Stefanik Ivy Presidentd

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pathetic on the part of the university presidents. It is hard to believe that the words uttered by some of these protesters do not violate the universities' policies WRT intimidation and bullying.
Their responses sounded like they spent too much time consulting with university legal counsel instead of using common sense and truth.

Even those on the left agree:

QThis is so misleading, nobody supports the words “genocide of Jews”, Stefanik ‘s actual question was that Intifada and River to the Sea translates to genocide of Jews and that’s an incorrect interpretation. Stefanik as always is vile and despicable.

Uh, yes they do. It’s called Hamas and it calls for the killing of Jews as part of its
Charter. And this is the group that Israel is trying to protect itself from and that all of the anti-Israel crew are cheering for. Stop the gaslighting.

That poster obviously meant that no one *on their campuses* had been chanting with those words. And don’t start with intifada or river-to-the-sea. The hypo used the words “genocide of Jews” on purpose to make it as outrageous as possible.

Yeah, I’ll start with the facts that from the river to the sea is about annihilating Isreal and is absolutely about eradicating Jews from the region. Something that groups in the region have tried for decades - predating Israel by centuries. Jews are indigenous to that region.

so stop gaslighting. We all know what these anti-Israel chants are about. The dog whistles. We get it. Never thought in million years I’d agree with Elise Stefanik on anything ever. But on this, I do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pathetic on the part of the university presidents. It is hard to believe that the words uttered by some of these protesters do not violate the universities' policies WRT intimidation and bullying.
Their responses sounded like they spent too much time consulting with university legal counsel instead of using common sense and truth.

Even those on the left agree:

QThis is so misleading, nobody supports the words “genocide of Jews”, Stefanik ‘s actual question was that Intifada and River to the Sea translates to genocide of Jews and that’s an incorrect interpretation. Stefanik as always is vile and despicable.

Uh, yes they do. It’s called Hamas and it calls for the killing of Jews as part of its
Charter. And this is the group that Israel is trying to protect itself from and that all of the anti-Israel crew are cheering for. Stop the gaslighting.

That poster obviously meant that no one *on their campuses* had been chanting with those words. And don’t start with intifada or river-to-the-sea. The hypo used the words “genocide of Jews” on purpose to make it as outrageous as possible.

Yeah, I’ll start with the facts that from the river to the sea is about annihilating Isreal and is absolutely about eradicating Jews from the region. Something that groups in the region have tried for decades - predating Israel by centuries. Jews are indigenous to that region.

so stop gaslighting. We all know what these anti-Israel chants are about. The dog whistles. We get it. Never thought in million years I’d agree with Elise Stefanik on anything ever. But on this, I do.

I’m not gaslighting you. Did you know that Netanyahu’s party platform called for Israeli sovereignty from the river to the sea. Do you feel the same way about that? If not, why not?

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party

Stop putting words in your opponent’s mouths. I’m not even pro-Palestine. I just like free speech am sick of all the double standards. When I say it, it has a reasonable interpretation! When you say it, it has only the worst interpretation I can think of!

[Anonymous]

Sounds like all three presidents are being fired. Good riddance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

As soon as you answer the question you lose. This is a joke. I hope she stays on. This is not Israel where people are arrested and thrown in prison.

Many of us prefer a leader who has the intelligence and integrity to answer a question sincerely and candidly without hedging, dodging, and sounding like an attorney. It seems as if you prefer someone who is not honest.

She answered the question honestly and correctly and your problem is that she sounded “like an attorney.” Oh no! She’s not your therapist.

You missed the point. We don't need a therapist at a congressional hearing; we need supposed leaders to answer questions without hedging. The "in context" excuse was beyond lame.

It wasn’t a hedge. It was “depends on context” — and then an explanation of conduct vs only speech. I’m sorry your feelings were hurt. Everyone wants their stupid safe space. I’d rather the Ivy League stopped policing student’s speech on all side.

This isn't about "hurt feelings." You're the one saying those words. I'm not Jewish, and my feelings are not at all hurt. I watched those leaders' responses in astonishment -- they were hesitating, hedging, and continuing to rely on the words "in context." I seriously doubt that David Duke and a group of Klansmen or Nazi types would be allowed to gather at any of those schools to speak--wouldn't matter if they "did anything" besides speak and carry signs or not. (As they shouldn't!)

This goes back to my point about the issue being about not the accuracy of the statements here — they were accurate — but whether the schools follow their own policies in other scenarios. I think David Duke and Nazi types should be allowed to chant (speech only) whatever they want.

