Stefanik Ivy Presidentd

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yeah, it would be a bad look for Harvard to get rid of her so quickly after they made such a big deal of her ascent to the Presidency.

[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.

The smirks show that it was their actual thoughts.

[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"

Magill screwed up earlier with that Hamas-fest, I mean Palestinian Writers festival.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, but I still hope she will be fired

[Anonymous]

Watch her testimony on youtube. Her arrogance and smirks really are expressed during her testimony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Former President Magill is a lawyer. She was Dean of the Law School at Stanford. She was also a law professor at Stanford.

Her smirking and cockiness was her downfall. Her downfall started when Penn hosted the Palestine (Hamas) writers festival and President Magill was dismissive of Jewish concerns.

She has plenty of time to think about it while teaching 1L's legal writing now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Former President Magill is a lawyer. She was Dean of the Law School at Stanford. She was also a law professor at Stanford.

Her smirking and cockiness was her downfall. Her downfall started when Penn hosted the Palestine (Hamas) writers festival and President Magill was dismissive of Jewish concerns.

She has plenty of time to think about it while teaching 1L's legal writing now.

Oh plenty of people will think about this. A woman who has no history of antisemitism was run out of town by the Jews calling her antisemitic. There will be backlash.
I bet every Muslim, black and other religion will be targeted by the new pro Israel president. Wonder what percentage increase in Jewish admissions will be dictated to the new president?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Former President Magill is a lawyer. She was Dean of the Law School at Stanford. She was also a law professor at Stanford.

Her smirking and cockiness was her downfall. Her downfall started when Penn hosted the Palestine (Hamas) writers festival and President Magill was dismissive of Jewish concerns.

She has plenty of time to think about it while teaching 1L's legal writing now.

Oh plenty of people will think about this. A woman who has no history of antisemitism was run out of town by the Jews calling her antisemitic. There will be backlash.
I bet every Muslim, black and other religion will be targeted by the new pro Israel president. Wonder what percentage increase in Jewish admissions will be dictated to the new president?

Sounding like a raving maniac does you no favors.

[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: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.

Former President Magill is a lawyer. She was Dean of the Law School at Stanford. She was also a law professor at Stanford.

Her smirking and cockiness was her downfall. Her downfall started when Penn hosted the Palestine (Hamas) writers festival and President Magill was dismissive of Jewish concerns.

She has plenty of time to think about it while teaching 1L's legal writing now.

Oh plenty of people will think about this. A woman who has no history of antisemitism was run out of town by the Jews calling her antisemitic. There will be backlash.
I bet every Muslim, black and other religion will be targeted by the new pro Israel president. Wonder what percentage increase in Jewish admissions will be dictated to the new president?

Sounding like a raving maniac does you no favors.

DP. Maybe, but PP does not sound like a lunatic. This was a witch hunt. The only person who sounds like a lunatic is the poster who keeps insisting she's antisemitic because she made a smirk.

[Anonymous]

Magill was fired because a subset of wealthy pro-Israel donors demanded that she abandon the tenets of academic freedom and she didn’t comply. The same thing may happen to Gay and Kornbluth. This is an especially dark time in our country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Magill was fired because a subset of wealthy pro-Israel donors demanded that she abandon the tenets of academic freedom and she didn’t comply. The same thing may happen to Gay and Kornbluth. This is an especially dark time in our country.

You might ask yourself why donors were upset with Magill.
Do cries for eradication of Jews fall under the umbrella of "academic freedom?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Possibly, but in Magill's case a donor threatened to redirect $100 million. Harvard and MIT don't have a similar high profile donor threatening the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Magill was fired because a subset of wealthy pro-Israel donors demanded that she abandon the tenets of academic freedom and she didn’t comply. The same thing may happen to Gay and Kornbluth. This is an especially dark time in our country.

In the era of safe spaces, trigger words, and microaggressions, the failure to denounce a call for genocide just doesn't compute with a lot of people. She needed to be stronger on denouncing any call for genocide while allowing a little wiggle room for freedom of speech. University presidents need to be ambassadors for the university. She failed at it.

[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: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.

Former President Magill is a lawyer. She was Dean of the Law School at Stanford. She was also a law professor at Stanford.

Her smirking and cockiness was her downfall. Her downfall started when Penn hosted the Palestine (Hamas) writers festival and President Magill was dismissive of Jewish concerns.

She has plenty of time to think about it while teaching 1L's legal writing now.

Oh plenty of people will think about this. A woman who has no history of antisemitism was run out of town by the Jews calling her antisemitic. There will be backlash.
I bet every Muslim, black and other religion will be targeted by the new pro Israel president. Wonder what percentage increase in Jewish admissions will be dictated to the new president?

Sounding like a raving maniac does you no favors.

DP. Maybe, but PP does not sound like a lunatic. This was a witch hunt. The only person who sounds like a lunatic is the poster who keeps insisting she's antisemitic because she made a smirk.

People have been fired from their jobs for making hand signs that sensitive souls inadvertently deemed racist. Magill and her ilk gave tacit if not direct imprimatur to such brewing madness. She can enjoy the fruits of her labors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Magill was fired because a subset of wealthy pro-Israel donors demanded that she abandon the tenets of academic freedom and she didn’t comply. The same thing may happen to Gay and Kornbluth. This is an especially dark time in our country.

In the era of safe spaces, trigger words, and microaggressions, the failure to denounce a call for genocide just doesn't compute with a lot of people. She needed to be stronger on denouncing any call for genocide while allowing a little wiggle room for freedom of speech. University presidents need to be ambassadors for the university. She failed at it.

+1 and she acted quite smug and arrogant in the process.