Stefanik Ivy Presidentd

[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.

She couldn't hide her true feelings and views. We all saw the smirking and heard her hedging responses.

[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.

NP here. I'm neither wealthy nor Jewish, and I lost all respect for Ms. Magill as she responded to the questions. Glad she's gone.

[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.

Penn biggest donors are from Qatar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I rather suspect the opposite: the law firm prepped her with legally correct answers rather than politically astute or morally decent ones.

Typical corporate lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I rather suspect the opposite: the law firm prepped her with legally correct answers rather than politically astute or morally decent ones.

Typical corporate lawyers.

Yup, should have hired a real crisis communications or PR firm, not Wilmer. Their crisis people look more suited to corporate executives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I rather suspect the opposite: the law firm prepped her with legally correct answers rather than politically astute or morally decent ones.

Typical corporate lawyers.

No, I don’t think so. That law firm does all sorts of intense witness prep regularly. They prep witnesses facing much harder questioning than these three did and who perform much better. I suspect that it was the presidents who didn’t listen more than the advisers themselves.

But I suppose we will never know.

[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.

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

That's not a requirememt for her job, so it doesn't really matter. This was a witch hunt.

[Anonymous]

It might be time to start letting white males have top level jobs again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I rather suspect the opposite: the law firm prepped her with legally correct answers rather than politically astute or morally decent ones.

Typical corporate lawyers.

No, I don’t think so. That law firm does all sorts of intense witness prep regularly. They prep witnesses facing much harder questioning than these three did and who perform much better. I suspect that it was the presidents who didn’t listen more than the advisers themselves.

But I suppose we will never know.

She responded like a lawyer. I didn’t know she had lawyers prepping her, but it showed in her answers. All of them actually. They were working very hard to not answer the questions being asked. It was so messed up and disturbing. I’d prefer to think that it was the result of being prepped by lawyers than to think it was a reflection on their actual thoughts on the subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I rather suspect the opposite: the law firm prepped her with legally correct answers rather than politically astute or morally decent ones.

Typical corporate lawyers.

No, I don’t think so. That law firm does all sorts of intense witness prep regularly. They prep witnesses facing much harder questioning than these three did and who perform much better. I suspect that it was the presidents who didn’t listen more than the advisers themselves.

But I suppose we will never know.

The things a witness should say in a deposition is very different than what a school leader should say in a public setting.

They bobbed and weaved better than a boxer. They sounded like desperate politicians trying to avoid being pinned down. They f’ed up royally. I don’t see how any Jewish alumnae could ever donate to those schools again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I rather suspect the opposite: the law firm prepped her with legally correct answers rather than politically astute or morally decent ones.

Typical corporate lawyers.

No, I don’t think so. That law firm does all sorts of intense witness prep regularly. They prep witnesses facing much harder questioning than these three did and who perform much better. I suspect that it was the presidents who didn’t listen more than the advisers themselves.

But I suppose we will never know.

She responded like a lawyer. I didn’t know she had lawyers prepping her, but it showed in her answers. All of them actually. They were working very hard to not answer the questions being asked. It was so messed up and disturbing. I’d prefer to think that it was the result of being prepped by lawyers than to think it was a reflection on their actual thoughts on the subject.

You have to remember that they spend most of their time in an academic bubble and those are the constituencies they were probably most heavily weighing in constructing their answers. Sometimes you get lost in the sauce in those bubbles.

[Anonymous]

Im just curious as to why people are mostly talking about and going after Magill. What about the Harvard president? She also sidestepped the same questions and if I remember correctly, she also mentioned "conduct" and "context"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Im just curious as to why people are mostly talking about and going after Magill. What about the Harvard president? She also sidestepped the same questions and if I remember correctly, she also mentioned "conduct" and "context"

The donors turned on Magill.

[Anonymous]

University presidents are not populist demagogue politicians and they don’t expel or prosecute students for having stupid opinions. There are always some fringe left and fringe right students on campus and it’s normal for them to disagree and for other student groups to mock both extremes as lunatics. The universities absolutely should have zero tolerance for violence and threats but the way to combat stupid speech is to answer it with facts and reason and persuasion rather than with censorship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Im just curious as to why people are mostly talking about and going after Magill. What about the Harvard president? She also sidestepped the same questions and if I remember correctly, she also mentioned "conduct" and "context"

Different race.