so I'm not a lawyer, & I hate Stefanik as much as the next decent person. But I thought this, from 2 democratic congressmen who went to Harvard, seems like an irrefutable point: "Harvard ranks last out of 248 universities for support of free speech but when it comes to denouncing antisemitism, suddenly the university has anxieties about …
so I'm not a lawyer, & I hate Stefanik as much as the next decent person. But I thought this, from 2 democratic congressmen who went to Harvard, seems like an irrefutable point: "Harvard ranks last out of 248 universities for support of free speech but when it comes to denouncing antisemitism, suddenly the university has anxieties about the First Amendment. It rings hollow." And I know Jewish college students are getting harrassed and threatened on campus & these schools are doing little to nothing about that, which seems off-brand for them. Something is inconsistent here. Also the defenses put out a full day later from the presidents of Harvard & Penn are extremely weak, and if they had a better argument, presumably akin to yours, that would have been the time to make it. All that said, I despise agreeing with MAGA Republicans on anything at all, but I've felt somewhat politically homeless for a couple of months now, is what it is. At any rate, this is the first explanation or defense of any sort I've seen so far, so thank you for that.
I pulled that from a bloomberg news article this morning but its a quote. I'd like to assume 2 democratic congressmen didn't make it up but it didn't explain the source. Doesn't seem counterintuitive, however.
Got it. I mean I don't care very specifically about the actual rating of course. The point is that Harvard is quite clearly not overly concerned with free speech so much as are about student's feelings and about equality. Until now.
Specifically to what Jonathan said, President Gay let a law professor twist in the wind when students objected to him defending Harvey Weinstein, a pretty clear case of putting students feelings ahead of a lawyer performing their duty (something even higher than freedom of association or free speech, no?)
She also recently failed to defend Professor Hoover (Hooven?) who recently wrote a book about testosterone and said in broadcast television that humans had two sexes, male and female. This one is pretty clearly putting the professor’s free speech rights behind the feelings of her students, some of whom joined a protest led by a DEI administrator (there’s that program [pogrom?] again!)
Happy to disagree about it but this is why I mentioned the quote - clearly FIRE at least believes she/they have (whether or not the specific ratings are of much use)
at a very bare minimum I would hope we can all agree that given everything, their explanation/defense after an entire day of planning could have been a whole lot better than what they put out. Putting out a weak defense, one of them hostage video style, strongly suggests having no good explanation at all.
Wow, you're STILL here with the pathetic non-sequitur insults? What a sad life you lead. Xitter still exists, you know, go nuts. Off to find a mute button now.
I'm just enjoying your increasingly sad responses. You went from a serious response to a "they weren't prepared" wah wah wah. Next up you'll be rhyming your comments.
well apparently substack's block function doesn't work. No, you are clueless enough to probably be a russian troll or a bot so I'm not wasting my time explaining to you. Waste of time. Real/sane people already get it so they don't need it. Get a hobby, comrade.
It’s subjective, opaque, based on perceptions that are highly questionable (just as people’s perception of whether crime is up are down are highly questionable), based on perceptions to which they contribute, sometimes argumentative, sometimes out of date, and sometimes arbitrary.
FIRE's standards and criteria are clearly delineated. The organization has done a better measure than any other I've seen. Any suggestions as to an alternative?
You're demanding a dumb answer to a hard problem. Criteria based on perceptual factors call into question whether the rankings reveal anything useful about the actual state of free speech on college campuses. Over the past few years, there have been occasional firestorms of controversy in the football stadiums on many college campuses due to the difficulty of establishing criteria which are clear, workable and that align with the layman's understanding of what constitutes a "catch". The idea that FIRE has the whole 'measuring free speech' problem licked is laughable.
Not gonna speak for Ken, but a big issue with it seems to be that the ratings are largely based on how much students "feel silenced" by their peers (not even the school!) as opposed to actual policies and practices of the school in terms of free speech - essentially, it conflates "people use their speech against my speech" with "my speech is literally censored or punished by the administration."
That's fair. I'm not a big fan of the "feel silenced" standard myself; that's the kind of standard that got us into this mess in the first place. I do think there is a role for the administration in cultivating an environment and a student body that tolerates minority views and opinions, but that's very difficult to judge, and kids "feeling silenced" is not a good benchmark.
Yeah, and I'm not blaming any of the college students - going to a college that is supposed to be about intellectual freedom and then having your professor be a jerk to you because you actually participated in that project is a terrible experience! It's just a) something that can't really be fully gauged by surveying students who have only ever been to one school, and b) a different issue than an adminstration that actively punished students/staff/faculty for their speech.
