Penn President resigns

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it chilling that you cannot criticize Jewish people or Israel in any way without severe consequences. Cancel culture in overdrive

No one is saying you can’t criticize Israel. But that’s very different than calling for its destruction or the killing of all Jews.
Why is it ok for a University to cancel a speaker because that person is against affirmative action but allow for speakers who advocate for genocide?

I agree with you. We should be allowing both types of speakers.

[Anonymous]

If MIT's president goes then we are at the peak of ridiculousness. She is Jewish!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it chilling that you cannot criticize Jewish people or Israel in any way without severe consequences. Cancel culture in overdrive

Disingenuous. You clearly didn't watch the hearing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was a no win situation. You limit speech you’re f’d. You don’t you’re f’d.

Remember when… Jews won’t replace is had “good people on both sides” and it was NBD.

I forget, was that the University president talking there? I didn’t think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is outrageous (if not surprising) that Ivy League presidents are being pushed out by monied interests. This exposes the academy for what it is: spineless, compromised, and beholden to the almighty dollar, just like everyone else. They blew their chance to stand on the side of the first amendment and freedom of thought.

This is not about antisemitism; it is about having a nuanced view of a complex situation. The silver lining is that Ackerman and others stand on such shaky ground that they resort to making threats about taking their money elsewhere. Everyone, including and especially college students, know the truth about what has happened to Palestinians in the Israeli occupation and the truth will win out in the end. This is a sad day for democracy.

The sad day for democracy occurred when universities decided to enforce the first amendment as they saw fit, rather than equally across the board. Everyone I know who supports the firings has zero problem with free speech or even hate speech. But it can't solely be allowed for certain groups and not all.

^^
Moreover, what these presidents did was use the excuse of free speech to allow harassment and bullying. They conflating two separate issues.

The thing that boggles my mind is that they weren't given better advice going into the hearing. All they had to say was: Yes, if students are threatened, and calls for any groups of students' death, then it will be dealt with. Such an easy answer and they couldn't just say that. We would not be here discussing this if they had said that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If MIT's president goes then we are at the peak of ridiculousness. She is Jewish!!!

So what? Who she is as a person and how she performs her job are two separate issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is outrageous (if not surprising) that Ivy League presidents are being pushed out by monied interests. This exposes the academy for what it is: spineless, compromised, and beholden to the almighty dollar, just like everyone else. They blew their chance to stand on the side of the first amendment and freedom of thought.

This is not about antisemitism; it is about having a nuanced view of a complex situation. The silver lining is that Ackerman and others stand on such shaky ground that they resort to making threats about taking their money elsewhere. Everyone, including and especially college students, know the truth about what has happened to Palestinians in the Israeli occupation and the truth will win out in the end. This is a sad day for democracy.

So they should continue to donate to institutions they disagree with. Right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it chilling that you cannot criticize Jewish people or Israel in any way without severe consequences. Cancel culture in overdrive

Ridiculous red herring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I guess they now get to keep the $100 million. I have very mixed feelings about this as a Penn alum.

Glad to see OP get right to the point. Universities are owned by the donors.

This isn't about right or wrong. It's about pay to play.

So universities should no longer solicit or accept donations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is outrageous (if not surprising) that Ivy League presidents are being pushed out by monied interests. This exposes the academy for what it is: spineless, compromised, and beholden to the almighty dollar, just like everyone else. They blew their chance to stand on the side of the first amendment and freedom of thought.

This is not about antisemitism; it is about having a nuanced view of a complex situation. The silver lining is that Ackerman and others stand on such shaky ground that they resort to making threats about taking their money elsewhere. Everyone, including and especially college students, know the truth about what has happened to Palestinians in the Israeli occupation and the truth will win out in the end. This is a sad day for democracy.

The sad day for democracy occurred when universities decided to enforce the first amendment as they saw fit, rather than equally across the board. Everyone I know who supports the firings has zero problem with free speech or even hate speech. But it can't solely be allowed for certain groups and not all.

