Penn President resigns

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Live by the sword, die by the sword. She and her fellow presidents have been disciplining and harassing students for years who didn’t sufficiently embrace their political monoculture. When you create an environment where all thought is tightly policed, eventually the thought police will come for you too.

+10000. It’s starting to seem surreal to me the amount of resources spent controlling speech on *elite college campuses*!!

I do think it’s pretty funny to watch all these progressives suddenly find that actually maybe they support free speech. But only for causes they like, of course. Def ok to call for the extermination of Jews — free speech! — but saying men can’t become women is apparently literal genocide. 🙄

[Anonymous]

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.

I think I just would have said “For now we are going to place time place & manner restrictions on protests to be limited to x quad so that any student who wishes may avoid it and any student who breaks the rule will be disciplined. This incident has brought into relief the urgent need to better balance our legal obligations to protect individual students from harassment while protecting academic freedom and speech. I can say unequivocally for now that express calls to kill any group or individual will be prohibited. That said it is not always clear when a political slogan is threatening physical violence and it will have to be taken on a case by case basis. Candidly I admit that some past actions by Penn to restrict speech went too far and were wrong. Going forward some speech will be permitted that will
make some people very unhappy. But the premise of the university is not to make everyone happy but to create a space for learning and expression. Going forward my job is to protect that space within the confines of our legal obligations to protect individuals from harassment. To aid in this transformation I will be convening a panel of scholars and lawyers from across the politica spectrum to advise me.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:stupid lib cancel culture

Conservative cancel culture is way worse as it has no moral compass. Not a surprise given the self serving nature of the right.

Lib cancel culture is not based on morality but on the primitive principle “friend good, enemy bad”. Don’t get mad when the conservatives imitate this.

This is not a liberal vs conservative issue.

Conservatives invented “cancel culture” anyway

the most striking thing about this thread is the massive number of far right posters there are on this website and their inability to make cogent or compelling arguenent

Are you sure you know what a cogent argument is? Leftist arguments are almost always a bunch of generalities, such as “will destroy the democracy” & “out-of-control fascists.” If you had specifics you would use them.

Characterizing the Israelis’ actions as “genocide” without giving specific examples of attempts to kill an entire group is yet another sweeping generality that is meant to spark outrage in the uninformed mob.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:stupid lib cancel culture

Conservative cancel culture is way worse as it has no moral compass. Not a surprise given the self serving nature of the right.

Lib cancel culture is not based on morality but on the primitive principle “friend good, enemy bad”. Don’t get mad when the conservatives imitate this.

This is not a liberal vs conservative issue.

Conservatives invented “cancel culture” anyway

the most striking thing about this thread is the massive number of far right posters there are on this website and their inability to make cogent or compelling arguenent

Incorrect. What is most striking is your utter inability to use punctuation, capitalization, or even basic spell-checking.

The rest of your argument is unsupported and laughably wrong.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Well, this is a perfect example of the double standard. Pro Palestinian protestors can say “There is only one solution” and “From the River to the Sea” and have paragliders and guns on their posters and praise the “heroes” of 10/7, and Jews aren’t allowed to infer that they are anti-Semitic and want to harm Jewish people. However, if anyone points out that Claudine Gay, with her singularly unimpressive history as an academic, her mismanagement of the disciplinary process at the University, as well as her terrible performance as a Congressional witness (and follow-up after), doesn’t seem good at her job other than the fact that she checks several DEI boxes at once, they are a racist.

And it would be impossible for “right wing nut jobs…to regulate speech more than” the liberal administrations of these campuses. Among many other things, Harvard Title IX training identifies “sizeism & fat-phobia” & “culture & identity abuse” including “objectifying identity, language, religion, culture, gender expression, etc, or using the wrong pronouns” as violations. (But of course, whether or not it’s ok to endorse the killing of Jewish people depends on the “context.”)

Excellent point - very neatly shows the utter hypocrisy wrt to anti-semitism that has led us here.

[Anonymous]

Imagine all the Jewish democrats aligning themselves with Stefanik and other proponents of the great replacement theory.

[Anonymous]

Penn is now out in front of these issues and will start getting a pass “as they look for new leadership”.

I think attention will now be squarely on Harvard.

It’s interesting that I didn’t see much press on MIT until the president testified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

You are a disgusting bigot.

Oh please. Get over yourself. Six of the eight Ivies have- or had until yesterday- female presidents. You think that is simply a coincidence? The cream has risen to the top?

Obviously not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you paying attention? These dipshits in the IDF cannot even use bleeding edge technology gifted by the U.S. to successfully root out Hamas.

There’s been a minimum 2:1 ratio of innocent civilian-to-combatant deaths since 10/7, and that’s using the notoriously dishonest IDF as a source.

So, no, I don’t find the fact that the racist clowns who identify as Zionists haven’t completed their STATED mission of dispossessing every last indigenous person of their land in the region to be contra-evidence of that mission. They’re just really incompetent, which explains a lot.

But incompetence doesn’t absolve them of their sins.

Yeah, an “2:1 ratio of innocent civilian-to-combatant deaths since 10/7” is what happens when terrorists deliberately and cynically embed themselves in dense civilian centers.

You obviously expect Israelis to just quietly accept the occasional massacre with a side helping of rape and torture and kidnapping. I mean, they already get rocket fire on the regular, what’s the big deal?

Unless you are willing to accept that happening on American soil, without military response, you are a hypocrite.

Hamas started this conflict. They don’t get to dictate Israel’s response to an act of war. Neither do you.