There probably *is* a way to try to rank school by how much they have free speech culture and to what degree faculty have censorious tendencies, but it would be very hard and I think think FIRE has figured it out.
(funny enough my very censorious alma mater isn't even in their rankings!)
But in any case I wasn't saying they made up the quote, I'm saying that they took it uncredulously enough to just print it without checking -- as did you, so go back to my original point about me not speaking "dumb."
(Also, the ranking is probably FIRE's because that's what I got when I googled it, something you easily could have done. EDIT: Ninja'd by Ken)
The rankings are by the FIRE foundation. A very credible non-partisan organization that defends free speech and people of all political backgrounds when their free speech is assailed at American Universities. The rankings are derived from extremely extensive nation-wide surveys: https://rankings.thefire.org/rank/school/harvard-university
I did not... You either pretended not understand what was being discussed because you were being intellectually dishonest or genuinely did not understand what was being discussed. I did not originally hazard an unflattering guess though I dare say that I will now.
Which part is incoherent? That they haven't done enough to protect free speech or that they are doing too much to protect free speech? The incoherence is as much in the criticism of Harvard as it is in their actions. So pick a side, they should do more to protect it? Or less? Far be it from me, but I think what they are doing here is a step in the right direction, which is to support more free speech.
And for people looking for the ranking, it is indeed FIRE:
I believe I am being fairly clear that I would like enough consistency that the only free speech they would care about is that which threatens jews, especially the ones right there on campus
And which ones specifically are threatening Jews on campus? Are there people running up to Jews and yelling in their face that they should all die? Then yes, I agree. Are you referring to someone's anti-Zionistic poster? Then no.
Nor do I understand what consistency means to you. Because that fundamentally comes back to what kind of consistency that you want. Consistency to protect their speech, thus ostensibly reversing the trends that FIRE says are there. Or do you want to kick out more kids for exercising their (shitty) free speech and thus further eroding the speech issues of FIRE.
you can't be serious. You don't believe that many jews on campus feel personally threatened and are reporting incidents, without me showing you proof? its rampant. ok I'm done now. Life's too short, this has gotten twitter level of stupid.
People, and students in particular, can feel threatened by real threats (the former of my examples) and also by statements that pose absolutely no threat (such as the latter of my examples). I didn't ask for proof that they happened, as I know both are happening. I asked which you wanted to be completely intolerant of.
I think (and maybe I'm being charitable here) that the Harvard/Penn/Other Ivies feel caught between 2 traditionally targeted groups, IE Jewish folks and Palestinians/those sympathetic to them. Maybe they feared overstepping on pro-Palestine demonstrations, especially since the phrases that Stefanik singled out aren't pro-genocide per se, even if they are often interpretted as such.
Ultimately it's like Ken said - this is a very difficult, thorny, multi-faceted issue without a simple answer.
All fair, and I think Ezra Klein put it best on of his recent podcasts, but there's a unique loneliness that the liberal Jew is now experiencing post 10/7, and it's being felt most acutely in places like higher ed. These are Jews who were at the forefront of every progressive cause, including calls to oust Likud and end incursions of settlements, and are now experiencing venomous antisemitism from the very same people whom they previously locked arms with.
I think that pain needs to acknowledged a lot better by people on the left, and democrats are in the best position to do so. Which is why it's little more than rank incompetence that they've let Elise Stefanik take that mantle right out from under them. The moral high ground for persecuted Jews has been ceded to a woman who advocates for the Great Replacement Theory and likely has a browser history littered with her theories on the various ills George Soros has inflicted on America.
I would suggest reading David French in todays NYT. I never agree with him but I think he got this right. I am in the Academy. I value free speech and I see some of these progressive institutions failing to defend it consistently. The U of Chicago took the right path years ago.
so I'm not a lawyer, & I hate Stefanik as much as the next decent person. But I thought this, from 2 democratic congressmen who went to Harvard, seems like an irrefutable point: "Harvard ranks last out of 248 universities for support of free speech but when it comes to denouncing antisemitism, suddenly the university has anxieties about the First Amendment. It rings hollow." And I know Jewish college students are getting harrassed and threatened on campus & these schools are doing little to nothing about that, which seems off-brand for them. Something is inconsistent here. Also the defenses put out a full day later from the presidents of Harvard & Penn are extremely weak, and if they had a better argument, presumably akin to yours, that would have been the time to make it. All that said, I despise agreeing with MAGA Republicans on anything at all, but I've felt somewhat politically homeless for a couple of months now, is what it is. At any rate, this is the first explanation or defense of any sort I've seen so far, so thank you for that.
