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:

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?

DP. The point is that NO ONE should be targeted, you moron. These (ex)presidents seem to think Jews being targeted is all just fun and games, no biggie.

They said nothing of the sort. You are exagerating and making it up.

Are you always this literal? The point is, they seemed utterly unconcerned about the hate speech targeting Jews. Just like you.

They did not. Hate speech targeting Israel for indiscriminately slaughtering civilians is not the same thing as hate speech targeting Jews, no matter how much you and your big money donor friends say otherwise.

OMG Magill was asked “is explicitly calling for genocide of the Jews constitutes harassment” to which Magill answered “Depends on the context”. She was not asked “does from the river to whatever” constitutes harassment, she was not asked “does a peaceful protest constitute harassment”, she was not asked a legal question. She should have answered with a simple yes, an explicit call for the genocide of the Jews is harassment .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Racist Chris Rufo now accusing Gay of plagiarizing in her phd thesis.

They said the same thing about MLK.

Racists going to racist.

Um... MLK *was* found to have plagiarized. Do you think it's "racist" that Biden plagiarized? Or is it just when black people do it that calling it out is somehow "racist"?

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/11/us/boston-u-panel-finds-plagiarism-by-dr-king.html

Literally shaking. This is why we need representation

"Shaking"? What on earth are you babbling about? Somehow POC are allowed to plagiarize without being called on it?

A committee of scholars appointed by Boston University concluded today that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. plagiarized passages in his dissertation for a doctoral degree at the university 36 years ago.

"There is no question," the committee said in a report to the university's provost, "but that Dr. King plagiarized in the dissertation by appropriating material from sources not explicitly credited in notes, or mistakenly credited, or credited generally and at some distance in the text from a close paraphrase or verbatim quotation."

You are not an ally. You have a lot of work to do.

DP.

I’ll assume that the above is a joke.

If not, the kids are even more troubled than I thought.

+1
I think it's someone pointedly mocking the idiotic jargon of these people. Pretty funny when looked at it that way.

[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: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?

DP. The point is that NO ONE should be targeted, you moron. These (ex)presidents seem to think Jews being targeted is all just fun and games, no biggie.

They said nothing of the sort. You are exagerating and making it up.

Are you always this literal? The point is, they seemed utterly unconcerned about the hate speech targeting Jews. Just like you.

They did not. Hate speech targeting Israel for indiscriminately slaughtering civilians is not the same thing as hate speech targeting Jews, no matter how much you and your big money donor friends say otherwise.

OMG Magill was asked “is explicitly calling for genocide of the Jews constitutes harassment” to which Magill answered “Depends on the context”. She was not asked “does from the river to whatever” constitutes harassment, she was not asked “does a peaceful protest constitute harassment”, she was not asked a legal question. She should have answered with a simple yes, an explicit call for the genocide of the Jews is harassment .

+ a million
She would have had no trouble answering 'yes' if Muslims or blacks were replaced for Jews.

[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: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?

DP. The point is that NO ONE should be targeted, you moron. These (ex)presidents seem to think Jews being targeted is all just fun and games, no biggie.

They said nothing of the sort. You are exagerating and making it up.

Are you always this literal? The point is, they seemed utterly unconcerned about the hate speech targeting Jews. Just like you.

They did not. Hate speech targeting Israel for indiscriminately slaughtering civilians is not the same thing as hate speech targeting Jews, no matter how much you and your big money donor friends say otherwise.

You seem very confused. What happened on Oct. 7 was "indiscriminately slaughtering (and raping) civilians." Strange that this has to be explained to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand the title of this thread.

I think it's supposed to say "Stefanik Ivy Presidents".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Racist Chris Rufo now accusing Gay of plagiarizing in her phd thesis.

They said the same thing about MLK.

Racists going to racist.

Um... MLK *was* found to have plagiarized. Do you think it's "racist" that Biden plagiarized? Or is it just when black people do it that calling it out is somehow "racist"?

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/11/us/boston-u-panel-finds-plagiarism-by-dr-king.html

Literally shaking. This is why we need representation

"Shaking"? What on earth are you babbling about? Somehow POC are allowed to plagiarize without being called on it?

A committee of scholars appointed by Boston University concluded today that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. plagiarized passages in his dissertation for a doctoral degree at the university 36 years ago.

"There is no question," the committee said in a report to the university's provost, "but that Dr. King plagiarized in the dissertation by appropriating material from sources not explicitly credited in notes, or mistakenly credited, or credited generally and at some distance in the text from a close paraphrase or verbatim quotation."

You are not an ally. You have a lot of work to do.

DP.

I’ll assume that the above is a joke.

If not, the kids are even more troubled than I thought.

+1
I think it's someone pointedly mocking the idiotic jargon of these people. Pretty funny when looked at it that way.

I’m going to join you in being optimistic tonight.

[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:

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?

