OK.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Antisemitism and free speech on college campus
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
Orbit
I'm a planet
Nobody's policy anywhere explicitly forbids calling for genocide. The question was ridiculous.
George Washington
*banned*
By not openly condemning genocide, they have subsequently placed the Universities they represent in a scandalous light.
And if their job is to ensure their constituents that these universities are above average, or pristigious institutions, they really needed to do a better job speaking to Congress. IOW, the presidents have all failed the test miserably, and they admitted it themselves afterward, and their own board members saw it.
Last edited:
Let's talk about ridiculous ...
“Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's rules or code of conduct? Yes or no?” she asked Elizabeth Magill, the president of Penn.
“If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment, yes,” Magill replied.
“Conduct meaning committing the act of genocide? The speech is not harassment?” Stefanik replied later in the exchange.
She also asked the president of Harvard, Claudine Gay, if “calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard's Code of Conduct.”
“It depends on the context,” Gay said in response.
So, to paraphrase (with emphasis add):
- If the calling for the genocide of Jews turns into conduct, it can be harassment.
- Whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard's Code of Conduct depends on the context.
The college is not a social club or community safety program. It's a place of learning and like a library many diverse people will show up.
I saw the lady barking at one president begging for a 'yes or no' answer to a question baited as a strawman argument.
Every soul knows it is wrong to call for genocide of any religious group. That is basic common sense.
And just as the problem is not about JEWS of JUDAISM. The problem is about ISRAEL blowing up civilians and the damage is now surfacing because the corrupt have equated the horrid atrocities as by JEWS.
JEWS an Judaism is not the problem, nor the people causing the atrocities in that apartheid Israel.
Maintaining solidarity with Israel to take out HAMAS is not about JEWS or JUDAISM.
Exactly!
Equating israel as representing Jews and Judaism, is evidenced in this exact issue and will always be a problem.
The education system should properly divide the terms and end the scope permanently.
Samael_Khan
Qigong / Yang Style Taijiquan / 7 Star Mantis
Students in tertiery education campuses have often played vital roles in activism and politics in general. From law to the arts, commentary on politics is normal. Often history courses teach how their politics blended with their profession. So it seems that activism is a natural byproduct of campuses.
Orbit
I'm a planet
They were asked a direct question which was ridiculous, because, as I said, no one has a policy that specifies genocide. Therefore, the context of the speech, including what exactly the speech is, matters, especially when the people asking the question define phrases like "from the river to the sea, Palestine should be free" as a "call for genocide". It was a shameful, McCarthy-esque hearing.
Orbit
I'm a planet
They weren't asked if they condemned genocide. They were asked if it was specified in their conduct policy. It isn't, because no one's policy specifies genocide. Congress failed America by even having that performative, McCarthy-esque "hearing",
What should the presidents have said assuming that their respective universities' codes of conduct didn't specify calls for genocide as harassment? Were the answers symptomatic of a problem with the presidents themselves, or were they merely a reflection of flawed and lax codes of conduct that could allow blatant hate speech?
I believe the First Amendment is overly lax and therefore an impediment to combating hate speech and, similarly, believe that any university's code of conduct is in need of reform if it is so permissive as to allow calls for genocide and regard them as "free speech." However, attacking a university president for merely conveying an accurate image of said code seems to me an act of shooting the messenger—it's not like the presidents could have just lied and answered "yes" contrary to what their universities' codes of conduct actually stated.
I do believe they could and should have condemned any calls for genocide during the hearing and stated that they would review the codes of conduct if those allowed any such incidents to go unchallenged, but that's a different issue from the question of what the codes specify as harassment. I should also note that the above is based on the premise that the codes of conduct indeed don't regard calls for genocide as bullying or harassment (or otherwise allow them), but I haven't checked said codes yet to confirm or refute this premise.
Orbit
I'm a planet
The codes of conduct aren't lax, and a call for genocide, if there ever actually was one (I have seen no evidence of one), would of course fall under hate speech. Does a university policy have to specifically list every type of hate speech to be a sufficient policy? I don't think so.
No, this McCarthy-inspired "hearing" was a partisan (Republican) effort to seize on the current hysteria surrounding Israel and use it to gut free speech on campuses, and especially to silence any pro-Palestinian voices on campus. It was a hit job, an attack on the American university community, and an attack on free speech.
I would also add that the Jewish students who were "offended" by pro-Palestinian protests sure do have a lot of financial backing from somewhere to be hiring billboard trucks to "shame" their Palestinian classmates, driving around the campus broadcasting photos of Palestinian students, labeling them terrorists. And hiring a private plane to fly over campus with a banner reading "Harvard Hates Jews". All because their classmates are concerned about genocide in Gaza, and dare to make that known.
If the codes of conduct already prohibit calls for genocide, I think the presidents should have said so during the hearing. Still, I largely agree with this:
As I said in my first post in this thread, I think the American government's response to the war has included, among other things, double standards and political posturing. Elise Stefanik is a far-right extremist who has supported a fellow Republican who explicitly praised Hitler:
GOP House candidate endorsed by Elise Stefanik said Hitler is 'the kind of leader we need today' in a 2021 interview, calling the Nazi ruler 'inspirational' and 'a doer'
"I understand that invoking Hitler in any context is a serious mistake and rightfully upsets people," Carl Paladino told Insider in a statement.
