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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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-family-stops-donations-penn-university-antisemitism-israel-response-2023-10

https://www.businessinsider.com/wexner-foundation-pulls-funding-from-harvard-over-stance-israel-hamas-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 generally don’t like the stifling of speech based on any type of moral absolutism. I reject hate speech. I also reject the premise that people somehow can’t discuss “both sides” in the Palestinian-Israel issue, or that they become pariahs if they do openly voice concerns about how both sides act.

The rave kidnapping of Israelis was horrendous, but so is walling off people in ghettos, incrementally setting up new settlements through stolen land annexation, and now forcing 1M Palestinians to somehow relocate south in Gaza and to live in even more cramped, squalid conditions. You think they’ll ever be allowed back? No. The plan is to take that land, too.

If people somehow can’t even discuss these issues and concerns without being shouted down, IN AMERICA, the land of free speech, then I don’t know what to say. That’s pretty fked up.

These donors are free to pull their money, but really no one should be scared to just point out their observations in public.

Also, as an American I am concerned about us being drawn into a wider conflict. So I’m sorry if you can’t fking handle my concerns, but as shown in major news outlets the world is taking sides and it’s getting scary. Russia and China are exploiting this conflict now to curry favor in the Middle East. Israel needs to get its hostages, but also show restraint in Gaza. Shout at me all you want. I don’t fking care.

Funny how bOtH sIdEs is all the rage now that democrats and progressives are having to deal in nuance.

Funny how you are in AMERICA, where we did exactly those bolded things to the native population, and still think you have a leg to stand on to criticize another country doing the same thing.

To be fair, there was more space per capita on the reservations. NOT a valid comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a Penn alum I’m disgusted by Liz Magill’s statements and kissing some billionaire’s butt. She has no spine. She needs to leave or get back to educating. I’m so sick of rich white men telling is what we can or cannot think.

And as a Penn alum I am disgusted Penn leadership allowed the Palestinian writers conference the platform to spread hatred. What does Pink Floyd have to do with the celebration of Palestinian culture? Spread your hate off campus. The backlash is warranted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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-family-stops-donations-penn-university-antisemitism-israel-response-2023-10

https://www.businessinsider.com/wexner-foundation-pulls-funding-from-harvard-over-stance-israel-hamas-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 generally don’t like the stifling of speech based on any type of moral absolutism. I reject hate speech. I also reject the premise that people somehow can’t discuss “both sides” in the Palestinian-Israel issue, or that they become pariahs if they do openly voice concerns about how both sides act.

The rave kidnapping of Israelis was horrendous, but so is walling off people in ghettos, incrementally setting up new settlements through stolen land annexation, and now forcing 1M Palestinians to somehow relocate south in Gaza and to live in even more cramped, squalid conditions. You think they’ll ever be allowed back? No. The plan is to take that land, too.

If people somehow can’t even discuss these issues and concerns without being shouted down, IN AMERICA, the land of free speech, then I don’t know what to say. That’s pretty fked up.

These donors are free to pull their money, but really no one should be scared to just point out their observations in public.

Also, as an American I am concerned about us being drawn into a wider conflict. So I’m sorry if you can’t fking handle my concerns, but as shown in major news outlets the world is taking sides and it’s getting scary. Russia and China are exploiting this conflict now to curry favor in the Middle East. Israel needs to get its hostages, but also show restraint in Gaza. Shout at me all you want. I don’t fking care.

Funny how bOtH sIdEs is all the rage now that democrats and progressives are having to deal in nuance.

Funny how you are in AMERICA, where we did exactly those bolded things to the native population, and still think you have a leg to stand on to criticize another country doing the same thing.

To be fair, there was more space per capita on the reservations. NOT a valid comparison.

Part of the reason there is more space per capita here is because our American ancestors MURDERED many of the Natives. Either through disease or with guns or through death marches (ever heard of the Trail of Tears? If they slowed down, they were shot dead. If they stopped for a while, they were shot dead.)

Point is, the biggest difference is that social media didn't exist so no one could quickly find out this information and protest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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-family-stops-donations-penn-university-antisemitism-israel-response-2023-10

https://www.businessinsider.com/wexner-foundation-pulls-funding-from-harvard-over-stance-israel-hamas-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 generally don’t like the stifling of speech based on any type of moral absolutism. I reject hate speech. I also reject the premise that people somehow can’t discuss “both sides” in the Palestinian-Israel issue, or that they become pariahs if they do openly voice concerns about how both sides act.