PP here. Must admit I have really mixed feelings about the bolded. I don't like giving extremists the opportunity to share their heinous views but also understand about free speech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

The problem was she answers WITHOUT feelings in a (correct) legalistic manner and that hurt your feelings. I agree the university presidents should have done a better job of emoting in sympathy with Jewish students before discussing the cold hard legal answer but does their failure to do so really warrant firing them??

I almost wonder if their failure of empathy is playing out so much worse for them because they are women from whom people readily accept caring emotions. Maybe a dude playing it like they did would not have come across so “cold”?

Just because they identify themselves as women does not mean they are women.

Yeah that’s funny, but really, I think there’s something to my point here. For the record, I am a Harvard alum and a conservative and dislike the school’s favoritism toward progressives. But her answer was, objectively, correct, and it seems like the complaint boils down to them seeming too cold. I don’t see that reaction toward a man saying the same thing.

It’s not unreasonable to expect these presidents to be better prepared for congressional inquiry. The problem here is that they went in unprepared and arrogant. That’s a job requirement and they should have done a better job.

PP here. Okay, again, some sugar-coating would have helped, but fundamentally they were right.

https://www.thefire.org/news/why-most-calls-genocide-are-protected-speech

If these schools had a history of standing up for free speech, sure. But they don’t. They in fact have a history of actively suppressing it. FIRE identified Harvard as the worst offender prior to all of this.

In any event it’s not unreasonable to expect university presidents at their level to engage in even the most basic of prep when going before Congress. They clearly did not prepare at all. They should have expected that line of questioning, yet were entirely unprepared. That alone is reason to fire them: they couldn’t do their jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

The problem was she answers WITHOUT feelings in a (correct) legalistic manner and that hurt your feelings. I agree the university presidents should have done a better job of emoting in sympathy with Jewish students before discussing the cold hard legal answer but does their failure to do so really warrant firing them??

I almost wonder if their failure of empathy is playing out so much worse for them because they are women from whom people readily accept caring emotions. Maybe a dude playing it like they did would not have come across so “cold”?

Just because they identify themselves as women does not mean they are women.

Yeah that’s funny, but really, I think there’s something to my point here. For the record, I am a Harvard alum and a conservative and dislike the school’s favoritism toward progressives. But her answer was, objectively, correct, and it seems like the complaint boils down to them seeming too cold. I don’t see that reaction toward a man saying the same thing.

It’s not unreasonable to expect these presidents to be better prepared for congressional inquiry. The problem here is that they went in unprepared and arrogant. That’s a job requirement and they should have done a better job.

+1 Given their academic credentials, their responses and arrogant behavior were rather shocking.

I mean this sincerely: given their academic credentials, their arrogance was absolutely NOT shocking. Have you spent time around Ivy Leaguers

Sure, but that doesn’t mean they can’t do their jobs, which includes facing tough questions at times. Also “arrogance” isn’t an excuse for other people being grilled by Congress who fail badly.

You can prepare to go before Congress. These presidents, likely because of their arrogance, did not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pathetic on the part of the university presidents. It is hard to believe that the words uttered by some of these protesters do not violate the universities' policies WRT intimidation and bullying.
Their responses sounded like they spent too much time consulting with university legal counsel instead of using common sense and truth.

Even those on the left agree:

QThis is so misleading, nobody supports the words “genocide of Jews”, Stefanik ‘s actual question was that Intifada and River to the Sea translates to genocide of Jews and that’s an incorrect interpretation. Stefanik as always is vile and despicable.

Uh, yes they do. It’s called Hamas and it calls for the killing of Jews as part of its
Charter. And this is the group that Israel is trying to protect itself from and that all of the anti-Israel crew are cheering for. Stop the gaslighting.

That poster obviously meant that no one *on their campuses* had been chanting with those words. And don’t start with intifada or river-to-the-sea. The hypo used the words “genocide of Jews” on purpose to make it as outrageous as possible.

Yeah, I’ll start with the facts that from the river to the sea is about annihilating Isreal and is absolutely about eradicating Jews from the region. Something that groups in the region have tried for decades - predating Israel by centuries. Jews are indigenous to that region.

so stop gaslighting. We all know what these anti-Israel chants are about. The dog whistles. We get it. Never thought in million years I’d agree with Elise Stefanik on anything ever. But on this, I do.

I’m not gaslighting you. Did you know that Netanyahu’s party platform called for Israeli sovereignty from the river to the sea. Do you feel the same way about that? If not, why not?

