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 s…
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.
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.