DP. The point is that NO ONE should be targeted, you moron. These (ex)presidents seem to think Jews being targeted is all just fun and games, no biggie.

They said nothing of the sort. You are exagerating and making it up.

Are you always this literal? The point is, they seemed utterly unconcerned about the hate speech targeting Jews. Just like you.

They did not. Hate speech targeting Israel for indiscriminately slaughtering civilians is not the same thing as hate speech targeting Jews, no matter how much you and your big money donor friends say otherwise.

OMG Magill was asked “is explicitly calling for genocide of the Jews constitutes harassment” to which Magill answered “Depends on the context”. She was not asked “does from the river to whatever” constitutes harassment, she was not asked “does a peaceful protest constitute harassment”, she was not asked a legal question. She should have answered with a simple yes, an explicit call for the genocide of the Jews is harassment .

+ a million
She would have had no trouble answering 'yes' if Muslims or blacks were replaced for Jews.

+ a million more

These colleges displayed their rank hypocrisy to the whole world.

Time for a house-cleaning.

[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: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?

DP. The point is that NO ONE should be targeted, you moron. These (ex)presidents seem to think Jews being targeted is all just fun and games, no biggie.

They said nothing of the sort. You are exagerating and making it up.

Are you always this literal? The point is, they seemed utterly unconcerned about the hate speech targeting Jews. Just like you.

They did not. Hate speech targeting Israel for indiscriminately slaughtering civilians is not the same thing as hate speech targeting Jews, no matter how much you and your big money donor friends say otherwise.

OMG Magill was asked “is explicitly calling for genocide of the Jews constitutes harassment” to which Magill answered “Depends on the context”. She was not asked “does from the river to whatever” constitutes harassment, she was not asked “does a peaceful protest constitute harassment”, she was not asked a legal question. She should have answered with a simple yes, an explicit call for the genocide of the Jews is harassment .

It was a trap question, and she knew it. If she had juat said "yes", then they would have said "how can 'from the river to the sea' be interpreted as anything other than an explicit call for the genocide of Jews?"

[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: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?

DP. The point is that NO ONE should be targeted, you moron. These (ex)presidents seem to think Jews being targeted is all just fun and games, no biggie.

They said nothing of the sort. You are exagerating and making it up.

Are you always this literal? The point is, they seemed utterly unconcerned about the hate speech targeting Jews. Just like you.

They did not. Hate speech targeting Israel for indiscriminately slaughtering civilians is not the same thing as hate speech targeting Jews, no matter how much you and your big money donor friends say otherwise.

You seem very confused. What happened on Oct. 7 was "indiscriminately slaughtering (and raping) civilians." Strange that this has to be explained to you.

And what has happened before and after is Israel slaughtering 15 times as many. Strange that this has to be explained to you.

[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:

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?

DP. The point is that NO ONE should be targeted, you moron. These (ex)presidents seem to think Jews being targeted is all just fun and games, no biggie.

They said nothing of the sort. You are exagerating and making it up.

Are you always this literal? The point is, they seemed utterly unconcerned about the hate speech targeting Jews. Just like you.

They did not. Hate speech targeting Israel for indiscriminately slaughtering civilians is not the same thing as hate speech targeting Jews, no matter how much you and your big money donor friends say otherwise.

OMG Magill was asked “is explicitly calling for genocide of the Jews constitutes harassment” to which Magill answered “Depends on the context”. She was not asked “does from the river to whatever” constitutes harassment, she was not asked “does a peaceful protest constitute harassment”, she was not asked a legal question. She should have answered with a simple yes, an explicit call for the genocide of the Jews is harassment .

It was a trap question, and she knew it. If she had juat said "yes", then they would have said "how can 'from the river to the sea' be interpreted as anything other than an explicit call for the genocide of Jews?"

Another good question.

[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: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?

DP. The point is that NO ONE should be targeted, you moron. These (ex)presidents seem to think Jews being targeted is all just fun and games, no biggie.

They said nothing of the sort. You are exagerating and making it up.

Are you always this literal? The point is, they seemed utterly unconcerned about the hate speech targeting Jews. Just like you.

They did not. Hate speech targeting Israel for indiscriminately slaughtering civilians is not the same thing as hate speech targeting Jews, no matter how much you and your big money donor friends say otherwise.

OMG Magill was asked “is explicitly calling for genocide of the Jews constitutes harassment” to which Magill answered “Depends on the context”. She was not asked “does from the river to whatever” constitutes harassment, she was not asked “does a peaceful protest constitute harassment”, she was not asked a legal question. She should have answered with a simple yes, an explicit call for the genocide of the Jews is harassment .

Her fate was sealed after those brain contortions. If you watch it, the entire room was aghast. It was such a softball question, and she responded like a tired leftist ideologue who hasn't left the faculty lounge in twenty years. She certainly couldn't contextualize the room she was in. Not even the president of Podunk Community College would survive that, much less Penn.

