Stefanik Ivy Presidentd

[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.

Man you progressives never disappoint!

+1
What a caricature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what initial intentions student protesters may have for chants such as “globalize the intifada,” or any of the other slogans associated with eliminating Jewish people from Israel’s land, they can no longer pretend not to know that their use causes many people a reasonably felt sense of intimidation. On this matter, the Age of Innocence is behind us. If college campuses regularly had groups of kids chanting “White power,” I would not be comfortable sending my children there, even if those chanters never took a “targeted” action against a specific person.

Excellent Op-Ed by Danielle Allen in the Post: https://wapo.st/4aq36pA

So basically they are snowflakes? Getting intimidated by chants and slogans that have nothing to do with their religion or identity. Also putting words in peoples mouths about genocide just to shut them up. Well played but we can see through you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what initial intentions student protesters may have for chants such as “globalize the intifada,” or any of the other slogans associated with eliminating Jewish people from Israel’s land, they can no longer pretend not to know that their use causes many people a reasonably felt sense of intimidation. On this matter, the Age of Innocence is behind us. If college campuses regularly had groups of kids chanting “White power,” I would not be comfortable sending my children there, even if those chanters never took a “targeted” action against a specific person.

Excellent Op-Ed by Danielle Allen in the Post: https://wapo.st/4aq36pA

What is a "reasonably felt sense of intimidation"?

Read the article. It's well worth it.

I have read it. What is a "reasonably felt sense of intimidation"?

[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.

DP. Wow. Talk about absurd ^^. Interesting that you neglect to mention anything at all about the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre of Israelis. Had they gotten their way, Hamas would have wiped out every Jewish person in their path. THAT is called genocide, and the only reason Hamas hasn’t accomplished their mission (yet) is because Israel is defending themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what initial intentions student protesters may have for chants such as “globalize the intifada,” or any of the other slogans associated with eliminating Jewish people from Israel’s land, they can no longer pretend not to know that their use causes many people a reasonably felt sense of intimidation. On this matter, the Age of Innocence is behind us. If college campuses regularly had groups of kids chanting “White power,” I would not be comfortable sending my children there, even if those chanters never took a “targeted” action against a specific person.

Excellent Op-Ed by Danielle Allen in the Post: https://wapo.st/4aq36pA

What is a "reasonably felt sense of intimidation"?

Read the article. It's well worth it.

I have read it. What is a "reasonably felt sense of intimidation"?

From the article:

If the communications you use while protesting would constitute harassment if targeted at a specific individual, the presumption will be that the protest method is likely to create a pattern of generalized intimidation incompatible with a culture of mutual respect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What will happen to the students who do not care about Israel? We know the Palestinian and anyone criticizing Israel will be gone from Ivies.

How are they going to enforce this?

It’s so fascinating to watch the grief, fury, and paranoia of leftists when they realize the apparatus they built can be turned on them too. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what initial intentions student protesters may have for chants such as “globalize the intifada,” or any of the other slogans associated with eliminating Jewish people from Israel’s land, they can no longer pretend not to know that their use causes many people a reasonably felt sense of intimidation. On this matter, the Age of Innocence is behind us. If college campuses regularly had groups of kids chanting “White power,” I would not be comfortable sending my children there, even if those chanters never took a “targeted” action against a specific person.

Excellent Op-Ed by Danielle Allen in the Post: https://wapo.st/4aq36pA

What is a "reasonably felt sense of intimidation"?

Read the article. It's well worth it.

I have read it. What is a "reasonably felt sense of intimidation"?

From the article:

If the communications you use while protesting would constitute harassment if targeted at a specific individual, the presumption will be that the protest method is likely to create a pattern of generalized intimidation incompatible with a culture of mutual respect.

That doesn't answer the question.

Also, so you can't say "hell no we won't go" at a protest now? What about "whose campus, OUR campus" from protestors claiming not to feel a sense of belonging?

The whole notion of "reasonableness" starts to fall apart when the offense taken at a lot of these chants is grounded in various identity markers. To take it a step further, for some of these identity markers, the very act of protesting, in any form or fashion, is intimidating in and of itself, regardless of the words used.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what initial intentions student protesters may have for chants such as “globalize the intifada,” or any of the other slogans associated with eliminating Jewish people from Israel’s land, they can no longer pretend not to know that their use causes many people a reasonably felt sense of intimidation. On this matter, the Age of Innocence is behind us. If college campuses regularly had groups of kids chanting “White power,” I would not be comfortable sending my children there, even if those chanters never took a “targeted” action against a specific person.

