To me, that’s a contradiction in terms.
1 Like
Bill Ackman reveals his true motivation for using this situation to tinker with the Harvard admin:
“I learned from someone with first person knowledge of the Harvard president search that the committee would not consider a candidate who did not meet the DEI office’s criteria…
We are all shortly going to realize that the DEI era is the McCarthy era Part II.”
1 Like
And the damage and damage control continues……
7 Likes
I continue to be gobsmacked that Magill in particular still has her job. Clearly she sees nothing wrong with her words and actions over the last 3-4 months because if she did, she would do the honorable thing and resign. The number of democrat leaders who have spoken out against her words and actions/inactions says a lot.
3 Likes
The Penn and Harvard Presidents seemed to have been prepp’d by lawyers vs PR professionals. The Harvard President seemed to double down on the legal intricacies behind her answer in a response. The Penn President got the message, but I think she is toast.
2 Likes
The article you posted is highly relevant.
I think we are living in a society in which a significant percentage of people are basing their views on incomplete and biased social media posts, and consider themselves fully informed.
The problem is compounded by a distrust of educational institutions and “experts” in general. (It astonishes me that my neighbor trusts her doctors to recommend and perform elective surgery under anesthesia, yet rejects the same doctors’ advice about vaccinations because of something a random stranger posted on Facebook, but I digress.)
I really do think a lot of polarization and extremism would be moderated if people slowed down and absorbed the history and details of a situation. Instead, they form strong opinions simply by parroting a person they trust, substituting that trust for their own review of the facts and information. All nuance is lost.
I think we used to be more skeptical when someone in our community spouted off some absolutist stance on a topic at the grocery store or local bar. But when that opinion comes over a video or media post, it feels more like old-school journalism — the stuff that aimed to be objective and was based on fully vetted sources/facts.
Many have lost their skepticism, discernment, and reluctance to take a stance before independently informing themselves of the background facts.
7 Likes
Truth.
1 Like
No commentary necessary
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/07/business/penn-emergency-meeting-liz-magill/index.html
5 Likes
It didn’t help that she specifically actually looked smug, and seemed to be smiling during the questions. Not a good presentation for something so serious.
5 Likes
Those smirks really turned me off. The arrogance. Ugh.
8 Likes
A lot of people find it difficult to say something is unequivocally wrong for fear of offending. But leaders should not be among them.
From the article -1000% yes.
“Asked if the college presidents should step down, [Elizabeth] Warren said: “If you can’t lead, if you can’t stand up and say what’s right and wrong – very much in the extreme cases, and these are the extreme cases – then you’ve got a problem.””
4 Likes
It really shouldn’t be hard to say terrorism is unequivocally wrong. And I personally wouldn’t feel bad about anyone who got offended by my saying that.
I think these university presidents really blew it. They weren’t in a court of law, they were in the court of public opinion. There was really no need for all the convoluted legalese and the “holier than thou” attitude.
8 Likes
They are neither actors nor politicians, so were disadvantaged in the venue. No one wants complex answers, even if the questions are simple.
And there was no need for complex answers.
6 Likes
Nvm
Should students be disciplined for calling for “intifada?”
2 Likes
There is always a need for complex answers, not sound bites, if the purpose is actual understanding of the situation. Of course that wasn’t the purpose. Grandstanding by politicians is the purpose of Congressional hearings. Columbia’s president was wise to refuse.
3 Likes
1 Like
So, at NYU, tearing down posters violates the code of conduct. But yelling “death to Jews” and other such things that have been heard at demonstrations is ok? (I don’t recall anyone getting suspended for that)
1 Like
I have no idea what NYU’s policies are. One is conduct; the other is merely speech. I do not know if NYU distinguishes, the way the government would. A trap and a warning ( gifted NYT).