Harvard ranks last? According to whom? I didn't know that amendments came with rankings.
I pulled that from a bloomberg news article this morning but its a quote. I'd like to assume 2 democratic congressmen didn't make it up but it didn't explain the source. Doesn't seem counterintuitive, however.
It’s probably a FIRE rating. FIRE’s litigation to defend speech of all kinds is peerless. I am not a fan of its rating systems.
Got it. I mean I don't care very specifically about the actual rating of course. The point is that Harvard is quite clearly not overly concerned with free speech so much as are about student's feelings and about equality. Until now.
What does that mean?
Is there an instance where the Harvard President gave an inconsistent answer when faced with racism to someone else?
Specifically to what Jonathan said, President Gay let a law professor twist in the wind when students objected to him defending Harvey Weinstein, a pretty clear case of putting students feelings ahead of a lawyer performing their duty (something even higher than freedom of association or free speech, no?)
She also recently failed to defend Professor Hoover (Hooven?) who recently wrote a book about testosterone and said in broadcast television that humans had two sexes, male and female. This one is pretty clearly putting the professor’s free speech rights behind the feelings of her students, some of whom joined a protest led by a DEI administrator (there’s that program [pogrom?] again!)
Happy to disagree about it but this is why I mentioned the quote - clearly FIRE at least believes she/they have (whether or not the specific ratings are of much use)
at a very bare minimum I would hope we can all agree that given everything, their explanation/defense after an entire day of planning could have been a whole lot better than what they put out. Putting out a weak defense, one of them hostage video style, strongly suggests having no good explanation at all.
You're down to "they could have done better"? Thanks, minimalist-boy.
Wow, you're STILL here with the pathetic non-sequitur insults? What a sad life you lead. Xitter still exists, you know, go nuts. Off to find a mute button now.
I'm just enjoying your increasingly sad responses. You went from a serious response to a "they weren't prepared" wah wah wah. Next up you'll be rhyming your comments.
I never said that at all and you so wildly misunderstand my point that I’m starting to wonder if you don’t actually speak English. Blocking you now.
I understand your point which allows me to mock it as effectively as I have been.
well apparently substack's block function doesn't work. No, you are clueless enough to probably be a russian troll or a bot so I'm not wasting my time explaining to you. Waste of time. Real/sane people already get it so they don't need it. Get a hobby, comrade.
Yes it is a FIRE rating.
https://www.thefire.org/college-free-speech-rankings
What makes you not a fan of their rating system?
It’s subjective, opaque, based on perceptions that are highly questionable (just as people’s perception of whether crime is up are down are highly questionable), based on perceptions to which they contribute, sometimes argumentative, sometimes out of date, and sometimes arbitrary.
FIRE's standards and criteria are clearly delineated. The organization has done a better measure than any other I've seen. Any suggestions as to an alternative?
You're demanding a dumb answer to a hard problem. Criteria based on perceptual factors call into question whether the rankings reveal anything useful about the actual state of free speech on college campuses. Over the past few years, there have been occasional firestorms of controversy in the football stadiums on many college campuses due to the difficulty of establishing criteria which are clear, workable and that align with the layman's understanding of what constitutes a "catch". The idea that FIRE has the whole 'measuring free speech' problem licked is laughable.
Not gonna speak for Ken, but a big issue with it seems to be that the ratings are largely based on how much students "feel silenced" by their peers (not even the school!) as opposed to actual policies and practices of the school in terms of free speech - essentially, it conflates "people use their speech against my speech" with "my speech is literally censored or punished by the administration."
That's fair. I'm not a big fan of the "feel silenced" standard myself; that's the kind of standard that got us into this mess in the first place. I do think there is a role for the administration in cultivating an environment and a student body that tolerates minority views and opinions, but that's very difficult to judge, and kids "feeling silenced" is not a good benchmark.
Yeah, and I'm not blaming any of the college students - going to a college that is supposed to be about intellectual freedom and then having your professor be a jerk to you because you actually participated in that project is a terrible experience! It's just a) something that can't really be fully gauged by surveying students who have only ever been to one school, and b) a different issue than an adminstration that actively punished students/staff/faculty for their speech.
