aside, it’s about measuring everyone with the same stick. You can’t reprimand/ cancel people for microagressions about sex/gender/pronouns and wearing a MAGA hat AND defend speech you agree with even if that speech is way beyond micro aggression .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was concerned by the questions and attitude of the qustioner. Let me understand, she is a Trumper, a pro insurecctionalist and anti abortion. Now she's concerned about free speech violation. She was trying to trap.

"Trap"? Stefanik asked a VERY simple yes/no question. She did a remarkable job. The world now sees what imposters these presidents are. Or rather, ex-presidents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it chilling that you cannot criticize Jewish people or Israel in any way without severe consequences. Cancel culture in overdrive

+1

The irony is that Israel seems to be committing genocide against the Palestinians.

+1. Fired over a hypothetical. No one has called for genocide against Jewish people (one-sided interpretations of a chant don’t count). Meanwhile, the Palestinians are being eradicated (even from Southern Gaza where Israel told them to go).

That’s war.

Not genocide

+1
And who started this war... Hamas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have mixed feelings about her bumbling equivocating responses regarding genocide?
As for Penn, like any other entity, how else can an organization be held accountable for incompetent leadership aside from hitting them where it counts.

Oh, did fail to condemn Israel’s genocide of Palestinians?

Tell us you have no idea what we are talking about without telling us you have no idea what we are talking about.

Probably a purple haired activist. I am amazed at the sheer lack of understanding of what the word genocide means.

Watching Harvard closely. Gay even tried to clarify her disastrous testimony by saying "my truth" wasn't clear enough. "My truth"!?!? Unfortunately she told the whole world she is a perfect example of identity politics and the failures of promoting mediocre people solely on identity grounds.

The “my truth” thing is a key aspect of where these presidents went wrong. They seem to think if they say it, it’s true. So they have unwarranted confidence that they will be able to establish ridiculously obvious double standards & nobody will notice.

When they testified you could see the puzzlement in their eyes when people dared to challenge them. It was like, “How dare you question me? Only rubes outside of my bubble don’t bow down to me.”

+1
They are so used to speaking in that moronic jargon that is usually limited to liberal universities and DEI workplace training. They have no idea how people in the real world see through this kind of BS. They're accustomed to students and faculty hanging on their every woke phrase. These people truly do live in an airtight echo chamber of nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it chilling that you cannot criticize Jewish people or Israel in any way without severe consequences. Cancel culture in overdrive

Did you find it “chilling” when a Yale Professor and his lecturer wife was disciplined for an email sent out about Halloween costumes, suggesting that people talk to each other if they have an issue with someone’s costume and expressing concern that colleges were becoming "places of censure and prohibition“? That email was greeted with protests and articles, like the one below, with the Yale President explaining how such “offensive” speech needed to be limited to make colleges a “safe space” for students.

https://www.vox.com/2015/11/7/9689330/yale-halloween-email

How about female Penn swimmers who were threatened with losing their scholarships if they objecting to having a person with a penis changing clothes in their locker room? How about the Hispanic Yale student who was harassed by Administrators because he referred to his “trap house” in an email invitation? How about the Professor who was removed for showing an image of the Prophet Mohammad, even though she warned her students she was going to do so and gave them an opportunity to leave? There are more.

This is not a first amendment issue, this is a title VI equal treatment issue. The MIT President admitted in writing that they aren’t enforcing MIT’s rules against pro Palestinian protestors because it might cause some of them visa issues. The colleges have made this bed, now they get to lie in it.

+ a million. Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it chilling that you cannot criticize Jewish people or Israel in any way without severe consequences. Cancel culture in overdrive

+1

The irony is that Israel seems to be committing genocide against the Palestinians.

+1. Fired over a hypothetical. No one has called for genocide against Jewish people (one-sided interpretations of a chant don’t count). Meanwhile, the Palestinians are being eradicated (even from Southern Gaza where Israel told them to go).

That’s war.

Not genocide

War has been the pretext for the genocide that’s been occurring for 100+ years in the region, at the hands of Zionists before and since the creation of the State of Israel.

I mean, have a ball denying it. Nobody objective is buying it.

Let me guess... you're claiming to be "objective."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it chilling that you cannot criticize Jewish people or Israel in any way without severe consequences. Cancel culture in overdrive

+1

The irony is that Israel seems to be committing genocide against the Palestinians.

+1. Fired over a hypothetical. No one has called for genocide against Jewish people (one-sided interpretations of a chant don’t count). Meanwhile, the Palestinians are being eradicated (even from Southern Gaza where Israel told them to go).

