Also FWIW though, I imagine the schools’ boards are the ones who determine what constitutes harassment. It’s not as if they’re talking about state laws but their own school’s policy definition. If they think students calling for a whole group of people (some of whom are other students) to be killed for whatever reason doesn’t violate any conduct, these are rules they established and they have the power to change.
If they’re happy with that on matter of principle that’s fine, but I’m glad they showed the world what they stand for.
1 Like
Yes, I am sure they were advised by lawyers. That is also very telling.
They weren’t in court, where they could be held liable for misstating official policy. It’s not like they were going to be sued. It’s just bad optics to wrap themselves up in legalese!
All they had to do was say “calling for genocide of any group is hateful and constitutes harassment when directed at students”.
4 Likes
lol - you should have been up there! They were horrible.
3 Likes
No one should ever testify before Congress without legal counsel present.
1 Like
They should maybe have brought a PR representative instead.
I am sure they brought both
Agree
shame on them. I am very disappointed in MIT specifically since my DD is an alumnae.
1 Like
If current or prospective students feel the same, they can certainly take their business elsewhere. There are plenty of kids in line for their spots.
1 Like
It would not surprise me if the Ivy League Presidents discussed their position on free speech among themselves and agreed to maintain a consistent position
2 Likes
So on the flip side, everyone should be ok with businesses refusing to hire students outed as supporting Hamas or tearing down hostage posters etc. Free speech goes both ways. A private employer doesn’t have to hire someone who isn’t the right culture fit.
6 Likes
I think this is 100% correct. And what several posters have suggested is appropriate from the get-go on the thread about anti-semistism and other hateful speech.
Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences unless we are talking about the gov’t.
P.S. Also, students on the campuses involved can make the same choice as private businesses and not associate with those who make their anti-semitism known. Freedom of expression and association are two ways streets.
5 Likes
I don’t think anyone doubts that private employers can hire as they wish. Whether it makes sense for them to do so is another matter, but there have long been, for example, Democratic law firms and Republicans law firms. Generally other employers shy away from any such litmus test not wanting to get involved in making judgments, but they could.
Employers usually try to avoid any involvement in employees’ private lives and limit hiring decisions to work-related qualifications.
Generally companies avoid hiring employees who call for genocide or other hate speech.
8 Likes
Yes, there was a lot of that in the aftermath of Charlottesville.
And, with the bird watcher/dog walker episode in Central Park.
Apparently colleges can revoke student acceptances. And professors can be put on leave - I believe there was an example in same article.
- In 2020, Harvard revoked conservative student activist Kyle Kashuv’s acceptance over comments he made on social media as a 16-year-old, for which he had since apologized.
1 Like
Of course. Why wouldn’t they revoke acceptance- Holistic admissions, right?
Free speech? Or is that only for certain viewpoints and only after they’re students?