The rave kidnapping of Israelis was horrendous, but so is walling off people in ghettos, incrementally setting up new settlements through stolen land annexation, and now forcing 1M Palestinians to somehow relocate south in Gaza and to live in even more cramped, squalid conditions. You think they’ll ever be allowed back? No. The plan is to take that land, too.

If people somehow can’t even discuss these issues and concerns without being shouted down, IN AMERICA, the land of free speech, then I don’t know what to say. That’s pretty fked up.

These donors are free to pull their money, but really no one should be scared to just point out their observations in public.

Also, as an American I am concerned about us being drawn into a wider conflict. So I’m sorry if you can’t fking handle my concerns, but as shown in major news outlets the world is taking sides and it’s getting scary. Russia and China are exploiting this conflict now to curry favor in the Middle East. Israel needs to get its hostages, but also show restraint in Gaza. Shout at me all you want. I don’t fking care.

Funny how bOtH sIdEs is all the rage now that democrats and progressives are having to deal in nuance.

Funny how you are in AMERICA, where we did exactly those bolded things to the native population, and still think you have a leg to stand on to criticize another country doing the same thing.

To be fair, there was more space per capita on the reservations. NOT a valid comparison.

Part of the reason there is more space per capita here is because our American ancestors MURDERED many of the Natives. Either through disease or with guns or through death marches (ever heard of the Trail of Tears? If they slowed down, they were shot dead. If they stopped for a while, they were shot dead.)

Point is, the biggest difference is that social media didn't exist so no one could quickly find out this information and protest.

PP, I was just being sarcastic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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-family-stops-donations-penn-university-antisemitism-israel-response-2023-10

https://www.businessinsider.com/wexner-foundation-pulls-funding-from-harvard-over-stance-israel-hamas-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 generally don’t like the stifling of speech based on any type of moral absolutism. I reject hate speech. I also reject the premise that people somehow can’t discuss “both sides” in the Palestinian-Israel issue, or that they become pariahs if they do openly voice concerns about how both sides act.

The rave kidnapping of Israelis was horrendous, but so is walling off people in ghettos, incrementally setting up new settlements through stolen land annexation, and now forcing 1M Palestinians to somehow relocate south in Gaza and to live in even more cramped, squalid conditions. You think they’ll ever be allowed back? No. The plan is to take that land, too.

If people somehow can’t even discuss these issues and concerns without being shouted down, IN AMERICA, the land of free speech, then I don’t know what to say. That’s pretty fked up.

These donors are free to pull their money, but really no one should be scared to just point out their observations in public.

Also, as an American I am concerned about us being drawn into a wider conflict. So I’m sorry if you can’t fking handle my concerns, but as shown in major news outlets the world is taking sides and it’s getting scary. Russia and China are exploiting this conflict now to curry favor in the Middle East. Israel needs to get its hostages, but also show restraint in Gaza. Shout at me all you want. I don’t fking care.

Funny how bOtH sIdEs is all the rage now that democrats and progressives are having to deal in nuance.

Funny how you are in AMERICA, where we did exactly those bolded things to the native population, and still think you have a leg to stand on to criticize another country doing the same thing.

To be fair, there was more space per capita on the reservations. NOT a valid comparison.

Part of the reason there is more space per capita here is because our American ancestors MURDERED many of the Natives. Either through disease or with guns or through death marches (ever heard of the Trail of Tears? If they slowed down, they were shot dead. If they stopped for a while, they were shot dead.)

Point is, the biggest difference is that social media didn't exist so no one could quickly find out this information and protest.

PP, I was just being sarcastic.

Oh, thanks for explaining. It's hard to tell in writing. I guess we need a sarcasm emoji, lol.

[Anonymous]

Can people not be against war anymore?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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-family-stops-donations-penn-university-antisemitism-israel-response-2023-10

https://www.businessinsider.com/wexner-foundation-pulls-funding-from-harvard-over-stance-israel-hamas-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 generally don’t like the stifling of speech based on any type of moral absolutism. I reject hate speech. I also reject the premise that people somehow can’t discuss “both sides” in the Palestinian-Israel issue, or that they become pariahs if they do openly voice concerns about how both sides act.

