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:

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 to that she could have answered with her “context matters” bullshit. But the original question required an unequivocal YES. She was under oath, her job was not to anticipate what the next question is going to be, but to answer the question asked truthfully.

[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.

DP. I don't think her race means she should be "untouchable." As you say, she's done a terrible job so far.

[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:

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.

+1

Strange that this has to be explained to the eminent ME scholars here.

[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:

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 to that she could have answered with her “context matters” bullshit. But the original question required an unequivocal YES. She was under oath, her job was not to anticipate what the next question is going to be, but to answer the question asked truthfully.

Exactly correct.

The fact that the question was loaded in no way excuses their answers.

[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:

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 to that she could have answered with her “context matters” bullshit. But the original question required an unequivocal YES. She was under oath, her job was not to anticipate what the next question is going to be, but to answer the question asked truthfully.

To satisfy a sense of propriety or ethics, yes. To satisfy the law or explain where the line between words and acts is drawn in academe, 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:

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.

DP. I don't think her race means she should be "untouchable." As you say, she's done a terrible job so far.

I am giving her the benefit of the doubt. I watched the entire 5 hours. I thought Dr. Gay was more forceful in condemning hate and antisemitism than Kornbluth who is Jewish. We’lll see what happens.

[Anonymous]

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.

Man you progressives never disappoint!

[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?"

The thing is real life isn't social media or progressive enclaves where a clever response can be uses as plausible deniability. In her testimony she spoke like a DCUM pro Palestine poster (say something offensive in an obscured way then when called out on it say well you know I didn't mean THAT), and was held accountable for it, because smart people see right through 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:

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.

DP. I don't think her race means she should be "untouchable." As you say, she's done a terrible job so far.

If major donors start threatening to pull $ she’ll be gone. If not, she’s fine. The only reason the UPenn President was told to resign was that she was losing donors.

[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?"

I believe in everyday parlance Stefanik played rope a dope. Magill was stupid enough to step right into the KO.

[Anonymous]

I think Magill should have answered with a very overwrought hypothetical or example of someone clearly, threateningly and menacingly calling for genocide and then said if that were to happen, it would absolutely be against our code of conduct, we would take the matter very seriously and deal with it swiftly and then end with a long, filibustering peroration passionately and unequivocally condemning such acts of antisemitism (which conveniently are not what is happening on her campus).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Magill should have answered with a very overwrought hypothetical or example of someone clearly, threateningly and menacingly calling for genocide and then said if that were to happen, it would absolutely be against our code of conduct, we would take the matter very seriously and deal with it swiftly and then end with a long, filibustering peroration passionately and unequivocally condemning such acts of antisemitism (which conveniently are not what is happening on her campus).

Yes she should have taken a page from Stefanik’s playbook. Acting all passionate and furious for the cable news. Stefanik is such a con artist and hypocrite. She couldn’t care less about the Jews and went to Harvard herself now she’s trying to align herself with the ultra conservative. Stop falling for her antics.

Her questions were absurd. Why keep asking about genocide when there was no mention of it in the rallies??! Maybe the university presidents thought she was an idiot and refused to answer her. These presidents can also read and are very well aware of what’s happening around the world and it’s laughable that Stefanik was suggesting calls for genocide were made when it’s actually the other side carrying out acts that very closely resemble a genocide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Magill should have answered with a very overwrought hypothetical or example of someone clearly, threateningly and menacingly calling for genocide and then said if that were to happen, it would absolutely be against our code of conduct, we would take the matter very seriously and deal with it swiftly and then end with a long, filibustering peroration passionately and unequivocally condemning such acts of antisemitism (which conveniently are not what is happening on her campus).

Yes she should have taken a page from Stefanik’s playbook. Acting all passionate and furious for the cable news. Stefanik is such a con artist and hypocrite. She couldn’t care less about the Jews and went to Harvard herself now she’s trying to align herself with the ultra conservative. Stop falling for her antics.

Her questions were absurd. Why keep asking about genocide when there was no mention of it in the rallies??! Maybe the university presidents thought she was an idiot and refused to answer her. These presidents can also read and are very well aware of what’s happening around the world and it’s laughable that Stefanik was suggesting calls for genocide were made when it’s actually the other side carrying out acts that very closely resemble a genocide.

You’re gonna hurt yourself with all that twisting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Magill should have answered with a very overwrought hypothetical or example of someone clearly, threateningly and menacingly calling for genocide and then said if that were to happen, it would absolutely be against our code of conduct, we would take the matter very seriously and deal with it swiftly and then end with a long, filibustering peroration passionately and unequivocally condemning such acts of antisemitism (which conveniently are not what is happening on her campus).

Yes she should have taken a page from Stefanik’s playbook. Acting all passionate and furious for the cable news. Stefanik is such a con artist and hypocrite. She couldn’t care less about the Jews and went to Harvard herself now she’s trying to align herself with the ultra conservative. Stop falling for her antics.

Her questions were absurd. Why keep asking about genocide when there was no mention of it in the rallies??! Maybe the university presidents thought she was an idiot and refused to answer her. These presidents can also read and are very well aware of what’s happening around the world and it’s laughable that Stefanik was suggesting calls for genocide were made when it’s actually the other side carrying out acts that very closely resemble a genocide.

You’re gonna hurt yourself with all that twisting

Don’t worry about me. I just speak the facts. You might burst from all the lies you spew every single day supporting the terrorist Zionist regime and then crying foul when people speak up against it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is amazing that a person who never showed throughout her career any antisemitism was attacked and removed based on these false accusations. She should have made the university fire her. She could have sued and exposed these people.

We all know the people behind these attacks have an agenda. One is to increase Jewish attendance percentages at these schools. Right now UPenn has 16% self identified jewish students which is down from a few decades ago when it was 1/3. One of the donors said he would like to see UPenn have at a minimum 30% Jewish students.

I guess who every the new president is will have to be a pro israel, anti Palestinian and Jewish. They will also have to agree to have 30% jewish students body. I bet there will be something about forcing out muslims and Palestinians with support for the settlers.

I would hate to be a Palestinian or Muslim at any of these universities. These people will target them.

I thought about reporting your insane, incredibly antisemitic post but decided it's far more instructive to leave it up. Looking forward to seeing citations for the bolded nuttery.

DP but this part about a major donor saying he wanted Penn to be 30 percent Jewish is basically true — one of the donors (maybe Perelman?) criticized the university because the Jewish population has fallen by half in the last 20 years or so. When I was an undergrad there (I am also Jewish, fwiw), it was about 30 percent Jewish, and now it’s about 16 percent. So if a donor is angry that the Jewish percentage has fallen by half to 16, it does seem accurate to say he wants the school to be 30 percent Jewish.