There probably *is* a way to try to rank school by how much they have free speech culture and to what degree faculty have censorious tendencies, but it would be very hard and I think think FIRE has figured it out.
(funny enough my very censorious alma mater isn't even in their rankings!)
I think it is very hard and the FIRE rankings are highly flawed, but scoring dead last probably does indicate a fairly bad culture.
Oh, no, was a professor mean to someone? That's a war crime/genocide right there.
"I heard it on Bloomberg" is not the recommendation you think it is.
if you're going to claim that bloomberg news makes things up including quotes then we do not speak the same language enough to have a conversation
I don't speak "dumb" so you may be right.
But in any case I wasn't saying they made up the quote, I'm saying that they took it uncredulously enough to just print it without checking -- as did you, so go back to my original point about me not speaking "dumb."
(Also, the ranking is probably FIRE's because that's what I got when I googled it, something you easily could have done. EDIT: Ninja'd by Ken)
The rankings are by the FIRE foundation. A very credible non-partisan organization that defends free speech and people of all political backgrounds when their free speech is assailed at American Universities. The rankings are derived from extremely extensive nation-wide surveys: https://rankings.thefire.org/rank/school/harvard-university
Whoosh. Missed the whole conversation above you, didn't you?
I did not... You either pretended not understand what was being discussed because you were being intellectually dishonest or genuinely did not understand what was being discussed. I did not originally hazard an unflattering guess though I dare say that I will now.
Read. Please.
Respect for the Bill of Rights "come with" rankings.
Which part is incoherent? That they haven't done enough to protect free speech or that they are doing too much to protect free speech? The incoherence is as much in the criticism of Harvard as it is in their actions. So pick a side, they should do more to protect it? Or less? Far be it from me, but I think what they are doing here is a step in the right direction, which is to support more free speech.
And for people looking for the ranking, it is indeed FIRE:
https://rankings.thefire.org/rank/school/harvard-university
I believe I am being fairly clear that I would like enough consistency that the only free speech they would care about is that which threatens jews, especially the ones right there on campus
And which ones specifically are threatening Jews on campus? Are there people running up to Jews and yelling in their face that they should all die? Then yes, I agree. Are you referring to someone's anti-Zionistic poster? Then no.
Nor do I understand what consistency means to you. Because that fundamentally comes back to what kind of consistency that you want. Consistency to protect their speech, thus ostensibly reversing the trends that FIRE says are there. Or do you want to kick out more kids for exercising their (shitty) free speech and thus further eroding the speech issues of FIRE.
So, no, I don't think you're clear enough.
you can't be serious. You don't believe that many jews on campus feel personally threatened and are reporting incidents, without me showing you proof? its rampant. ok I'm done now. Life's too short, this has gotten twitter level of stupid.
People, and students in particular, can feel threatened by real threats (the former of my examples) and also by statements that pose absolutely no threat (such as the latter of my examples). I didn't ask for proof that they happened, as I know both are happening. I asked which you wanted to be completely intolerant of.
I think (and maybe I'm being charitable here) that the Harvard/Penn/Other Ivies feel caught between 2 traditionally targeted groups, IE Jewish folks and Palestinians/those sympathetic to them. Maybe they feared overstepping on pro-Palestine demonstrations, especially since the phrases that Stefanik singled out aren't pro-genocide per se, even if they are often interpretted as such.
Ultimately it's like Ken said - this is a very difficult, thorny, multi-faceted issue without a simple answer.
All fair, and I think Ezra Klein put it best on of his recent podcasts, but there's a unique loneliness that the liberal Jew is now experiencing post 10/7, and it's being felt most acutely in places like higher ed. These are Jews who were at the forefront of every progressive cause, including calls to oust Likud and end incursions of settlements, and are now experiencing venomous antisemitism from the very same people whom they previously locked arms with.
I think that pain needs to acknowledged a lot better by people on the left, and democrats are in the best position to do so. Which is why it's little more than rank incompetence that they've let Elise Stefanik take that mantle right out from under them. The moral high ground for persecuted Jews has been ceded to a woman who advocates for the Great Replacement Theory and likely has a browser history littered with her theories on the various ills George Soros has inflicted on America.
I would suggest reading David French in todays NYT. I never agree with him but I think he got this right. I am in the Academy. I value free speech and I see some of these progressive institutions failing to defend it consistently. The U of Chicago took the right path years ago.
"Hate" and "despise" are the dominant words in your post.
And yet, some light through yonder window shows: You are questioning your bigotry.