The rave kidnapping of Israelis was horrendous, but so is walling off people in ghettos, incrementally setting up new settlements through stolen land annexation, and now forcing 1M Palestinians to somehow relocate south in Gaza and to live in even more cramped, squalid conditions. You think they’ll ever be allowed back? No. The plan is to take that land, too.

If people somehow can’t even discuss these issues and concerns without being shouted down, IN AMERICA, the land of free speech, then I don’t know what to say. That’s pretty fked up.

These donors are free to pull their money, but really no one should be scared to just point out their observations in public.

Also, as an American I am concerned about us being drawn into a wider conflict. So I’m sorry if you can’t fking handle my concerns, but as shown in major news outlets the world is taking sides and it’s getting scary. Russia and China are exploiting this conflict now to curry favor in the Middle East. Israel needs to get its hostages, but also show restraint in Gaza. Shout at me all you want. I don’t fking care.

Funny how bOtH sIdEs is all the rage now that democrats and progressives are having to deal in nuance.

Funny how you are in AMERICA, where we did exactly those bolded things to the native population, and still think you have a leg to stand on to criticize another country doing the same thing.

To be fair, there was more space per capita on the reservations. NOT a valid comparison.

Part of the reason there is more space per capita here is because our American ancestors MURDERED many of the Natives. Either through disease or with guns or through death marches (ever heard of the Trail of Tears? If they slowed down, they were shot dead. If they stopped for a while, they were shot dead.)

Point is, the biggest difference is that social media didn't exist so no one could quickly find out this information and protest.

Actually the biggest difference here is that the situations are nothing at all alike.

Leave the Native community out of this.

Signed, someone who actually has a right to speak on Native issues

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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-family-stops-donations-penn-university-antisemitism-israel-response-2023-10

https://www.businessinsider.com/wexner-foundation-pulls-funding-from-harvard-over-stance-israel-hamas-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 generally don’t like the stifling of speech based on any type of moral absolutism. I reject hate speech. I also reject the premise that people somehow can’t discuss “both sides” in the Palestinian-Israel issue, or that they become pariahs if they do openly voice concerns about how both sides act.

The rave kidnapping of Israelis was horrendous, but so is walling off people in ghettos, incrementally setting up new settlements through stolen land annexation, and now forcing 1M Palestinians to somehow relocate south in Gaza and to live in even more cramped, squalid conditions. You think they’ll ever be allowed back? No. The plan is to take that land, too.

If people somehow can’t even discuss these issues and concerns without being shouted down, IN AMERICA, the land of free speech, then I don’t know what to say. That’s pretty fked up.

These donors are free to pull their money, but really no one should be scared to just point out their observations in public.

Also, as an American I am concerned about us being drawn into a wider conflict. So I’m sorry if you can’t fking handle my concerns, but as shown in major news outlets the world is taking sides and it’s getting scary. Russia and China are exploiting this conflict now to curry favor in the Middle East. Israel needs to get its hostages, but also show restraint in Gaza. Shout at me all you want. I don’t fking care.

Funny how bOtH sIdEs is all the rage now that democrats and progressives are having to deal in nuance.

Funny how you are in AMERICA, where we did exactly those bolded things to the native population, and still think you have a leg to stand on to criticize another country doing the same thing.

To be fair, there was more space per capita on the reservations. NOT a valid comparison.

Part of the reason there is more space per capita here is because our American ancestors MURDERED many of the Natives. Either through disease or with guns or through death marches (ever heard of the Trail of Tears? If they slowed down, they were shot dead. If they stopped for a while, they were shot dead.)

Point is, the biggest difference is that social media didn't exist so no one could quickly find out this information and protest.

Actually the biggest difference here is that the situations are nothing at all alike.

Leave the Native community out of this.

Signed, someone who actually has a right to speak on Native issues

Where is this right enshrined and how can I get in on the action?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sept 26, message from U Penn president

https://almanac.upenn.edu/articles/from-the-president-provost-and-senior-leaders-a-message-to-the-penn-community

She wants the campus to guard against anti semitism
all while the campus is hosting the Palestinian writers group.

Unless you have specific concerns about this specific “Palestinian writers group”, this sounds like a healthy reminder that being Palestinian doesn’t equal supporting Hamas — just as being Israeli doesn’t equal supporting Netanyahu. And just as being American doesn’t equal being a MAGA Trump supporter. So many people seem to confuse these things, even as they overlook the backlash and criticism that Netanyahu has been getting from even conservative Israelis.