That’s war.

Not genocide

War has been the pretext for the genocide that’s been occurring for 100+ years in the region, at the hands of Zionists before and since the creation of the State of Israel.

I mean, have a ball denying it. Nobody objective is buying it.

Honestly, if Zionist have somehow been “committing genocide for 100 years”, then they must be really bad at it. I think the general competency of Israel speaks against that argument. If Israel actually wanted to commit genocide, they would have done it by now. Personally, I think they would just rather like it if Hamas would stop firing rockets at Israeli civilian populations.

Everyone screaming genocide has no idea what the word actually means. In 1947 there were less than 2m Palestinians in the region. There’ are 5 million now. Talk about a genocide fail.

[Anonymous]

Its painfully obvious that all three of these presidents are diversity hires.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good riddance. If want to allow free speech in campus, then go for it. But when the you protect every minority group on campus from harassment except for Jews, that is antisemitism.

AMEN

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it chilling that you cannot criticize Jewish people or Israel in any way without severe consequences. Cancel culture in overdrive

Ooh, now tell us what happens when black people/POC/women are criticized. We'll wait.

And btw? The idiot students weren't simply criticizing Israel. They were calling for its GENOCIDE. Interesting, but so telling, that THAT FACT doesn't "chill" you.

I can’t find the videos of students calling for a genocide. Anyone have a link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You have mixed feelings about her bumbling equivocating responses regarding genocide?
As for Penn, like any other entity, how else can an organization be held accountable for incompetent leadership aside from hitting them where it counts.

Yeah, I have mixed feelings about trying to respond to a “when did you stop beating your wife” question.

I also have very angry feelings at the racism directed at Claudine Gay by certain Jews who suggest she isn’t qualified and was only hired because DEI.

And I am absolutely disgusted by the delight of the hypocritical right wing nut jobs who carry on about free speech on college campuses but they really mean to regulate speech more than anyone.

And Israel is really coming close to a campaign of genocide in its killing of innocent civilians by the thousands in Gaza.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its painfully obvious that all three of these presidents are diversity hires.

You are a disgusting bigot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was concerned by the questions and attitude of the qustioner. Let me understand, she is a Trumper, a pro insurecctionalist and anti abortion. Now she's concerned about free speech violation. She was trying to trap.

"Trap"? Stefanik asked a VERY simple yes/no question. She did a remarkable job. The world now sees what imposters these presidents are. Or rather, ex-presidents.

Magill is a lawyer. She was Dean at Stanford Law School. She is trained to answer questions. Unfortunately she danced around the questions.

[Anonymous]

For the most part almost all college staffing is about diversity hiring nowadays. The best candidate does not get the job....due to equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is outrageous (if not surprising) that Ivy League presidents are being pushed out by monied interests. This exposes the academy for what it is: spineless, compromised, and beholden to the almighty dollar, just like everyone else. They blew their chance to stand on the side of the first amendment and freedom of thought.

This is not about antisemitism; it is about having a nuanced view of a complex situation. The silver lining is that Ackerman and others stand on such shaky ground that they resort to making threats about taking their money elsewhere. Everyone, including and especially college students, know the truth about what has happened to Palestinians in the Israeli occupation and the truth will win out in the end. This is a sad day for democracy.

The sad day for democracy occurred when universities decided to enforce the first amendment as they saw fit, rather than equally across the board. Everyone I know who supports the firings has zero problem with free speech or even hate speech. But it can't solely be allowed for certain groups and not all.

^^
Moreover, what these presidents did was use the excuse of free speech to allow harassment and bullying. They conflating two separate issues.

The thing that boggles my mind is that they weren't given better advice going into the hearing. All they had to say was: Yes, if students are threatened, and calls for any groups of students' death, then it will be dealt with. Such an easy answer and they couldn't just say that. We would not be here discussing this if they had said that.

Agree with the bolded. Apparently she was given too much advice.

"Worn down by months of relentless external attacks, she was not herself last Tuesday," Bok said. "Over prepared and over lawyered given the hostile forum and high stakes, she provided a legalistic answer to a moral question, and that was wrong. It made for a dreadful 30-second sound bite in what was more than five hours of testimony."

The only thing this tells me is that she is not leadership material. It was quite apparent that these women are not used to being questioned by adults with real world experience, only adoring teens and 20-somethings.

Simply ivory tower dwellers, nothing more. All need to be replaced.