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party

Stop putting words in your opponent’s mouths. I’m not even pro-Palestine. I just like free speech am sick of all the double standards. When I say it, it has a reasonable interpretation! When you say it, it has only the worst interpretation I can think of!

From the river to the sea is an anti-Israeli / Jewish mantra. Stop. With. The gaslighting,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

As soon as you answer the question you lose. This is a joke. I hope she stays on. This is not Israel where people are arrested and thrown in prison.

Many of us prefer a leader who has the intelligence and integrity to answer a question sincerely and candidly without hedging, dodging, and sounding like an attorney. It seems as if you prefer someone who is not honest.

She answered the question honestly and correctly and your problem is that she sounded “like an attorney.” Oh no! She’s not your therapist.

You missed the point. We don't need a therapist at a congressional hearing; we need supposed leaders to answer questions without hedging. The "in context" excuse was beyond lame.

It wasn’t a hedge. It was “depends on context” — and then an explanation of conduct vs only speech. I’m sorry your feelings were hurt. Everyone wants their stupid safe space. I’d rather the Ivy League stopped policing student’s speech on all side.

This isn't about "hurt feelings." You're the one saying those words. I'm not Jewish, and my feelings are not at all hurt. I watched those leaders' responses in astonishment -- they were hesitating, hedging, and continuing to rely on the words "in context." I seriously doubt that David Duke and a group of Klansmen or Nazi types would be allowed to gather at any of those schools to speak--wouldn't matter if they "did anything" besides speak and carry signs or not. (As they shouldn't!)

This goes back to my point about the issue being about not the accuracy of the statements here — they were accurate — but whether the schools follow their own policies in other scenarios. I think David Duke and Nazi types should be allowed to chant (speech only) whatever they want.

PP here. Must admit I have really mixed feelings about the bolded. I don't like giving extremists the opportunity to share their heinous views but also understand about free speech.

I assume you meant to bold the final sentence. I have old school values. I despise the whole “speech is violence” mindset that progressives seem to like. And for illustration I’m Black and would walk past the David Duke rally, or maybe go to a counterprotest, or maybe roll my eyes, or maybe laugh. And then I’d go do my homework. I would not ask the university to save me from the mean speech. But if those guys followed me to my dorm, or blocked me in a library, then that would cross the line into harassment and I would expect the university to shut it down. The issue is that these schools don’t follow their own rules consistently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pathetic on the part of the university presidents. It is hard to believe that the words uttered by some of these protesters do not violate the universities' policies WRT intimidation and bullying.
Their responses sounded like they spent too much time consulting with university legal counsel instead of using common sense and truth.

Even those on the left agree:

QThis is so misleading, nobody supports the words “genocide of Jews”, Stefanik ‘s actual question was that Intifada and River to the Sea translates to genocide of Jews and that’s an incorrect interpretation. Stefanik as always is vile and despicable.

Uh, yes they do. It’s called Hamas and it calls for the killing of Jews as part of its
Charter. And this is the group that Israel is trying to protect itself from and that all of the anti-Israel crew are cheering for. Stop the gaslighting.

That poster obviously meant that no one *on their campuses* had been chanting with those words. And don’t start with intifada or river-to-the-sea. The hypo used the words “genocide of Jews” on purpose to make it as outrageous as possible.

Yeah, I’ll start with the facts that from the river to the sea is about annihilating Isreal and is absolutely about eradicating Jews from the region. Something that groups in the region have tried for decades - predating Israel by centuries. Jews are indigenous to that region.

so stop gaslighting. We all know what these anti-Israel chants are about. The dog whistles. We get it. Never thought in million years I’d agree with Elise Stefanik on anything ever. But on this, I do.

I’m not gaslighting you. Did you know that Netanyahu’s party platform called for Israeli sovereignty from the river to the sea. Do you feel the same way about that? If not, why not?

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party

Stop putting words in your opponent’s mouths. I’m not even pro-Palestine. I just like free speech am sick of all the double standards. When I say it, it has a reasonable interpretation! When you say it, it has only the worst interpretation I can think of!

From the river to the sea is an anti-Israeli / Jewish mantra. Stop. With. The gaslighting,

You seem to think invoking the word “gaslighting” is making an argument or answering reasonable questions. It’s not. And your failure to engage with my questions speaks volumes about your own good faith in dealing with people who disagree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pathetic on the part of the university presidents. It is hard to believe that the words uttered by some of these protesters do not violate the universities' policies WRT intimidation and bullying.
Their responses sounded like they spent too much time consulting with university legal counsel instead of using common sense and truth.

