Presidents of Harvard, MIT and Penn acknowledge safety concerns of Jewish and Israeli students, vow to take action against Jew hatred, but demur on what speech should be punished
What a garbage article, like, start to finish manipulative attempt to build a stupid narrative. Like, antisemitism is a real thing but this kind of nonsense discredits real attempts to call it out.
The chanting, I think, calling for intifada, global revolution, [is] very disturbing,” Magill said during questioning. “I believe at minimum that is hateful speech that has been and should be condemned.
Intifada means “resistance.” Every occupied people has a right to resist. Except, apparently, Palestinians.
… grilled Gay on Harvard’s Middle East Studies courses, which she claimed included “false accusations that Israel is a racist, settler colonialist, apartheid state
Well, it is. No amount of trying to conflate support for human rights with antisemitism is going to change that.
If this is what they mean by “hate” nobody should be surprised that lots of people aren’t buying it.
As the university presidents were trying to explain to Clown Shoes, sorry, I mean Elise Stefanik: Harassment is conduct that is severe or pervasive enough to create an environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive. A one-time generalized statement calling for genocide not targeted at a specific individual would not usually rise to the level of harassment per se, but can certainly be part of a pattern of harassment. Similarly, actual bullying is a pattern of abusive behavior and cannot be defined by any single act as it is often used colloquially.
That’s the game Stefanik is playing: She knows these universities’ policies are bound by the actual, legal definitions of “harassment” and “bullying” but she’s counting on her ignorant audience not knowing those definitions and instead thinking the words are defined as what they use them for in their own lives: someone being mean.
I read this more as “Heads of 3 top US colleges refuse to trap themselves in what was likely to be a performative thread of anti-Palestinian questions from one of Congress’s most shameless clown-people (Elise Stefanik).”
To be clear, from the article itself:
The university leaders all personally criticized anti-Israel activism.
On second thought, it may not have even been anti-Palestinian per se, but rather more careless exploitation in pursuit of CRT-adjacent nonsense.
Some Republicans sought to paint campus antisemitism as a product of universities embracing “the race-based ideology of the radical left,”
I feel like there’s some weird context here. Why does Stefanik want to get that “yes” and why are they reluctant to say it? Would it be a declaration of some university policy that would lead to suppressing the demonstrations or what?
So in other words they understood that they were being called on to condemn antisemitism in order to help reinforce the narrative that these college rallies were antisemitic protests, when in fact they were pro-Palestinian ones.
Good on them for choosing to side with their students rather than give the anti-Palestinian camp their manufactured “professors condemn antisemitic student rallies” soundbites.
Refuse to engage with their genocide-backing rhetoric that tries to tie being pro-Palestinian to being antisemitic.
this is going to be locked for a variety of reasons:
this is essentially propaganda/an extremely biased opinion piece
it uncritically adopts the framing of Elise Stefanik when she is neither a good faith actor generally, nor asking questions about “calling for the genocide of the Jews” in good faith. it’s very clear she just means “pro-Palestinian demonstrators” when she talks about people “calling for genocide” and that’s stupid.
it’s just not a good article, generally. there are plenty of other, better articles that can be used as a vessel to talk about Israel-Palestine (including ones that have a pro-Israeli voice)
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
What a garbage article, like, start to finish manipulative attempt to build a stupid narrative. Like, antisemitism is a real thing but this kind of nonsense discredits real attempts to call it out.
deleted by creator
From this garbage article
Intifada means “resistance.” Every occupied people has a right to resist. Except, apparently, Palestinians.
Well, it is. No amount of trying to conflate support for human rights with antisemitism is going to change that.
If this is what they mean by “hate” nobody should be surprised that lots of people aren’t buying it.
I bet you went around saying “ALL LIVES MATTER”.
Because it is a loaded question, to answer it is to imply that this is a common or large scale issue on US campuses, which it clearly isn’t.
As the university presidents were trying to explain to Clown Shoes, sorry, I mean Elise Stefanik: Harassment is conduct that is severe or pervasive enough to create an environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive. A one-time generalized statement calling for genocide not targeted at a specific individual would not usually rise to the level of harassment per se, but can certainly be part of a pattern of harassment. Similarly, actual bullying is a pattern of abusive behavior and cannot be defined by any single act as it is often used colloquially.
That’s the game Stefanik is playing: She knows these universities’ policies are bound by the actual, legal definitions of “harassment” and “bullying” but she’s counting on her ignorant audience not knowing those definitions and instead thinking the words are defined as what they use them for in their own lives: someone being mean.
You know it is an unbiased source when there is a bright red banner at the top of the page indicating which day of the war on Gaza it is.
I read this more as “Heads of 3 top US colleges refuse to trap themselves in what was likely to be a performative thread of anti-Palestinian questions from one of Congress’s most shameless clown-people (Elise Stefanik).”
To be clear, from the article itself:
On second thought, it may not have even been anti-Palestinian per se, but rather more careless exploitation in pursuit of CRT-adjacent nonsense.
deleted by creator
Bullshit article. Shame on you OP
Here’s a fuller account of what was said:
https://archive.is/Z9vMg
(Original URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/12/06/3-elite-college-presidents-answered-questions-antisemitism/)
I feel like there’s some weird context here. Why does Stefanik want to get that “yes” and why are they reluctant to say it? Would it be a declaration of some university policy that would lead to suppressing the demonstrations or what?
Just the cheap headline, which is obviously all about framing is enough for me to not read the article.
Yup, head in the sand. That works.
I choose what I read based on quality, that´s all.
At least the headline is so bad it’s pretty obvious.
Source: your bio.
Doing a lot of putting your head in the sand lately, have we?
People are not obligated to engage with obviously shitty rhetoric.
Ich dachte Nacktmullen spuehren keinen Schmerz?!? 🤣
Nackmulle registrieren Schmerz, nehmen ihn aber nicht als unangenehm wahr (: )=
So in other words they understood that they were being called on to condemn antisemitism in order to help reinforce the narrative that these college rallies were antisemitic protests, when in fact they were pro-Palestinian ones.
Good on them for choosing to side with their students rather than give the anti-Palestinian camp their manufactured “professors condemn antisemitic student rallies” soundbites.
Refuse to engage with their genocide-backing rhetoric that tries to tie being pro-Palestinian to being antisemitic.
this is going to be locked for a variety of reasons: