Stefanik Ivy Presidentd

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Do you even realize this is exactly what Magill was saying? That on her campus students are not disciplined for speech but for actions.

That's a problem. Speech can very dangerous and may leads to horrific actions. Words truly can kill, and even the First Amendment (which applies to speech retribution from the government) recognizes that.

Yes and that is what she was saying when said “it depends on context”— that if the speech seemed like it would lead to action and would violate the first amendment then it would violate university policy

And i have seen no evidence that anything approaching that level occurred on campus, altho if it did that would obviously be horrifying and the students should be subject to discipline

DP. There is a 90-plus page federal lawsuit against Penn, alleging that Penn failed to protect the students against antisemitism. An award of punitive damages is requested.

[Anonymous]

After reading this entire thread, I just want to say my faith is starting to be restored in humanity. Aside from seemingly one or to people supporting those college presidents, the overwhelming majority agree that their testimony was problematic.
The pendulum is starting to swing back to normalcy. It was just a matter of time.

[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.

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.

You’re right that they are hypocrites. And unfortunately they’re not drawing the right lessons from the backlash to this testimony. What they should do is plead mea culpa and stop with their ridiculous policing of the cis-heterosexist speech (not conduct!) the same way they refused to police the anti-Semitic conduct. But they’re not going to fire their DEI army or admit they’ve taken ridiculous disciplinary actions against people for speech that was not in line with their own preferences. They’re not going to tell everyone to grow up and tolerate offensive speech even though they should. Instead they’ll just put pressure on pro-Palestinian activities to prove that they’re even-handed censors and call it a day. Ugh.

Yes. The correct answer here should be to allow students to do things like refuse to identify their pronouns, allow girls on campus to create single-sex groups/dorms that exclude male-sexed students, allow Palestinian-supporting students to protest and even invite noted bigots like Roger Waters to join video conferences, allow a 2A group to protest, etc. That should all be okay to do and not punishable by expulsion and public shaming. But that’s not what they’re going to do. They won’t disband their oppressive DEI police infrastructure, they won’t look critically at the quasi-religious demands of fealty to specific beliefs they’ve put into place, they won’t stop swiftly punishing any students who don’t sufficiently adopt and proselytize their new faith the minute they enter the university. They’ll kick out the kids who challenge.

I don’t think NYU should have kicked out the dumb 18-year-old caught tearing down flyers. I don’t think students who refuse to use compelled pronouns, especially those profoundly narcissistic neopronouns, should be kicked out or disciplined. I don’t think kids shouting “from the river to the sea” should be kicked out or disciplined. I don’t think white students who point out the very serious flaws in Kendi’s work should be kicked out or disciplined.

None of this should be happening on campuses, but it is. And it’s wrong. And the problem the presidents have is that they selectively enforce discipline based on their DEI religious tenets, and that’s finally being seen. Stefanik isn’t particularly astute but she just publicly uncovered their deep hypocrisy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

What is this world coming to that I can read an op-ed by Stefanik and agree with it? That is excellent. The world had gone topsy-turvy.

Actually, the question is what the world has come to that makes your post possible.

Not so long ago people who disagreed with each other still listened to each other and exchanged ideas, oftentimes finding areas of shared viewpoints. And while the exchange of ideas could get heated at times, the ultimate goal was finding common ground for the betterment of society and humanity.

Today, people largely view those who disagree with them or hold opposing viewpoints as the enemy and not even worth engaging in dialogue because such dialogue is dismissed as fruitless. The exchange of ideas has been replaced by a battle of domination of ideas fueled by social media and infested by hyperbolic rhetoric. We’re suffering greatly as a result.

The world hasn’t gone topsy-turvy because you agree with Stefanik. It’s the shock you express by the possibility of agreeing with Stefanik that sheds light on how topsy-turvy our nation has become.

Very well stated. Great post.

[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.

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.

You’re right that they are hypocrites. And unfortunately they’re not drawing the right lessons from the backlash to this testimony. What they should do is plead mea culpa and stop with their ridiculous policing of the cis-heterosexist speech (not conduct!) the same way they refused to police the anti-Semitic conduct. But they’re not going to fire their DEI army or admit they’ve taken ridiculous disciplinary actions against people for speech that was not in line with their own preferences. They’re not going to tell everyone to grow up and tolerate offensive speech even though they should. Instead they’ll just put pressure on pro-Palestinian activities to prove that they’re even-handed censors and call it a day. Ugh.