Even those on the left agree:

QThis is so misleading, nobody supports the words “genocide of Jews”, Stefanik ‘s actual question was that Intifada and River to the Sea translates to genocide of Jews and that’s an incorrect interpretation. Stefanik as always is vile and despicable.

Uh, yes they do. It’s called Hamas and it calls for the killing of Jews as part of its
Charter. And this is the group that Israel is trying to protect itself from and that all of the anti-Israel crew are cheering for. Stop the gaslighting.

That poster obviously meant that no one *on their campuses* had been chanting with those words. And don’t start with intifada or river-to-the-sea. The hypo used the words “genocide of Jews” on purpose to make it as outrageous as possible.

Yeah, I’ll start with the facts that from the river to the sea is about annihilating Isreal and is absolutely about eradicating Jews from the region. Something that groups in the region have tried for decades - predating Israel by centuries. Jews are indigenous to that region.

so stop gaslighting. We all know what these anti-Israel chants are about. The dog whistles. We get it. Never thought in million years I’d agree with Elise Stefanik on anything ever. But on this, I do.

I’m not gaslighting you. Did you know that Netanyahu’s party platform called for Israeli sovereignty from the river to the sea. Do you feel the same way about that? If not, why not?

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party

Stop putting words in your opponent’s mouths. I’m not even pro-Palestine. I just like free speech am sick of all the double standards. When I say it, it has a reasonable interpretation! When you say it, it has only the worst interpretation I can think of!

From the river to the sea is an anti-Israeli / Jewish mantra. Stop. With. The gaslighting,

Does “stop gaslighting” here mean “stop disagreeing with me”? It seems like that’s how you’re using it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like all three presidents are being fired. Good riddance.

+1
Elise Stefanik was most impressive. Her fury was palpable and she spoke for many of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

As soon as you answer the question you lose. This is a joke. I hope she stays on. This is not Israel where people are arrested and thrown in prison.

Many of us prefer a leader who has the intelligence and integrity to answer a question sincerely and candidly without hedging, dodging, and sounding like an attorney. It seems as if you prefer someone who is not honest.

She answered the question honestly and correctly and your problem is that she sounded “like an attorney.” Oh no! She’s not your therapist.

You missed the point. We don't need a therapist at a congressional hearing; we need supposed leaders to answer questions without hedging. The "in context" excuse was beyond lame.

It wasn’t a hedge. It was “depends on context” — and then an explanation of conduct vs only speech. I’m sorry your feelings were hurt. Everyone wants their stupid safe space. I’d rather the Ivy League stopped policing student’s speech on all side.

This isn't about "hurt feelings." You're the one saying those words. I'm not Jewish, and my feelings are not at all hurt. I watched those leaders' responses in astonishment -- they were hesitating, hedging, and continuing to rely on the words "in context." I seriously doubt that David Duke and a group of Klansmen or Nazi types would be allowed to gather at any of those schools to speak--wouldn't matter if they "did anything" besides speak and carry signs or not. (As they shouldn't!)

This goes back to my point about the issue being about not the accuracy of the statements here — they were accurate — but whether the schools follow their own policies in other scenarios. I think David Duke and Nazi types should be allowed to chant (speech only) whatever they want.

PP here. Must admit I have really mixed feelings about the bolded. I don't like giving extremists the opportunity to share their heinous views but also understand about free speech.

I assume you meant to bold the final sentence. I have old school values. I despise the whole “speech is violence” mindset that progressives seem to like. And for illustration I’m Black and would walk past the David Duke rally, or maybe go to a counterprotest, or maybe roll my eyes, or maybe laugh. And then I’d go do my homework. I would not ask the university to save me from the mean speech. But if those guys followed me to my dorm, or blocked me in a library, then that would cross the line into harassment and I would expect the university to shut it down. The issue is that these schools don’t follow their own rules consistently.

PP here. Yes, I did mean to bold that last sentence and really appreciate your sharing your thoughts and how you would respond to that type of rally. For reference, I'm an older DCUM poster, white, southern female who's worked in public schools for years and hate the thought of a David Duke type getting to speak but also get what you're saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

As soon as you answer the question you lose. This is a joke. I hope she stays on. This is not Israel where people are arrested and thrown in prison.

Many of us prefer a leader who has the intelligence and integrity to answer a question sincerely and candidly without hedging, dodging, and sounding like an attorney. It seems as if you prefer someone who is not honest.

She answered the question honestly and correctly and your problem is that she sounded “like an attorney.” Oh no! She’s not your therapist.

