Thanks, Ken. One of the better pieces of analysis I've read on any subject in a long while.
That said, one bit of constructive feedback...near the end you omitted the fact that some, including Jews (like this one), detest the Israeli government. Detesting said government (and voicing as much) doesn't make one anti-Semitic (or self loathing), and clearly isn't hate speech (it's valid political discourse).
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'm deeply offended at being called a dupe. I find that simple problems, like the multimillenial Israeli Palestinian conflict, call for simple answers. Yes and no. Simple. That's why I support the
I watched the Stefanik "yes or no" video yesterday and I cringed at her treatment of the administrators. So I today I was glad to see I'm not alone among near-absolute supporters of free speech to have that reaction, and grateful to Mr. Hat for expressing my view so cogently.
In September, the standard line of attack was that Universities were too restrictive of speech with all their "political correctness." Now it's December and the attack is that Universities aren't restrictive enough. Maybe some people just really don't like universities?
1 In context of the hearing where mass demonstrations were the topic, advocating genocide would by my convention meet pervasive criteria. No one was talking about private or in class academic discussions. 2. The concern is that these rules are applied differently to classes of people which would therefore constitute discrimination. We could discuss if this actually happens. 3. The presidents would have done themselves a favor if they actually used the kind of examples you provided. That they couldn’t suggests they don’t really understand the issue. It was a trap but they walked right into it.
allow me to cite chapter and verse from Penn's code of student conduct "The University condemns hate speech, epithets, and racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs. However, the content of student speech or expression is not by itself a basis for disciplinary action."
Magill made a tactical error in playing according to Stefanik's terms but she was 100% correct in relaying Penn's rules on the topic.
This entire line of argument relies on taking at face value Stefanik's claim that "intifada" is a synonym for "genocide the Jews on this college campus," which is of course preposterous.
And, as I know Ken knows, sometimes language criticizing Israel is anti-Zionist but not antisemitic.
Contra Stefanik, the GOP chuds other than Massie, and half of House Democrats, and thus contra HR 894, anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. Also contra them, the IHRA definition of antisemitism is NOT "widely accepted."
Don't like it?
Talk to Phil Weiss at Mondoweiss. Talk to Norman Finkelstein. Talk to Raz Segal.
Or, if you don't like those options, either? Talk to the hand.
Absolutely none of the participants were serious, not Stefanic and not the college presidents. There were absolutely no good faith actors present. We must not forget how little these same schools cared about supposed "context" in the very recent past when those offended were of much more concern to the administration.
I was almost duped, so thanks for un-duping me so ferociously. Thanks also for discussing 1st Amendment speech exceptions, Title IX, and how Harvard's policy mirrors these legal definitions. Why don't those - especially elected representatives and journalists - who are so quick to denounce these college leaders consider these points before going all hair-on-fire? Answering my own question, I suspect it's because we can't resist an opportunity to add fuel to our culture wars. Shame on ordinary citizens and double shame on our reps and journos.
Thought this was interesting and worth reading from a Rabbi who just quit the Harvard antisemitism advisory committee. The issue is how this stuff is framed.
"However, the system at Harvard along with the ideology that grips far too many of the students and faculty, the ideology that works only along axes of oppression and places Jews as oppressors and therefore intrinsically evil, is itself evil. Ignoring Jewish suffering is evil. Belittling or denying the Jewish experience, including unspeakable atrocities, is a vast and continuing catastrophe. Denying Israel the self-determination as a Jewish nation accorded unthinkingly to others is endemic, and evil."
I agree that the hearings were largely designed largely for grandstanding and fundraising and were never going to be the place for a nuanced conversation. And that the university presidents were poorly prepared and bungled the questions posed. I see it as a missed opportunity to address actual anti-semitic conduct, not speech, that is occurring around campuses. For instance, at Harvard, protestors (one a Harvard Law Review editor) surrounded/mobbed a student who tried to film them with his phone and grabbed at him in an attempt to prevent him from recording the encounter. At other schools, pro-Palestinian students built barriers to block students as tney tried to walk across campus, they have physicallty assaulted Jewish students at, among other places, Tulane and Columbia, they have disrupted classed, they have padlocked doors to a university building to prevent students from taking a midterm, they pounded on doors and windows, trapping Jewish students in the Cooper Union library, they spray-painted swastikas and slogans on school property at American University, among numerous other examples. It would have been more helpful to have asked the university presidents whether such conduct -- not speech -- violates their respective school codes and, if so, why such students are not being punished. At this point, before we get into what pure speech violates school codes of conduct, I would be happy if the schools actually took some steps to protect Jewish and other students from conduct.
As always, I appreciate your thoughtful, well reasoned analysis Ken. But there are two issues here:
1.) The presidents of these elite institutions should have been smart enough not to fall into such an obvious trap. This called for a Joseph Welch "do you have no decency, sir?" clarity of response -- not legalese fumphering. That's what leaders do. and
2.) The double standard on university free speech is appalling. As a straight, white male if I call someone the wrong pronoun I'm accused of a micro-aggression harassment. If some racist asshat has a rally where he says " all the black students here are lazy (n-words)" the reaction would be swift and unequivocal. Why wasn't there the same reaction to calling for genocide against Jews? Can't have it both ways, sir.
Thanks, Ken. One of the better pieces of analysis I've read on any subject in a long while.