Excellent Op-Ed by Danielle Allen in the Post: https://wapo.st/4aq36pA

What is a "reasonably felt sense of intimidation"?

Read the article. It's well worth it.

I have read it. What is a "reasonably felt sense of intimidation"?

From the article:

If the communications you use while protesting would constitute harassment if targeted at a specific individual, the presumption will be that the protest method is likely to create a pattern of generalized intimidation incompatible with a culture of mutual respect.

That doesn't answer the question.

Also, so you can't say "hell no we won't go" at a protest now? What about "whose campus, OUR campus" from protestors claiming not to feel a sense of belonging?

The whole notion of "reasonableness" starts to fall apart when the offense taken at a lot of these chants is grounded in various identity markers. To take it a step further, for some of these identity markers, the very act of protesting, in any form or fashion, is intimidating in and of itself, regardless of the words used.

Also from the article:

While protest, within acceptable limits, is protected by free speech, on this college campus those acceptable limits include that your method of protest not cause intimidation to other members of our community. Intimidation is behavior that involves a threat of violence to deter or coerce others.

Only intimidation if it "involves a threat of violence".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what initial intentions student protesters may have for chants such as “globalize the intifada,” or any of the other slogans associated with eliminating Jewish people from Israel’s land, they can no longer pretend not to know that their use causes many people a reasonably felt sense of intimidation. On this matter, the Age of Innocence is behind us. If college campuses regularly had groups of kids chanting “White power,” I would not be comfortable sending my children there, even if those chanters never took a “targeted” action against a specific person.

Excellent Op-Ed by Danielle Allen in the Post: https://wapo.st/4aq36pA

What is a "reasonably felt sense of intimidation"?

Read the article. It's well worth it.

I have read it. What is a "reasonably felt sense of intimidation"?

From the article:

If the communications you use while protesting would constitute harassment if targeted at a specific individual, the presumption will be that the protest method is likely to create a pattern of generalized intimidation incompatible with a culture of mutual respect.

That doesn't answer the question.

Also, so you can't say "hell no we won't go" at a protest now? What about "whose campus, OUR campus" from protestors claiming not to feel a sense of belonging?

The whole notion of "reasonableness" starts to fall apart when the offense taken at a lot of these chants is grounded in various identity markers. To take it a step further, for some of these identity markers, the very act of protesting, in any form or fashion, is intimidating in and of itself, regardless of the words used.

Also from the article:

While protest, within acceptable limits, is protected by free speech, on this college campus those acceptable limits include that your method of protest not cause intimidation to other members of our community. Intimidation is behavior that involves a threat of violence to deter or coerce others.

Only intimidation if it "involves a threat of violence".

Yes, and those phrases could be read or "felt" as such. Not to mention the whole "words are violence" thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what initial intentions student protesters may have for chants such as “globalize the intifada,” or any of the other slogans associated with eliminating Jewish people from Israel’s land, they can no longer pretend not to know that their use causes many people a reasonably felt sense of intimidation. On this matter, the Age of Innocence is behind us. If college campuses regularly had groups of kids chanting “White power,” I would not be comfortable sending my children there, even if those chanters never took a “targeted” action against a specific person.

Excellent Op-Ed by Danielle Allen in the Post: https://wapo.st/4aq36pA

What is a "reasonably felt sense of intimidation"?

Read the article. It's well worth it.

I have read it. What is a "reasonably felt sense of intimidation"?

From the article:

If the communications you use while protesting would constitute harassment if targeted at a specific individual, the presumption will be that the protest method is likely to create a pattern of generalized intimidation incompatible with a culture of mutual respect.

That doesn't answer the question.

Also, so you can't say "hell no we won't go" at a protest now? What about "whose campus, OUR campus" from protestors claiming not to feel a sense of belonging?

The whole notion of "reasonableness" starts to fall apart when the offense taken at a lot of these chants is grounded in various identity markers. To take it a step further, for some of these identity markers, the very act of protesting, in any form or fashion, is intimidating in and of itself, regardless of the words used.

Also from the article:

While protest, within acceptable limits, is protected by free speech, on this college campus those acceptable limits include that your method of protest not cause intimidation to other members of our community. Intimidation is behavior that involves a threat of violence to deter or coerce others.

Only intimidation if it "involves a threat of violence".