Do you even realize this is exactly what Magill was saying? That on her campus students are not disciplined for speech but for actions.

It’s really amazing to me how quickly the Rs can pivot from “students are snowflakes who have to hear opposing viewpoints” to “ivy league is anti-semitic because they refuse to act unless students are committing genocide”.

DP
So, you admit that she, and the others, are all hypocrites.
I see this as very different. I am all for free speech. What many of the protesters have been chanting and saying is a call to violence.....much like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

You are not for free speech. All the presidents of these universities are not antisemitic or even anti Israeli. There is nothing in their history, writings or speeches that can lead one to that conclusion. Yet they are being forced to resign because they are not sufficiently pro Israel enough. They are not actively seeking out people who disagree with your world view. It is disgusting. Stefanik is bigoted racist and needs to be removed.

No. They are being pushed out because they are hypocrites and the hypocrisy has finally been exposed and acknowledged.

+1 It's indeed hypocrisy that they try to cover with their intelligence, Ivy educations, and impressive credentials. But it's clearly there.

[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:

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.

You’re right that they are hypocrites. And unfortunately they’re not drawing the right lessons from the backlash to this testimony. What they should do is plead mea culpa and stop with their ridiculous policing of the cis-heterosexist speech (not conduct!) the same way they refused to police the anti-Semitic conduct. But they’re not going to fire their DEI army or admit they’ve taken ridiculous disciplinary actions against people for speech that was not in line with their own preferences. They’re not going to tell everyone to grow up and tolerate offensive speech even though they should. Instead they’ll just put pressure on pro-Palestinian activities to prove that they’re even-handed censors and call it a day. Ugh.

Do you even realize this is exactly what Magill was saying? That on her campus students are not disciplined for speech but for actions.

It’s really amazing to me how quickly the Rs can pivot from “students are snowflakes who have to hear opposing viewpoints” to “ivy league is anti-semitic because they refuse to act unless students are committing genocide”.

DP
So, you admit that she, and the others, are all hypocrites.
I see this as very different. I am all for free speech. What many of the protesters have been chanting and saying is a call to violence.....much like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

You are not for free speech. All the presidents of these universities are not antisemitic or even anti Israeli. There is nothing in their history, writings or speeches that can lead one to that conclusion. Yet they are being forced to resign because they are not sufficiently pro Israel enough. They are not actively seeking out people who disagree with your world view. It is disgusting. Stefanik is bigoted racist and needs to be removed.

No. They are being pushed out because they are hypocrites and the hypocrisy has finally been exposed and acknowledged.

+1 It's indeed hypocrisy that they try to cover with their intelligence, Ivy educations, and impressive credentials. But it's clearly there.

Dream on. They are being forced out so Palestinians, Muslims, blacks, etc can be put in their place by the same people who marched in Charlottesville. Only now they are not shouting Jews will not replace us(or whatever antisemitic nonsense) but everyone is antisemitic(when they are not). F’ed hypocrisy of these “activists”

[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:

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.

You’re right that they are hypocrites. And unfortunately they’re not drawing the right lessons from the backlash to this testimony. What they should do is plead mea culpa and stop with their ridiculous policing of the cis-heterosexist speech (not conduct!) the same way they refused to police the anti-Semitic conduct. But they’re not going to fire their DEI army or admit they’ve taken ridiculous disciplinary actions against people for speech that was not in line with their own preferences. They’re not going to tell everyone to grow up and tolerate offensive speech even though they should. Instead they’ll just put pressure on pro-Palestinian activities to prove that they’re even-handed censors and call it a day. Ugh.

Do you even realize this is exactly what Magill was saying? That on her campus students are not disciplined for speech but for actions.

It’s really amazing to me how quickly the Rs can pivot from “students are snowflakes who have to hear opposing viewpoints” to “ivy league is anti-semitic because they refuse to act unless students are committing genocide”.

