Wealthy donors pull funding from from Harvard and U Penn for failure to denounce “antisemitism”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think that schools are in any way obligated to issue statements. So I don’t go as far as the silence = antisemitism side. But, if a school chooses to weigh in, it damn well better lead with a clear condemnation of Hamas’ terrorist attacks. Anything short of that is morally repulsive.

I also think that if you are going to take the stance that silence is violence and then you are silent in the face of massacres like this, that is effectively an endorsement of the massacre.

I agree, and that was the point of asking liberals how they feel now about "silence is violence." When George Floyd was killed, they used that expression to shame anyone who didn't LOUDLY condemn his murder. That's why we're now turning it around on them.

[Anonymous]

I've looked at the Harvard statements carefully. I'm very much on Israel's side. But unless I'm missing something, Harvard seems to be taking a principled stance that the terrorist attack was wrong, and also, the students have a right to free speech. I'm still angry at Harvard and have been dragging my feet on some things related to them, because I'm angry. But I don't think my anger is actually rational or justified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think that schools are in any way obligated to issue statements. So I don’t go as far as the silence = antisemitism side. But, if a school chooses to weigh in, it damn well better lead with a clear condemnation of Hamas’ terrorist attacks. Anything short of that is morally repulsive.

I also think that if you are going to take the stance that silence is violence and then you are silent in the face of massacres like this, that is effectively an endorsement of the massacre.

I agree, and that was the point of asking liberals how they feel now about "silence is violence." When George Floyd was killed, they used that expression to shame anyone who didn't LOUDLY condemn his murder. That's why we're now turning it around on them.

Are you new here?

Only the privileged have the capacity to be silent in ways that constitute violence as contemplated here, so this whole line of thinking is inapposite. The oppressed have no obligation to lend their voices to any cause; they are not capable of violence, only righteous struggle until such time as power dynamics have shifted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've looked at the Harvard statements carefully. I'm very much on Israel's side. But unless I'm missing something, Harvard seems to be taking a principled stance that the terrorist attack was wrong, and also, the students have a right to free speech. I'm still angry at Harvard and have been dragging my feet on some things related to them, because I'm angry. But I don't think my anger is actually rational or justified.

Are you an alum?

[Anonymous]

Harvard should have rejected the money to begin with, given the Epstein association.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harvard should have rejected the money to begin with, given the Epstein association.

If Harvard had to disassociate from all of the dirty money swishing around that endowment, it might have to shrink size down into the 10 figures (yuck!). We can't be having' that.

[Anonymous]

It’s good to see these universities lose funding. Far too many have hired and given a platform to low IQ idiots who support terrorism. Many of these folks, like that stupid idiot at Cornell, ought to be arrested and charged with hate crimes, but if that’s not going to happen at least cut off the donations and make those universities suffer.

[Anonymous]

It’s been fun watching all these DEI programmed kids turn on the mothership. It was only a matter of time. Harvard is the Bud Light of the Ivy League.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, did you feel the same way about all the liberals insisting "silence is violence," and condemning anyone who didn't signal agreement on social media? We'll wait.

FWIW, I haven’t been aware of “silence is violence” as a slogan — nor did I realize that “condemning anyone who didn’t signal agreement on social media” was a general expectation.

So, if I started with that expectation, I’d probably also have expectations about what kinds of events would warrant that response. Personally, I don’t have a predetermined set of expectations for “liberals” — since I don’t view “liberals” as a homogeneous group. I will say that if a university or other entity has a practice of publicly “condemning “ things on Twitter or whatever, then I would critically look at which events are chosen for “condemning “ and which are not — and I’d want to know something about who issued the posts that apparently represent the university as a whole — and what the apparent intent of such communications might be. (OP)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard should have rejected the money to begin with, given the Epstein association.

If Harvard had to disassociate from all of the dirty money swishing around that endowment, it might have to shrink size down into the 10 figures (yuck!). We can't be having' that.

YUP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s good to see these universities lose funding. Far too many have hired and given a platform to low IQ idiots who support terrorism. Many of these folks, like that stupid idiot at Cornell, ought to be arrested and charged with hate crimes, but if that’s not going to happen at least cut off the donations and make those universities suffer.