^^
Moreover, what these presidents did was use the excuse of free speech to allow harassment and bullying. They conflating two separate issues.

The thing that boggles my mind is that they weren't given better advice going into the hearing. All they had to say was: Yes, if students are threatened, and calls for any groups of students' death, then it will be dealt with. Such an easy answer and they couldn't just say that. We would not be here discussing this if they had said that.

I suspect they were given better advice but they were too arrogant to listen. They botched softballs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is outrageous (if not surprising) that Ivy League presidents are being pushed out by monied interests. This exposes the academy for what it is: spineless, compromised, and beholden to the almighty dollar, just like everyone else. They blew their chance to stand on the side of the first amendment and freedom of thought.

This is not about antisemitism; it is about having a nuanced view of a complex situation. The silver lining is that Ackerman and others stand on such shaky ground that they resort to making threats about taking their money elsewhere. Everyone, including and especially college students, know the truth about what has happened to Palestinians in the Israeli occupation and the truth will win out in the end. This is a sad day for democracy.

The sad day for democracy occurred when universities decided to enforce the first amendment as they saw fit, rather than equally across the board. Everyone I know who supports the firings has zero problem with free speech or even hate speech. But it can't solely be allowed for certain groups and not all.

^^
Moreover, what these presidents did was use the excuse of free speech to allow harassment and bullying. They conflating two separate issues.

The thing that boggles my mind is that they weren't given better advice going into the hearing. All they had to say was: Yes, if students are threatened, and calls for any groups of students' death, then it will be dealt with. Such an easy answer and they couldn't just say that. We would not be here discussing this if they had said that.

Agree with the bolded. Apparently she was given too much advice.

"Worn down by months of relentless external attacks, she was not herself last Tuesday," Bok said. "Over prepared and over lawyered given the hostile forum and high stakes, she provided a legalistic answer to a moral question, and that was wrong. It made for a dreadful 30-second sound bite in what was more than five hours of testimony."

[Anonymous]

I don’t get all the leftists upset by this. Isn’t this the same group of people who set a screaming mob onto Riley Gaines at SFSU? I don’t ever remember leftists caring about free speech before this point. In fact they tried to shut it down all the time. This is a natural extension of that process.

[Anonymous]

Scott Bok who was chairman of the board of trustees at Penn is also out.

[Anonymous]

Too much legal prep, hence robotic legalese answers rather than actually thinking on their feet. None of these woman are dummies irl and would definitely condemn unequivocally any form of antisemitism irl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is outrageous (if not surprising) that Ivy League presidents are being pushed out by monied interests. This exposes the academy for what it is: spineless, compromised, and beholden to the almighty dollar, just like everyone else. They blew their chance to stand on the side of the first amendment and freedom of thought.

This is not about antisemitism; it is about having a nuanced view of a complex situation. The silver lining is that Ackerman and others stand on such shaky ground that they resort to making threats about taking their money elsewhere. Everyone, including and especially college students, know the truth about what has happened to Palestinians in the Israeli occupation and the truth will win out in the end. This is a sad day for democracy.

The sad day for democracy occurred when universities decided to enforce the first amendment as they saw fit, rather than equally across the board. Everyone I know who supports the firings has zero problem with free speech or even hate speech. But it can't solely be allowed for certain groups and not all.

^^
Moreover, what these presidents did was use the excuse of free speech to allow harassment and bullying. They conflating two separate issues.

The thing that boggles my mind is that they weren't given better advice going into the hearing. All they had to say was: Yes, if students are threatened, and calls for any groups of students' death, then it will be dealt with. Such an easy answer and they couldn't just say that. We would not be here discussing this if they had said that.

I suspect they were given better advice but they were too arrogant to listen. They botched softballs.

I don't know the answer to this, and I am pro-fire them given their refusal to allow free speech equally . . . but I suspect that they were boxed in by their prep and their and their lawyers' belief that the first amendment covered them. Which is the heart of the issue to me. They are willing to allow calls for genocide of certain groups, allow physical harassment of some students though not all, all under the guise of the first amendment. That to me is where they have gone wrong, morally.