Stefanik Ivy Presidentd

[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.

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.

should Kyle Kashuv had his H admission rescinded? Were you this gracious with the Covington kids? Brett Kavanaugh’s stupid teen boy diary scribblings?

[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.

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.

should Kyle Kashuv had his H admission rescinded? Were you this gracious with the Covington kids? Brett Kavanaugh’s stupid teen boy diary scribblings?

I’m the PP you are responding too. I don’t think Kyle K should have had his admission rescinded. I thought what happened with the Covington kids was appalling and wrong. I think anyone’s teenage diary should be off limits.

I don’t think kids tearing down posters should be kicked out. I don’t think kids who are protesting the war should be kicked out. But that also includes Zionist kids, who also shouldn’t be kicked out. I don’t think kids who who don’t believe men can become women should be kicked out. I don’t think Communists should be kicked out, or MAGA students. None of them should be kicked out.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

[Anonymous]

As a Penn Alum I am sad. This was a witch hunt on this woman and speaks volumes about the perpetrators. You may be rich but you have lost all respect.

[Anonymous]

It’s interesting that antisemitism is the line for folks. But other hate speech is ignored and even argued as protected by the first amendment!

[Anonymous]

If only they had said "Jews will not replace us", Trump would have come to their defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a Penn Alum I am sad. This was a witch hunt on this woman and speaks volumes about the perpetrators. You may be rich but you have lost all respect.

She was doing a bad job prior to her testimony. Why defend a failure?

[Anonymous]

Amy Wax for Penn President!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a Penn Alum I am sad. This was a witch hunt on this woman and speaks volumes about the perpetrators. You may be rich but you have lost all respect.

+1. Such a sad state of affairs. Classic McCarthyism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s interesting that antisemitism is the line for folks. But other hate speech is ignored and even argued as protected by the first amendment!

I don’t for a moment believe that this is about antisemitism or that the supporters of the backlash against certain universities care about Jews or Israel. The right has been attacking what they perceive as elitist Ivy League institutions for some time, and this situation has given them an opening to lash out at those institutions under the guise of caring about hate speech against Jews. I don’t remember them getting this riled up when synagogues have been attacked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s interesting that antisemitism is the line for folks. But other hate speech is ignored and even argued as protected by the first amendment!

I don’t for a moment believe that this is about antisemitism or that the supporters of the backlash against certain universities care about Jews or Israel. The right has been attacking what they perceive as elitist Ivy League institutions for some time, and this situation has given them an opening to lash out at those institutions under the guise of caring about hate speech against Jews. I don’t remember them getting this riled up when synagogues have been attacked.

Her testimony was a disaster and it was a disaster because she went in arrogant and unprepared. This is her own fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s interesting that antisemitism is the line for folks. But other hate speech is ignored and even argued as protected by the first amendment!

I don’t for a moment believe that this is about antisemitism or that the supporters of the backlash against certain universities care about Jews or Israel. The right has been attacking what they perceive as elitist Ivy League institutions for some time, and this situation has given them an opening to lash out at those institutions under the guise of caring about hate speech against Jews. I don’t remember them getting this riled up when synagogues have been attacked.

Her testimony was a disaster and it was a disaster because she went in arrogant and unprepared. This is her own fault.

+1. She might also not be especially bright or capable if she can’t prevent herself from getting dunked on in a Congressional hearing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s interesting that antisemitism is the line for folks. But other hate speech is ignored and even argued as protected by the first amendment!

I don’t for a moment believe that this is about antisemitism or that the supporters of the backlash against certain universities care about Jews or Israel. The right has been attacking what they perceive as elitist Ivy League institutions for some time, and this situation has given them an opening to lash out at those institutions under the guise of caring about hate speech against Jews. I don’t remember them getting this riled up when synagogues have been attacked.

Her testimony was a disaster and it was a disaster because she went in arrogant and unprepared. This is her own fault.

Actually the reports are that Penn paid a lot of money to WilmerHale to prep her so seems like it’s a lot their fault. Don’t recall Hill testimony that has gone worse— almost hard to believe she was prepped at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s interesting that antisemitism is the line for folks. But other hate speech is ignored and even argued as protected by the first amendment!

I don’t for a moment believe that this is about antisemitism or that the supporters of the backlash against certain universities care about Jews or Israel. The right has been attacking what they perceive as elitist Ivy League institutions for some time, and this situation has given them an opening to lash out at those institutions under the guise of caring about hate speech against Jews. I don’t remember them getting this riled up when synagogues have been attacked.

Her testimony was a disaster and it was a disaster because she went in arrogant and unprepared. This is her own fault.

Actually the reports are that Penn paid a lot of money to WilmerHale to prep her so seems like it’s a lot their fault. Don’t recall Hill testimony that has gone worse— almost hard to believe she was prepped at all.

Just because one pays a law firm doesn’t mean that one listens to the advice from that firm. I suspect they tried to advise and the president in her arrogance wouldn’t listen.

All of them stumbled on what should have been softballs. That’s arrogance, pure and simple.