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

[Anonymous]

Large organizations are extremely concerned and unhappy with the Hamas attacks. However, the psychotic defense minister and Netanyahu government and his backsliding on women’s rights, and now this plan to engage in total war on civilians in Gaza (1/2 of whom are children), is a really uncomfortable place for universities to be. Hence the two sides issue. If Netanyahu and his government wasn’t such an anathema, and the response had not been to try to indiscriminately bomb Gaza, these universities would be shutting these students down much more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:if universities had stayed politically neutral then you’d be right. but they dug themselves this hole by deciding that the university shoild take sides instead of being an institution that creates a space for all sides.

The cited stories state the opposite. Both Huntsman and Lexner WANT the universities to take a stand.

So I guess now you love Harvard and Penn for having the courage to do what you suggest.

[Anonymous]

I think universities run into the problem of needing to condemn stuff like this because their students (or just college students in general) make news celebrating terrorism and alumni look to the school administration to confirm that the students don't speak for the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Are you new here?

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

This must be satire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

JFC. Don't bother if all you have are word salads. The question was simple. Your answer is just an attempt to obfuscate and tells us all we need to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

so you don't care about the current issue in the middle east you are just using it to make a point or get back that universities (revealed by your "that is why we're now turning it around on them). This is just a game to you.

[Anonymous]

This is the culmination of a long running pressure campaign by mega-donors on universities to shut down pro-Palestine groups on campuses, remove professors, etc.

Schools have been pushing back hard on free speech grounds, but there’s a big coordinated effort with lots of money behind it. They’ve hired PR and public affairs companies to coordinate it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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


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

If you've been on DCUM for any time at all, you would be very familiar with that slogan.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

so you don't care about the current issue in the middle east you are just using it to make a point or get back that universities (revealed by your "that is why we're now turning it around on them). This is just a game to you.

Nice try. And thank you for proving the point that "silence is violence" doesn't apply when talking about Jewish people.

[Anonymous]

This will not end well. It will only strengthen convictions of those who are not allowed to speak and promote conspiracies about rich Jews controlling everything.

Just more and more of the apartheid state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Large organizations are extremely concerned and unhappy with the Hamas attacks. However, the psychotic defense minister and Netanyahu government and his backsliding on women’s rights, and now this plan to engage in total war on civilians in Gaza (1/2 of whom are children), is a really uncomfortable place for universities to be. Hence the two sides issue. If Netanyahu and his government wasn’t such an anathema, and the response had not been to try to indiscriminately bomb Gaza, these universities would be shutting these students down much more.

Your premises are fundamentally flawed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This will not end well. It will only strengthen convictions of those who are not allowed to speak and promote conspiracies about rich Jews controlling everything.

Just more and more of the apartheid state.

Well, you got the ball rolling there, chief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the culmination of a long running pressure campaign by mega-donors on universities to shut down pro-Palestine groups on campuses, remove professors, etc.

Schools have been pushing back hard on free speech grounds, but there’s a big coordinated effort with lots of money behind it. They’ve hired PR and public affairs companies to coordinate it.

Nope. It’s about people reasonably expecting schools to clearly comdemn the psychopathic Hamas terrorists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

JFC. Don't bother if all you have are word salads. The question was simple. Your answer is just an attempt to obfuscate and tells us all we need to know.

Thanks for stopping by.

[Anonymous]

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

If you've been on DCUM for any time at all, you would be very familiar with that slogan.
DP

I haven’t been, and I’m not. I found this site searching for DC history, and thought it might offer opportunities to interact with people that I otherwise might not. So I asked a question, and now have a better context for the articles that I read. Roll all you want — enjoy. (OP)