These Universities were big and powerful before they admitted Jews as students and they’ll be there if they lose the funding of rich Jewish donors.

Not all the donors are Jewish. There’s agreement at the top that this has gone on for far enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s been fun watching all these DEI programmed kids turn on the mothership. It was only a matter of time. Harvard is the Bud Light of the Ivy League.

Lol, Harvard acceptance rate is about to drop to 2%. There are billionaires from all over the world vying for a spot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just read two articles— see links — about wealthy donors yanking funding from universities that apparently failed to speak out against antisemitism in ways that satisfied the donors. Huntsman — the U Penn donor — was quoted as saying” Silence is antisemitism”. While obviously the donors are free to do as they wish, reading about these recent events has me wondering what sorts of strings get attached to sizable donations — even beyond having buildings and chairs named after donors and assuring that their family members leap the line when it comes to admissions.

When did universities start publicly proclaiming political stances? How many millions is the expected going rate for a Harvard imprimatur? When did the supposed “silence” of what is supposedly a complex and diverse community come to mean “antisemitism “ — and what else might such silences mean ….concerning global and political issues rather than the functioning of the universities themselves? Has demanding official stances in line with donations been the norm all along?

I get donating for a science lab, or a crew tank, or scholarships. These — possibly assumed but perhaps not explicitly discussed — strings attached seem quite different.


https://www.businessinsider.com/jon-huntsman-...ael-response-2023-10

https://www.businessinsider.com/wexner-founda...amas-attacks-2023-10

I thought “silence is violence” is a university slogan these days. Or does that not apply when the victims are Jewish?

I wasn’t aware of that as a generally known slogan. I commented similarly in another response. My thought would be that if this is a generally known expected practice — then it should be generally applied, so of course it would “apply when the victims are Jewish” — just as it would apply in other heinous circumstances.
So thank you for clearing up some of my confusion— since I didn’t have the context of “silence is violence” as something ubiquitous that I managed to miss (not being on university campuses in quite some time).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just read two articles— see links — about wealthy donors yanking funding from universities that apparently failed to speak out against antisemitism in ways that satisfied the donors. Huntsman — the U Penn donor — was quoted as saying” Silence is antisemitism”. While obviously the donors are free to do as they wish, reading about these recent events has me wondering what sorts of strings get attached to sizable donations — even beyond having buildings and chairs named after donors and assuring that their family members leap the line when it comes to admissions.

When did universities start publicly proclaiming political stances? How many millions is the expected going rate for a Harvard imprimatur? When did the supposed “silence” of what is supposedly a complex and diverse community come to mean “antisemitism “ — and what else might such silences mean ….concerning global and political issues rather than the functioning of the universities themselves? Has demanding official stances in line with donations been the norm all along?

I get donating for a science lab, or a crew tank, or scholarships. These — possibly assumed but perhaps not explicitly discussed — strings attached seem quite different.


https://www.businessinsider.com/jon-huntsman-...ael-response-2023-10

https://www.businessinsider.com/wexner-founda...amas-attacks-2023-10

I thought “silence is violence” is a university slogan these days. Or does that not apply when the victims are Jewish?

I wasn’t aware of that as a generally known slogan. I commented similarly in another response. My thought would be that if this is a generally known expected practice — then it should be generally applied, so of course it would “apply when the victims are Jewish” — just as it would apply in other heinous circumstances.
So thank you for clearing up some of my confusion— since I didn’t have the context of “silence is violence” as something ubiquitous that I managed to miss (not being on university campuses in quite some time).

Sorry: I’m the OP responding here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s good to see these universities lose funding. Far too many have hired and given a platform to low IQ idiots who support terrorism. Many of these folks, like that stupid idiot at Cornell, ought to be arrested and charged with hate crimes, but if that’s not going to happen at least cut off the donations and make those universities suffer.

Low IQ idiots like Jon Huntsman, a high school dropout whose billionaire father bought him a spot at U Penn?