I think Gay survives. She's the first black president of Harvard. She's only been there a few months. She's effectively untouchable. But her tenure so far has been a huge negative for Harvard. It's been all bad press all the time.

[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:

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?

DP. The point is that NO ONE should be targeted, you moron. These (ex)presidents seem to think Jews being targeted is all just fun and games, no biggie.

They said nothing of the sort. You are exagerating and making it up.

Are you always this literal? The point is, they seemed utterly unconcerned about the hate speech targeting Jews. Just like you.

They did not. Hate speech targeting Israel for indiscriminately slaughtering civilians is not the same thing as hate speech targeting Jews, no matter how much you and your big money donor friends say otherwise.

You seem very confused. What happened on Oct. 7 was "indiscriminately slaughtering (and raping) civilians." Strange that this has to be explained to you.

And what has happened before and after is Israel slaughtering 15 times as many. Strange that this has to be explained to you.

Perhaps Palestinians should stop the firebombing, bus bombing, suicide bombing, and rocket attacking of Israel that they've engaged in for decades. Just a thought.

[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:

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?

DP. The point is that NO ONE should be targeted, you moron. These (ex)presidents seem to think Jews being targeted is all just fun and games, no biggie.

They said nothing of the sort. You are exagerating and making it up.

Are you always this literal? The point is, they seemed utterly unconcerned about the hate speech targeting Jews. Just like you.

They did not. Hate speech targeting Israel for indiscriminately slaughtering civilians is not the same thing as hate speech targeting Jews, no matter how much you and your big money donor friends say otherwise.

OMG Magill was asked “is explicitly calling for genocide of the Jews constitutes harassment” to which Magill answered “Depends on the context”. She was not asked “does from the river to whatever” constitutes harassment, she was not asked “does a peaceful protest constitute harassment”, she was not asked a legal question. She should have answered with a simple yes, an explicit call for the genocide of the Jews is harassment .

It was a trap question, and she knew it. If she had juat said "yes", then they would have said "how can 'from the river to the sea' be interpreted as anything other than an explicit call for the genocide of Jews?"

And she should have prepped for this question, no?

[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:

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?

DP. The point is that NO ONE should be targeted, you moron. These (ex)presidents seem to think Jews being targeted is all just fun and games, no biggie.

They said nothing of the sort. You are exagerating and making it up.

Are you always this literal? The point is, they seemed utterly unconcerned about the hate speech targeting Jews. Just like you.

They did not. Hate speech targeting Israel for indiscriminately slaughtering civilians is not the same thing as hate speech targeting Jews, no matter how much you and your big money donor friends say otherwise.

OMG Magill was asked “is explicitly calling for genocide of the Jews constitutes harassment” to which Magill answered “Depends on the context”. She was not asked “does from the river to whatever” constitutes harassment, she was not asked “does a peaceful protest constitute harassment”, she was not asked a legal question. She should have answered with a simple yes, an explicit call for the genocide of the Jews is harassment .

Her fate was sealed after those brain contortions. If you watch it, the entire room was aghast. It was such a softball question, and she responded like a tired leftist ideologue who hasn't left the faculty lounge in twenty years. She certainly couldn't contextualize the room she was in. Not even the president of Podunk Community College would survive that, much less Penn.

I think Gay survives. She's the first black president of Harvard. She's only been there a few months. She's effectively untouchable. But her tenure so far has been a huge negative for Harvard. It's been all bad press all the time.

It’s not a softball question unless you answer a question that wasn’t asked.

AFAICT at least half the posters on this thread think her answer was right— that students should not be disciplined for mere statements unless the context suggests it has more direct effects— they are just mad that in their view the university has been inconsistent in the past in enforcing 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:

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?

DP. The point is that NO ONE should be targeted, you moron. These (ex)presidents seem to think Jews being targeted is all just fun and games, no biggie.

They said nothing of the sort. You are exagerating and making it up.

Are you always this literal? The point is, they seemed utterly unconcerned about the hate speech targeting Jews. Just like you.

They did not. Hate speech targeting Israel for indiscriminately slaughtering civilians is not the same thing as hate speech targeting Jews, no matter how much you and your big money donor friends say otherwise.

OMG Magill was asked “is explicitly calling for genocide of the Jews constitutes harassment” to which Magill answered “Depends on the context”. She was not asked “does from the river to whatever” constitutes harassment, she was not asked “does a peaceful protest constitute harassment”, she was not asked a legal question. She should have answered with a simple yes, an explicit call for the genocide of the Jews is harassment .

It was a trap question, and she knew it. If she had juat said "yes", then they would have said "how can 'from the river to the sea' be interpreted as anything other than an explicit call for the genocide of Jews?"

Would asking, "Does explicitly calling for the genocide of blacks/Muslims/Hispanics constitute harassment?" be considered a "trap" question? Or is that one really easy to answer?