Thursday's Most Active Threads

Once again the Gaza war thread led as most active yesterday. That was followed by two threads that are directly related to the war. The first was titled, "Stefanik Ivy Presidentd" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. The title, which suffered from both a typo and a lack of clarity, referred to a Congressional hearing during which Republican Representative Elise Stefanik asked a panel of university presidents whether calls for genocide were prohibited on their campuses. To be clear, Stefanik was referring to calls for the genocide of Jews which is a somewhat ironic concern given that something very close to, if not actual, genocide is currently being perpetrated by Israel against the residents of Gaza. Moreover, unpacking what Stefanik means by "calls for genocide" is itself a challenge. The Congresswoman explicitly referred to calls for "intifada" which in Arabic means "to shake off" but generally refers to Palestinian uprisings in the West Bank during which Palestinian teenagers used stones to fight the Israeli military. In no way does "intifada" mean "genocide". Similarly, many in the pro-Israel crowd claim the slogan, "Free Palestine from the River to the Sea" as being a call for genocide. While I have criticized that slogan, it does not refer to genocide. The college presidents, knowing that Stefanik clearly considers calls for genocide to include expressions that are not normally thought to be calls for genocide, were put in a bit of a conundrum and, unfortunately, fumbled their responses. Had they been asked whether a call to "kill all the Jews" violated their speech codes, certainly they all would have answered in the affirmative. But, instead, they were asked whether Stefanik's unorthodox and inaccurate definition of calls for genocide is allowed. That is a more difficult question. Unfortunately, in today's politicalized world, few are interested in doing the intellectual work to understand why what sounded like a simple question was actually much more complex. As a result, the presidents have come under considerable pressure and targeted with severe criticism. At the basis of this controversy is an effort among many in the pro-Israel camp to not only control speech, but to control the very definition of words. They have understandably and commendably made antisemitism unacceptable. But, now there are efforts to go further. Being opposed to Israel is considered antisemitism. Opposing Zionism is defined as antisemitism. Supporting Palestinians is considered anti-Israel and, hence, antisemitic. Slogans such as calling for an "intifada" or "Free Palestine From the River to the Sea" are allowed to be defined, not by those who use them, but by those who oppose their use and labeled as antisemitic. In this manner, pressure is applied to prohibit anything that is against the interests of Israel from being said. It is an effort to suppress pro-Palestinian speech entirely and has little to do with actual antisemitism.

A very closely-related topic was the subject of the next most active thread. Posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum and titled, "Will there be fewer applicants to Harvard, Penn, MIT next year?", the original poster asks whether, as a result of the failure of the presidents of these universities to provide clear responses regarding antisemitism during the Congressional hearing discussed above, the number of applicants to these schools will drop. Most of those replying do not believe there will be a drop in applications. Generally, there seems to be an assumption that any drop would be due to Jewish students refusing to apply to the schools. A number of posters dispute that notion, arguing that Jewish students will still want to attend those schools, that similar anti-Israel or arguably antisemitic sentiments are common on other campuses as well, or that there are not equally good alternatives to these universities. Other posters contend that there will be a drop-off, not only among Jewish applicants, but non-Jews as well. These posters suggest that there are many suitable alternatives. This notion, in turn, is dismissed due to the belief among other posters that any drop-off would be alleviated by an increase by applicants from other groups, particularly Asians. In fact, several posters argue that there will likely be an increase in applications because some students may think that their chances of acceptance will be enhanced by others avoiding the schools. Similar thinking was demonstrated by posters who predicted that the number of applications will increase, but the quality of applicants will go down. Regardless of the quality of applicants, others argued, the abilities of the students accepted will remain high because many equally-qualified applicants are turned down for each one that is accepted. Much of the debate in this thread has less to do with the specifics of the presidents' response to Congressional questioning and more to do with posters' general attitudes towards the universities' administrations in general. There has been considerable controversy in some quarters about how elite universities are being run and this latest episode has simply become another issue in that ongoing debate.

The next most active thread was the one about Maury Elementary School that has been hanging around the top of the most active list for a while now. I've discussed that thread previously so will skip it now. Next was a thread titled, "Best Known Song of Your Generation" and posted in the "Entertainment and Pop Culture" forum. The original poster says that this thread was inspired by a New York Times article discussing the widespread popularity of the song by The Killers, "Mr. Brightside". That article has provoked at least one other DCUM thread in addition to this one. According to the article's author, just as "Don’t Stop Believin" may have been the song that boomers gave to the masses, "Mr. Brightside" is the contribution of millennials. While I have been familiar with "Mr. Brightside" since it was initially released and rather like the song, until the two DCUM threads about it I had no idea that it was so popular. It's not even my favorite Killers song. But, if the New York Times is to be believed, it's "a song that gets everybody at the bar shout-singing along". Note that I would not be among those singing because I can't remember the lyrics. At any rate, the original poster asks that others suggest their top song choice and generation. I should provide my usual caveat that I hate generational labels and, therefore, reject the notion that generations have favorites songs. So, as far as I'm concerned, this thread is based on a false premise. One of the first posters to respond didn't mention her generation (I applaud this oversight), but suggested Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and Guns 'N Roses' "Sweet Child O' Mine". I agree that both of the songs are very representative of an era of music, if not a particular generation. Not everyone agreed with the Times about the importance of either song the article mentioned. The popularity of "Don’t Stop Believin" was disputed and one poster suggested that Bruce Springsteen's "Born to Run" or Creedence Clearwater Revival's "Fortunate Sun" would be better nominees. Posters mentioned a number of great songs that were highly reflective of my own tastes in music. For instance, Meat Loaf's "Paradise by the Dashboard Light" and AC/DC's "You Shook Me All Night Long" are so ingrained that I actually try to avoid them due to over-familiarity.

The final thread at which I'll look today was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Titled, "If your kid wants to go to med school, what are they doing as an undergraduate major?", the original poster and her husband are having a disagreement about their son's major. He wants to go to medical school and the original poster's husband thinks he should major in chemistry or biomedical engineering while the original poster thinks he should major in history and take lots of science courses. Their son doesn't seem to care either way. Those responding report majors all across the board, but are heavily slanted towards various science-related programs. Several posters argue that the important factor should be choosing a school that has a strong medical school placement program because getting into a top medical school is so difficult. It is clear from the responses that lots of different majors have been successful paths to medical school. Nevertheless, some posters insist that biology or chemistry are the most appropriate pre-med majors. One poster argued, "if you’re not interested in biology or chemistry, medicine is not for you". But plenty of other posters disagree. Another factor that posters consider important is the workload of a major considering that difficult science classes will also be taken. The original poster's husband, as well as other posters, favor majors that could lead to good jobs if medical school didn't pan out. A side argument also broke out about which medical schools were best.