A broad question here is : What is a University supposed to be — and how can educational communities keep their communities safe in the process?

Yes, but many, if not most, in the writers group are anti semitic. You can check their bios online.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a Penn alum I’m disgusted by Liz Magill’s statements and kissing some billionaire’s butt. She has no spine. She needs to leave or get back to educating. I’m so sick of rich white men telling is what we can or cannot think.

Here, it’s rich white men correctly pointing out that Penn fell short.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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-family-stops-donations-penn-university-antisemitism-israel-response-2023-10

https://www.businessinsider.com/wexner-foundation-pulls-funding-from-harvard-over-stance-israel-hamas-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 generally don’t like the stifling of speech based on any type of moral absolutism. I reject hate speech. I also reject the premise that people somehow can’t discuss “both sides” in the Palestinian-Israel issue, or that they become pariahs if they do openly voice concerns about how both sides act.

The rave kidnapping of Israelis was horrendous, but so is walling off people in ghettos, incrementally setting up new settlements through stolen land annexation, and now forcing 1M Palestinians to somehow relocate south in Gaza and to live in even more cramped, squalid conditions. You think they’ll ever be allowed back? No. The plan is to take that land, too.

If people somehow can’t even discuss these issues and concerns without being shouted down, IN AMERICA, the land of free speech, then I don’t know what to say. That’s pretty fked up.

These donors are free to pull their money, but really no one should be scared to just point out their observations in public.

Also, as an American I am concerned about us being drawn into a wider conflict. So I’m sorry if you can’t fking handle my concerns, but as shown in major news outlets the world is taking sides and it’s getting scary. Russia and China are exploiting this conflict now to curry favor in the Middle East. Israel needs to get its hostages, but also show restraint in Gaza. Shout at me all you want. I don’t fking care.

Funny how bOtH sIdEs is all the rage now that democrats and progressives are having to deal in nuance.

Funny how you are in AMERICA, where we did exactly those bolded things to the native population, and still think you have a leg to stand on to criticize another country doing the same thing.

To be fair, there was more space per capita on the reservations. NOT a valid comparison.

Part of the reason there is more space per capita here is because our American ancestors MURDERED many of the Natives. Either through disease or with guns or through death marches (ever heard of the Trail of Tears? If they slowed down, they were shot dead. If they stopped for a while, they were shot dead.)

Point is, the biggest difference is that social media didn't exist so no one could quickly find out this information and protest.

Actually the biggest difference here is that the situations are nothing at all alike.

Leave the Native community out of this.

Signed, someone who actually has a right to speak on Native issues

Where is this right enshrined and how
can I get in on the action?

Visit a rez. Ask around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a Penn alum I’m disgusted by Liz Magill’s statements and kissing some billionaire’s butt. She has no spine. She needs to leave or get back to educating. I’m so sick of rich white men telling is what we can or cannot think.

+1. I will at least give Penn credit for not firing Magill and Bok because some loud donors demanded it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t these “wealthy” donors just recruit in Israel? Why are they even in the US? If they really feel so strongly about just hiring Jews and supporting Israel why are they not in Israel?

But I thought Jews weren’t supposed to be in Israel, colonizing and genociding and all. Where exactly would you like us to be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sept 26, message from U Penn president

https://almanac.upenn.edu/articles/from-the-president-provost-and-senior-leaders-a-message-to-the-penn-community

She wants the campus to guard against anti semitism
all while the campus is hosting the Palestinian writers group.

Unless you have specific concerns about this specific “Palestinian writers group”, this sounds like a healthy reminder that being Palestinian doesn’t equal supporting Hamas — just as being Israeli doesn’t equal supporting Netanyahu. And just as being American doesn’t equal being a MAGA Trump supporter. So many people seem to confuse these things, even as they overlook the backlash and criticism that Netanyahu has been getting from even conservative Israelis.


A broad question here is : What is a University supposed to be — and how can educational communities keep their communities safe in the process?

Yes, but many, if not most, in the writers group are anti semitic. You can check their bios online.

+1 again explain how pink flyod has any connection to Palestinian culture?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a Penn alum I’m disgusted by Liz Magill’s statements and kissing some billionaire’s butt. She has no spine. She needs to leave or get back to educating. I’m so sick of rich white men telling is what we can or cannot think.

+1. I will at least give Penn credit for not firing Magill and Bok because some loud donors demanded it.

Oh it’s not over yet