You missed the point. We don't need a therapist at a congressional hearing; we need supposed leaders to answer questions without hedging. The "in context" excuse was beyond lame.

It wasn’t a hedge. It was “depends on context” — and then an explanation of conduct vs only speech. I’m sorry your feelings were hurt. Everyone wants their stupid safe space. I’d rather the Ivy League stopped policing student’s speech on all side.

This isn't about "hurt feelings." You're the one saying those words. I'm not Jewish, and my feelings are not at all hurt. I watched those leaders' responses in astonishment -- they were hesitating, hedging, and continuing to rely on the words "in context." I seriously doubt that David Duke and a group of Klansmen or Nazi types would be allowed to gather at any of those schools to speak--wouldn't matter if they "did anything" besides speak and carry signs or not. (As they shouldn't!)

This goes back to my point about the issue being about not the accuracy of the statements here — they were accurate — but whether the schools follow their own policies in other scenarios. I think David Duke and Nazi types should be allowed to chant (speech only) whatever they want.

PP here. Must admit I have really mixed feelings about the bolded. I don't like giving extremists the opportunity to share their heinous views but also understand about free speech.

I assume you meant to bold the final sentence. I have old school values. I despise the whole “speech is violence” mindset that progressives seem to like. And for illustration I’m Black and would walk past the David Duke rally, or maybe go to a counterprotest, or maybe roll my eyes, or maybe laugh. And then I’d go do my homework. I would not ask the university to save me from the mean speech. But if those guys followed me to my dorm, or blocked me in a library, then that would cross the line into harassment and I would expect the university to shut it down. The issue is that these schools don’t follow their own rules consistently.

PP here. Yes, I did mean to bold that last sentence and really appreciate your sharing your thoughts and how you would respond to that type of rally. For reference, I'm an older DCUM poster, white, southern female who's worked in public schools for years and hate the thought of a David Duke type getting to speak but also get what you're saying.

I hear you. Thanks for chatting and good night!

[Anonymous]

Elise Stefanik writes an excellent piece in today's WSJ. Gifted link.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvard-bans-cisheterosexism-but-shrugs-at-antisemitism-95a2c5d7?st=v14yishmp5mvppu&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

As soon as you answer the question you lose. This is a joke. I hope she stays on. This is not Israel where people are arrested and thrown in prison.

Many of us prefer a leader who has the intelligence and integrity to answer a question sincerely and candidly without hedging, dodging, and sounding like an attorney. It seems as if you prefer someone who is not honest.

She answered the question honestly and correctly and your problem is that she sounded “like an attorney.” Oh no! She’s not your therapist.

You missed the point. We don't need a therapist at a congressional hearing; we need supposed leaders to answer questions without hedging. The "in context" excuse was beyond lame.

It wasn’t a hedge. It was “depends on context” — and then an explanation of conduct vs only speech. I’m sorry your feelings were hurt. Everyone wants their stupid safe space. I’d rather the Ivy League stopped policing student’s speech on all side.

This isn't about "hurt feelings." You're the one saying those words. I'm not Jewish, and my feelings are not at all hurt. I watched those leaders' responses in astonishment -- they were hesitating, hedging, and continuing to rely on the words "in context." I seriously doubt that David Duke and a group of Klansmen or Nazi types would be allowed to gather at any of those schools to speak--wouldn't matter if they "did anything" besides speak and carry signs or not. (As they shouldn't!)

This goes back to my point about the issue being about not the accuracy of the statements here — they were accurate — but whether the schools follow their own policies in other scenarios. I think David Duke and Nazi types should be allowed to chant (speech only) whatever they want.

PP here. Must admit I have really mixed feelings about the bolded. I don't like giving extremists the opportunity to share their heinous views but also understand about free speech.

I assume you meant to bold the final sentence. I have old school values. I despise the whole “speech is violence” mindset that progressives seem to like. And for illustration I’m Black and would walk past the David Duke rally, or maybe go to a counterprotest, or maybe roll my eyes, or maybe laugh. And then I’d go do my homework. I would not ask the university to save me from the mean speech. But if those guys followed me to my dorm, or blocked me in a library, then that would cross the line into harassment and I would expect the university to shut it down. The issue is that these schools don’t follow their own rules consistently.

PP here. Yes, I did mean to bold that last sentence and really appreciate your sharing your thoughts and how you would respond to that type of rally. For reference, I'm an older DCUM poster, white, southern female who's worked in public schools for years and hate the thought of a David Duke type getting to speak but also get what you're saying.

I hear you. Thanks for chatting and good night!

Thanks! Take care.