Yes, and those phrases could be read or "felt" as such. Not to mention the whole "words are violence" thing.

So are you advocating for full 1st amendment speech at (private) college campuses?

I can see the argument both ways, but on balance think that Allen's approach is probably a good one.

[Anonymous]

I have a question about the authenticity of the Ivies’ required training of incoming students.

This chart was attributed to Harvard’s Title IX training it decided to require of all students:



Is this an example of what the ivies are actually teaching our students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what initial intentions student protesters may have for chants such as “globalize the intifada,” or any of the other slogans associated with eliminating Jewish people from Israel’s land, they can no longer pretend not to know that their use causes many people a reasonably felt sense of intimidation. On this matter, the Age of Innocence is behind us. If college campuses regularly had groups of kids chanting “White power,” I would not be comfortable sending my children there, even if those chanters never took a “targeted” action against a specific person.

Excellent Op-Ed by Danielle Allen in the Post: https://wapo.st/4aq36pA

What is a "reasonably felt sense of intimidation"?

Read the article. It's well worth it.

I have read it. What is a "reasonably felt sense of intimidation"?

From the article:

If the communications you use while protesting would constitute harassment if targeted at a specific individual, the presumption will be that the protest method is likely to create a pattern of generalized intimidation incompatible with a culture of mutual respect.

That doesn't answer the question.

Also, so you can't say "hell no we won't go" at a protest now? What about "whose campus, OUR campus" from protestors claiming not to feel a sense of belonging?

The whole notion of "reasonableness" starts to fall apart when the offense taken at a lot of these chants is grounded in various identity markers. To take it a step further, for some of these identity markers, the very act of protesting, in any form or fashion, is intimidating in and of itself, regardless of the words used.

Also from the article:

While protest, within acceptable limits, is protected by free speech, on this college campus those acceptable limits include that your method of protest not cause intimidation to other members of our community. Intimidation is behavior that involves a threat of violence to deter or coerce others.

Only intimidation if it "involves a threat of violence".

Yes, and those phrases could be read or "felt" as such. Not to mention the whole "words are violence" thing.

So are you advocating for full 1st amendment speech at (private) college campuses?

I can see the argument both ways, but on balance think that Allen's approach is probably a good one.

My thought is that a lot of what is currently "felt" on college campuses is unreasonable and should not be catered to lest other values critical to a liberal arts eduction be completely overrun, but you also cannot deny that these feelings seem to be increasingly and genuinely held, at least in the minds of the students. The locus of what is "reasonable", at least for a college student, seems to be shifting to a place where you cannot both safeguard these students from feeling intimated and preserve a healthy degree of academic freedom and discourse. In making determinations of "reasonableness" in situations like this, you also run into defaulting and baselining problems. How do you arrive at a suitable point of reference for something that is so inherently fraught and bound up in variegated questions of identity? Some of this thinking undergirds the whole crux of DEI and CRT efforts.

I don't even necessarily reject Danielle's framing per se because I think there will be issues and edge cases with any one, I am just trying to ascertain how it is workable by mapping it onto the current climate and pedagogy in university environments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a question about the authenticity of the Ivies’ required training of incoming students.

This chart was attributed to Harvard’s Title IX training it decided to require of all students:



Is this an example of what the ivies are actually teaching our students?

Jeez, I have sons and there is no way I would want to send my kids to a school doing this kind of stuff. Now, I get what the right is decrying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what initial intentions student protesters may have for chants such as “globalize the intifada,” or any of the other slogans associated with eliminating Jewish people from Israel’s land, they can no longer pretend not to know that their use causes many people a reasonably felt sense of intimidation. On this matter, the Age of Innocence is behind us. If college campuses regularly had groups of kids chanting “White power,” I would not be comfortable sending my children there, even if those chanters never took a “targeted” action against a specific person.

Excellent Op-Ed by Danielle Allen in the Post: https://wapo.st/4aq36pA

What is a "reasonably felt sense of intimidation"?

Read the article. It's well worth it.

I have read it. What is a "reasonably felt sense of intimidation"?

From the article:

If the communications you use while protesting would constitute harassment if targeted at a specific individual, the presumption will be that the protest method is likely to create a pattern of generalized intimidation incompatible with a culture of mutual respect.

Respect? For people who do not support Palestinians? Yea right.

[Anonymous]

To absolutely no one's surprise, the right wing "free speech" defenders are perfectly willing to sick the government on speech they don't like.