I also agree that there's a clearly lopsided focus from many politicians on pro-Palestinian expression and repeated attempts, in multiple countries, to demonize it or paint it as synonymous with support for Hamas. I suspect that some politicians are trying to handle the increasingly common and vocal criticism of Israel by shutting it down instead of engaging with it productively and thinking about how their foreign policies could be improved.
I read about the truck broadcasting photos of students' faces and found that irresponsible and repulsive. That is bullying and harassment, and if someone has a sound argument for their position, they shouldn't need to use such morally bankrupt tactics to shut down the opposition.
Q: Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's rules or code of conduct? Yes or no?
A: Yes. Calling for the genocide of Jews is hate speech that would clearly constitute an egregious act of harassment that "is sufficiently severe or pervasive such that it substantially interferes with an individual’s employment, education or access to University programs, activities or opportunities and would detrimentally affect a reasonable person under the same circumstances."
Egregious statements such as “if the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment” suggest to me the excessively cautious response of someone who has been overly coached by the university's legal advisors. Obviously, if calls for genocide turn into conduct harassment would be the least of my concerns.
It is also typical of Accuracy in Media.
Oh, my ... the rich Jews trope. What a surprise.
Meanwhile, CBS and others have noted that the ADL is investigating the Harvard plane incident and labelled the banner "disturbing."
Edited to add:
An email sent to a number of media organizations last week claimed that Jewish students were responsible for the flying banner. But that seems unlikely, according to Simmons.
Rabbi Getzel Davis of Harvard in an email said he also doubts Jewish students are behind the banner.
"I have no knowledge of who arranged the plane flying over Harvard’s campus and the surrounding area," he wrote. "It was not Harvard Hillel."
There does not appear to be a public place to learn who's paying for the banner. The Federal Aviation Administration requires banner-towing operators to file a certificate of waiver, and the FAA must provide a sign-off for pilots and aircraft. But a spokesman said the FAA "does not regulate banner messaging." [source]
Last edited:
Orbit
I'm a planet
Oh my, the "everything I see is anti-Semitism" trope. I would say the same thing no matter who the students were.
I would have found that a reasonable response and supported it. I think it would have been far better than the responses given during the hearing.
It is a different story, however, whether the specific examples Elise Stefanik may have had in mind when asking the question really were intended as a "call for genocide" or were, intentionally or not, misrepresented by her.
Agreed, and it has long been my opinion that incitement of immediate physical violence shouldn't be the only threshold for regulating hateful speech.
I'm not clear on what you mean here.
Of course. Nevertheless:
- I do not presume to know what Stefanik may have had in mind.
- Even were it intended as a 'gotcha' question, one might expect that the president of Penn would have the wherewithal to give a competent response.
Contrary to the above smear that
the Jewish students who were "offended" by pro-Palestinian protests sure do have a lot of financial backing from somewhere to be hiring billboard trucks to "shame" their Palestinian classmates, driving around the campus broadcasting photos of Palestinian students, labeling them terrorists
Yale News notes
The “doxxing truck,” part of conservative advocacy group Accuracy in Media’s “Campus Accountability Campaign,” continued to drive around New Haven for a third consecutive day. On Saturday, it displayed the names and photos of both Yale and Harvard students as the schools came together for the annual Yale-Harvard football game.
The truck first appeared on campus on Thursday, Nov. 16, rotating through the names and photos of students whom it deems “leading antisemities” on its digital billboards. By Friday, the truck had targeted at least 15 Yale graduate students, of which at least 12 are students of color, as well as at least two undergraduates.
By Saturday, the doxxing campaign in New Haven was targeting both Yale and Harvard students — many of whom had likely come to town for The Game. At 11:49 a.m., Accuracy in Media wrote in an X post that they were at annual football showdown to expose “the antisemites at Harvard and Yale.”
To the best of my knowledge, Accuracy in Media is not in the hire of rich Jewish students.
Agreed, on both counts.
Thanks for the excerpt and link. Accuracy in Media's actions strike me as grossly irresponsible, especially for an organization rather than an individual or small group of individuals.
Returning to this December 5th exchange:
It's worth noting that a month earlier CNN reported:
So what, in December, could be harassment if it turns into conduct was, back in November, deemed vicious, hateful, pernicious, hurtful, and intolerable acts shaking the Jewish community's sense of safety and belonging on campus.
“Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's rules or code of conduct? Yes or no?” she asked Elizabeth Magill, the president of Penn.
“If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment, yes,” Magill replied.
It's worth noting that a month earlier CNN reported:
Magill denounced the threatening emails, calling them “vicious and hateful antisemitic acts and words.”
“The perniciousness of antisemitic acts on our campus is causing deep hurt and fear for our Jewish students, faculty, and staff and shaking their sense of safety and belonging at Penn. This is intolerable,” she said.
So what, in December, could be harassment if it turns into conduct was, back in November, deemed vicious, hateful, pernicious, hurtful, and intolerable acts shaking the Jewish community's sense of safety and belonging on campus.
Orbit
I'm a planet
My views on the whole thing are captured perfectly here:
aaup-penn.org
Statement of the AAUP-Penn Executive Committee on the Resignation of President Magill | AAUP–Penn
December 9, 2023 In recent months, trustees, donors, lobbying organizations, and members of Congress have repeatedly misrepresented the words and deeds of Penn faculty and students who have expressed concern for Palestinian civilians and criticized the war in Gaza, going … Statement of the...
aaup-penn.org