What is the deal with Swathmore?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
That is exactly what I meant. I looked at the NESCAC schools and Swarthmore, withdrew my application to Swarthmore after visiting because of the holier-than-thou liberalism and general sanctimony surrounding the campus.
It seemed the kids there were in turmoil of being spoiled, well educated brats while trying way too hard to be crunchy. IT definitely speaks to a certain kind of student, and its academics are very, very strong. But it's a special place. Dartmouth is conservative Albertus mattress |
Anonymous
We need a new term for conservatives like you. "Holier-than-thou conservatives"? |
Anonymous
| Super liberal. My brother was recruited by them but turned them down and went elsewhere. |
Anonymous
Ok lefty liberal..whatever you say! |
Anonymous
|
Apparently this school now wides with the anit-Jewish group the American Studies Association and its boycott of Israel. What/who is the American Studies Assocition anyway and what is it with this school? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/us/members-of-jewish-student-group-test-permissible-discussion-on-israel.html?ref=education&_r=0 |
Anonymous
First, this article doesn't report on any actions or positions taken by Swarthmore, rather it reports on the Hillel group at Swarthmore, which has challenged Hillel's policy of prohibiting its campus groups from participating in or offering any programs that Hillel deems to be "unsupportive" of Israel. The Swarthmore Hillel is not boycotting Israel; it simply wants to be inclusive of broader viewpoints than those santionced by Hillel. Second, as the article states, the American Studies Association is a group of 5,000 professors at American colleges and universities. It is not boycotting Israel, but boycotting academic institutions in Israel over their treatment of Palestinians. For the record, I have no personal connection with Swarthmore, but I do know several current students and alumni. I don't know what their views are on this issue, but I will say that they have excellent reading comprehension. Perhaps you could find a Swarthnmore student or alum willing to tutor you in this area. |
Anonymous
As a proud Jew with deep religious faith, I resent your lies about this article. There is nothing anti-Jewish about what was done here. The Swarthmore Hillel (Jews, by the way. Students who actively seek to identify as Jewish) has chosen to respect the diversity of opinion within the Jewish community -- a Jewish value, by the way. I don't agree with the boycott but I do have a problem with this idea that the American Jewish community has to be monolithic in its beliefs. |
Anonymous
As Mr. Dershowitz notes this is NOT a free-speech issue. The question is a branding one - Hillel does not want its brand to be diluted. |
Anonymous
| There are several school presidents e.g., Trinity, Dart etc. that have written letters condemning this action by the American Studies Association. PP notes that it has 5,000 + members. Strange never having heard of them until this contoversy. |
Anonymous
Right . . .and branding is certainly encompassed by the Bill of Rights. |
Anonymous
PP again -- Alan Dershowitz is a complete reactionary on this topic. of course it isn't a First Amendment issue. Perhaps its more appropriate to call it a free expression issue, free expression within a private community that can make its own rules. However, as THE campus jewish organization, it seems to me that Jewish students should be able to decide to be inclusive. Its like the Republican Party was free to exclude the gay Republican group but it sure made me think less of them. if I was a Republican, and I'm not, I would have advocated for more inclusion. |
Anonymous
| PP makes a point about "inclusion". Hard to disagree with that. But, it does seem as if the group boycotting Israel...hard to see what good that accomplishes? |
Anonymous
Well, actually the boycotting and divestiture campaign against South Africa helped end apartheid. |
Anonymous
|
Every national organization that has local chapters has rules designed to promote the central theme -- or brand -- of the organization. One can disagree as to what those rules should be and whether they should allow the Swarthmore sponsorship in this case, but there do need to be some standards. Hopefully, that would not be seen as a controversial proposition. If one rejects that as a starting point, there is really no room for debate.
For example, suppose a group of students at a local Hillel decide that they want to only sponsor Palestinian speakers in a given year to draw attention to poor living conditions, because they believe by doing so it will bring more attention to the issue? Or suppose a given chapter for whatever reason in a given year had leadership that was very religiously conservative and anti-zion, and only wanted to sponsor such speakers? Of course, the national organization needs to be able to step in and say at some point a local chapter is no longer promoting the national goals, should not be allowed to use the national organization's name and cannot get any centralized funding (if any is provided). Nothing prevents any students from forming a new club to bring students to the campus, and many schools are very willing to fund new clubs. Again, I am not arguing either way on the specifics of the Swarthmore situation, but pointing out that the real focus should be on the organization's standard - while I don't like the branding phrase, I suppose that is essentially the same thing. |
Anonymous
+1 I also thought it was a school for women. |