DP
So, you admit that she, and the others, are all hypocrites.
I see this as very different. I am all for free speech. What many of the protesters have been chanting and saying is a call to violence.....much like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

You are not for free speech. All the presidents of these universities are not antisemitic or even anti Israeli. There is nothing in their history, writings or speeches that can lead one to that conclusion. Yet they are being forced to resign because they are not sufficiently pro Israel enough. They are not actively seeking out people who disagree with your world view. It is disgusting. Stefanik is bigoted racist and needs to be removed.

No. They are being pushed out because they are hypocrites and the hypocrisy has finally been exposed and acknowledged.

+1 It's indeed hypocrisy that they try to cover with their intelligence, Ivy educations, and impressive credentials. But it's clearly there.

Dream on. They are being forced out so Palestinians, Muslims, blacks, etc can be put in their place by the same people who marched in Charlottesville. Only now they are not shouting Jews will not replace us(or whatever antisemitic nonsense) but everyone is antisemitic(when they are not). F’ed hypocrisy of these “activists”

You are absolutely 100% delusional.

[Anonymous]

Jewish America needs to get control of these places and end the Jew quotas. Revenge is a dish….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jewish America needs to get control of these places and end the Jew quotas. Revenge is a dish….

There are no Jew quotas. Penn’s Jewish population has declined in recent years — but so has its white population. When I was an undergrad there, the school was about 30 or 40 percent Jewish, but it was also much whiter than it is now. It’s not an antisemitic conspiracy that has led to a decline in Jewish enrollment, it’s just math (if most Jewish students are white, and white students make up a declining share of the student body, the share of Jewish students will also decline).

[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.

I also think those horrible people should be allowed to chant what they want because that is part of free speech BUT we all know they would not be allowed. We all know if this was a race issue the universities would be treating it entirely differently. That is absolutely impossible to divorce from the context of the reaction to their comments unless they are directly saying their past policies were too reactionary and moving forward for all issues they will be handling racism / misgendering etc with the same hands off approach they have to speech impacting jewish students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

What is this world coming to that I can read an op-ed by Stefanik and agree with it? That is excellent. The world had gone topsy-turvy.

Actually, the question is what the world has come to that makes your post possible.

Not so long ago people who disagreed with each other still listened to each other and exchanged ideas, oftentimes finding areas of shared viewpoints. And while the exchange of ideas could get heated at times, the ultimate goal was finding common ground for the betterment of society and humanity.

Today, people largely view those who disagree with them or hold opposing viewpoints as the enemy and not even worth engaging in dialogue because such dialogue is dismissed as fruitless. The exchange of ideas has been replaced by a battle of domination of ideas fueled by social media and infested by hyperbolic rhetoric. We’re suffering greatly as a result.

The world hasn’t gone topsy-turvy because you agree with Stefanik. It’s the shock you express by the possibility of agreeing with Stefanik that sheds light on how topsy-turvy our nation has become.

I studied history, and I really have no idea about what magical time you are referring to. For most of our history, we have simply excluded most categories of people from the public discourse. Those who disobeyed and asserted themselves were often severely and violently punished.

I suppose it was easier for the white men to reach agreement when it was assumed that it was right for them to be making all the decisions for everyone. It’s a little harder when you start giving a say to people some of those white men still believe shouldn’t be talking at all.

I don’t like the way college discourse has gone because it is destroying rational thought across the board and turning everyone into victims, but the reckoning is long overdue. It’s going to need to catch fire everywhere, including the Libertys of the world, before it burns itself out and we can reach an appropriate equilibrium for a new age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After reading this entire thread, I just want to say my faith is starting to be restored in humanity. Aside from seemingly one or to people supporting those college presidents, the overwhelming majority agree that their testimony was problematic.
The pendulum is starting to swing back to normalcy. It was just a matter of time.

God, I hope you’re right. I really felt like we were living in the Twilight Zone for a while there. So glad people are finally speaking out about this lunacy.
NP

[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:

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.