That said, one bit of constructive feedback...near the end you omitted the fact that some, including Jews (like this one), detest the Israeli government. Detesting said government (and voicing as much) doesn't make one anti-Semitic (or self loathing), and clearly isn't hate speech (it's valid political discourse).
Enough of your mealy mouth bullshit, is a taco a sandwich or not?
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'm deeply offended at being called a dupe. I find that simple problems, like the multimillenial Israeli Palestinian conflict, call for simple answers. Yes and no. Simple. That's why I support the
I watched the Stefanik "yes or no" video yesterday and I cringed at her treatment of the administrators. So I today I was glad to see I'm not alone among near-absolute supporters of free speech to have that reaction, and grateful to Mr. Hat for expressing my view so cogently.
In September, the standard line of attack was that Universities were too restrictive of speech with all their "political correctness." Now it's December and the attack is that Universities aren't restrictive enough. Maybe some people just really don't like universities?
1 In context of the hearing where mass demonstrations were the topic, advocating genocide would by my convention meet pervasive criteria. No one was talking about private or in class academic discussions. 2. The concern is that these rules are applied differently to classes of people which would therefore constitute discrimination. We could discuss if this actually happens. 3. The presidents would have done themselves a favor if they actually used the kind of examples you provided. That they couldn’t suggests they don’t really understand the issue. It was a trap but they walked right into it.
Stefanik: "Does killing someone count as first degree murder? Yes or no?!!"
allow me to cite chapter and verse from Penn's code of student conduct "The University condemns hate speech, epithets, and racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs. However, the content of student speech or expression is not by itself a basis for disciplinary action."
Magill made a tactical error in playing according to Stefanik's terms but she was 100% correct in relaying Penn's rules on the topic.
This entire line of argument relies on taking at face value Stefanik's claim that "intifada" is a synonym for "genocide the Jews on this college campus," which is of course preposterous.
And, as I know Ken knows, sometimes language criticizing Israel is anti-Zionist but not antisemitic.
Contra Stefanik, the GOP chuds other than Massie, and half of House Democrats, and thus contra HR 894, anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. Also contra them, the IHRA definition of antisemitism is NOT "widely accepted."
Don't like it?
Talk to Phil Weiss at Mondoweiss. Talk to Norman Finkelstein. Talk to Raz Segal.
Or, if you don't like those options, either? Talk to the hand.
Absolutely none of the participants were serious, not Stefanic and not the college presidents. There were absolutely no good faith actors present. We must not forget how little these same schools cared about supposed "context" in the very recent past when those offended were of much more concern to the administration.
I was almost duped, so thanks for un-duping me so ferociously. Thanks also for discussing 1st Amendment speech exceptions, Title IX, and how Harvard's policy mirrors these legal definitions. Why don't those - especially elected representatives and journalists - who are so quick to denounce these college leaders consider these points before going all hair-on-fire? Answering my own question, I suspect it's because we can't resist an opportunity to add fuel to our culture wars. Shame on ordinary citizens and double shame on our reps and journos.
Thought this was interesting and worth reading from a Rabbi who just quit the Harvard antisemitism advisory committee. The issue is how this stuff is framed.
https://twitter.com/RabbiWolpe/status/1732847413214208141
"However, the system at Harvard along with the ideology that grips far too many of the students and faculty, the ideology that works only along axes of oppression and places Jews as oppressors and therefore intrinsically evil, is itself evil. Ignoring Jewish suffering is evil. Belittling or denying the Jewish experience, including unspeakable atrocities, is a vast and continuing catastrophe. Denying Israel the self-determination as a Jewish nation accorded unthinkingly to others is endemic, and evil."
I agree that the hearings were largely designed largely for grandstanding and fundraising and were never going to be the place for a nuanced conversation. And that the university presidents were poorly prepared and bungled the questions posed. I see it as a missed opportunity to address actual anti-semitic conduct, not speech, that is occurring around campuses. For instance, at Harvard, protestors (one a Harvard Law Review editor) surrounded/mobbed a student who tried to film them with his phone and grabbed at him in an attempt to prevent him from recording the encounter. At other schools, pro-Palestinian students built barriers to block students as tney tried to walk across campus, they have physicallty assaulted Jewish students at, among other places, Tulane and Columbia, they have disrupted classed, they have padlocked doors to a university building to prevent students from taking a midterm, they pounded on doors and windows, trapping Jewish students in the Cooper Union library, they spray-painted swastikas and slogans on school property at American University, among numerous other examples. It would have been more helpful to have asked the university presidents whether such conduct -- not speech -- violates their respective school codes and, if so, why such students are not being punished. At this point, before we get into what pure speech violates school codes of conduct, I would be happy if the schools actually took some steps to protect Jewish and other students from conduct.
As always, I appreciate your thoughtful, well reasoned analysis Ken. But there are two issues here:
1.) The presidents of these elite institutions should have been smart enough not to fall into such an obvious trap. This called for a Joseph Welch "do you have no decency, sir?" clarity of response -- not legalese fumphering. That's what leaders do. and
2.) The double standard on university free speech is appalling. As a straight, white male if I call someone the wrong pronoun I'm accused of a micro-aggression harassment. If some racist asshat has a rally where he says " all the black students here are lazy (n-words)" the reaction would be swift and unequivocal. Why wasn't there the same reaction to calling for genocide against Jews? Can't have it both ways, sir.