Obviously, nobody is going to dictate anything to a murderous regime hell bent on killing as many Palestinians as possible, especially with the U.S. funding the effort and running interference on its behalf at every turn in the road. But since the U.S. is footing the bill and State is bypassing Congressional review to further provision the IDF, I have a right to speak my mind in opposition.

Israel started this conflict when they began violently dispossessing indigenous people of their land in the region 75 years ago, so based on your logic, you clearly don’t have any right to dictate how any Palestinian, including members of Hamas, chooses to seek redress for their grievances.

Zionists have consistently chosen terrorism to achieve their goals over the past 100+ years. The fact that you feel entitled to dictate how the victims of that terrorism are “allowed” to fight back, lest they be met with your disapproval, is representative of how despicable defenders of Zionism like you truly are.

What a bunch of lies and fabrications. You support terror and genocide. This is the rot that needs to go at universities.

The truth hurts. Every single stitch of what was said is factual, indisputable, and rooted in history. It’s not surprising that the actual supporter of terrorism and genocide (you) is resorting to your usual feeble DARVO instincts to deflect blame.

The not-so-mysterious mystery of why SO MANY global citizens despise people like you is eventually coming home to roost. Bank on it.

So many global citizens “despise people like you” because the world has 2 billion Muslims and 49 Muslim majority countries vs 15 million Jews and ONE Jewish majority country. “People like you” are a tiny majority subjected routinely to the most express sentiments wishing for their annihilation. The mere existence of Israel in the Middle East even if Gaza and West Bank were solved would continue to trigger maniacal anti-semitism. You’re engaged in massive dishonesty if you cannot put it into global context. Meanwhile crickets on all the other global conflicts that do not involve Jews …

[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

No one is saying you can’t criticize Israel. But that’s very different than calling for its destruction or the killing of all Jews.
Why is it ok for a University to cancel a speaker because that person is against affirmative action but allow for speakers who advocate for genocide?

I agree with you. We should be allowing both types of speakers.

I agree that universities should allow both (all) types of speakers. But wasn't the question about policing students' speech? (Punishing students for saying something that is widely disagreed with.). Frankly, one of the main points of universities is to allow/encourage students to debate different perspectives--it's the learning process. If they inartfully make points that are condemnable, they are condemned by peers. This happens all the time-- students often wind up heading down a trail that ends in an extreme position because they are novices at this. When that happens, they are called out on it. And they realize that either they communicated their position badly or they had an indefensible position. And that's how they learn.

That's why all three presidents ended up saying things like 'it depends' when asked if certain speech violates their conduct codes. If statements are targeted at other people and said in hatred, that's actionable. If there's a debate about the right government policy, or about whether a seemingly oppressed people should rise up, or about what types of security measures are defensible, then it's exactly what should be debated at a university, with all sides heard.

You’re exactly right but the problem is that the univesities only saw the light on this when the speech was threatening to Jews …

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Well, this is a perfect example of the double standard. Pro Palestinian protestors can say “There is only one solution” and “From the River to the Sea” and have paragliders and guns on their posters and praise the “heroes” of 10/7, and Jews aren’t allowed to infer that they are anti-Semitic and want to harm Jewish people. However, if anyone points out that Claudine Gay, with her singularly unimpressive history as an academic, her mismanagement of the disciplinary process at the University, as well as her terrible performance as a Congressional witness (and follow-up after), doesn’t seem good at her job other than the fact that she checks several DEI boxes at once, they are a racist.

And it would be impossible for “right wing nut jobs…to regulate speech more than” the liberal administrations of these campuses. Among many other things, Harvard Title IX training identifies “sizeism & fat-phobia” & “culture & identity abuse” including “objectifying identity, language, religion, culture, gender expression, etc, or using the wrong pronouns” as violations. (But of course, whether or not it’s ok to endorse the killing of Jewish people depends on the “context.”)

Well said.

[Anonymous]

The attack on free speech and gun rights is coming from seething Marxists who are worse and more vile than disgusting Nazis. They need to be cast out of the United States.

[Anonymous]

If the universities had a history of fiercely supporting free speech, Magill would still have her job. But they have a history of fiercely suppressing free speech except when that free speech is antisemitic, and that is the insurmountable problem for Magill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:stupid lib cancel culture

Conservative cancel culture is way worse as it has no moral compass. Not a surprise given the self serving nature of the right.

Lib cancel culture is not based on morality but on the primitive principle “friend good, enemy bad”. Don’t get mad when the conservatives imitate this.

This is not a liberal vs conservative issue.

Conservatives invented “cancel culture” anyway

the most striking thing about this thread is the massive number of far right posters there are on this website and their inability to make cogent or compelling arguenent

Are you sure you know what a cogent argument is? Leftist arguments are almost always a bunch of generalities, such as “will destroy the democracy” & “out-of-control fascists.” If you had specifics you would use them.

Characterizing the Israelis’ actions as “genocide” without giving specific examples of attempts to kill an entire group is yet another sweeping generality that is meant to spark outrage in the uninformed mob.

I am curious if you understand that whenever you use words like “leftist” or “woke” you are immediately disregarded as a non-serious person? By everyone except whatever fringe bubble in which you have normalized this weird nomenclature?

If you want to be persuasive, maybe try using mainstream language, not vocabulary that immediately tags you as a radical, America-hating right-wing nutter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The attack on free speech and gun rights is coming from seething Marxists who are worse and more vile than disgusting Nazis. They need to be cast out of the United States.

Wut.

Let’s kick Trump and everyone else involved with Jan. 6 out first. They aren’t for “free speech.” They just hate America and everything it stands for and have a different speech code they want to enforce