You’re right that they are hypocrites. And unfortunately they’re not drawing the right lessons from the backlash to this testimony. What they should do is plead mea culpa and stop with their ridiculous policing of the cis-heterosexist speech (not conduct!) the same way they refused to police the anti-Semitic conduct. But they’re not going to fire their DEI army or admit they’ve taken ridiculous disciplinary actions against people for speech that was not in line with their own preferences. They’re not going to tell everyone to grow up and tolerate offensive speech even though they should. Instead they’ll just put pressure on pro-Palestinian activities to prove that they’re even-handed censors and call it a day. Ugh.

Do you even realize this is exactly what Magill was saying? That on her campus students are not disciplined for speech but for actions.

It’s really amazing to me how quickly the Rs can pivot from “students are snowflakes who have to hear opposing viewpoints” to “ivy league is anti-semitic because they refuse to act unless students are committing genocide”.

DP
So, you admit that she, and the others, are all hypocrites.
I see this as very different. I am all for free speech. What many of the protesters have been chanting and saying is a call to violence.....much like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

You are not for free speech. All the presidents of these universities are not antisemitic or even anti Israeli. There is nothing in their history, writings or speeches that can lead one to that conclusion. Yet they are being forced to resign because they are not sufficiently pro Israel enough. They are not actively seeking out people who disagree with your world view. It is disgusting. Stefanik is bigoted racist and needs to be removed.

No. They are being pushed out because they are hypocrites and the hypocrisy has finally been exposed and acknowledged.

+1 It's indeed hypocrisy that they try to cover with their intelligence, Ivy educations, and impressive credentials. But it's clearly there.

Dream on. They are being forced out so Palestinians, Muslims, blacks, etc can be put in their place by the same people who marched in Charlottesville. Only now they are not shouting Jews will not replace us(or whatever antisemitic nonsense) but everyone is antisemitic(when they are not). F’ed hypocrisy of these “activists”

You are absolutely 100% delusional.

+1000
Just the typical LWNJ mind at “work.”

[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.

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.

You’re right that they are hypocrites. And unfortunately they’re not drawing the right lessons from the backlash to this testimony. What they should do is plead mea culpa and stop with their ridiculous policing of the cis-heterosexist speech (not conduct!) the same way they refused to police the anti-Semitic conduct. But they’re not going to fire their DEI army or admit they’ve taken ridiculous disciplinary actions against people for speech that was not in line with their own preferences. They’re not going to tell everyone to grow up and tolerate offensive speech even though they should. Instead they’ll just put pressure on pro-Palestinian activities to prove that they’re even-handed censors and call it a day. Ugh.

Yes. The correct answer here should be to allow students to do things like refuse to identify their pronouns, allow girls on campus to create single-sex groups/dorms that exclude male-sexed students, allow Palestinian-supporting students to protest and even invite noted bigots like Roger Waters to join video conferences, allow a 2A group to protest, etc. That should all be okay to do and not punishable by expulsion and public shaming. But that’s not what they’re going to do. They won’t disband their oppressive DEI police infrastructure, they won’t look critically at the quasi-religious demands of fealty to specific beliefs they’ve put into place, they won’t stop swiftly punishing any students who don’t sufficiently adopt and proselytize their new faith the minute they enter the university. They’ll kick out the kids who challenge.

I don’t think NYU should have kicked out the dumb 18-year-old caught tearing down flyers. I don’t think students who refuse to use compelled pronouns, especially those profoundly narcissistic neopronouns, should be kicked out or disciplined. I don’t think kids shouting “from the river to the sea” should be kicked out or disciplined. I don’t think white students who point out the very serious flaws in Kendi’s work should be kicked out or disciplined.

None of this should be happening on campuses, but it is. And it’s wrong. And the problem the presidents have is that they selectively enforce discipline based on their DEI religious tenets, and that’s finally being seen. Stefanik isn’t particularly astute but she just publicly uncovered their deep hypocrisy.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After reading this entire thread, I just want to say my faith is starting to be restored in humanity. Aside from seemingly one or to people supporting those college presidents, the overwhelming majority agree that their testimony was problematic.
The pendulum is starting to swing back to normalcy. It was just a matter of time.

God, I hope you’re right. I really felt like we were living in the Twilight Zone for a while there. So glad people are finally speaking out about this lunacy.
NP

If you look at the scum homepage, the moderator of this site seems pretty aligned with their testimony.