Someone might march on campus in a white hood because they merely think it looks cute, but to the intended recipients the message is unmistakeable.
6 Likes
Sure.
âCalling for the genocide of Jews* constitutes harassmentâ
(* same answer if any other group is mentioned).
I honestly cannot think of any time, place or manner in which saying this would be acceptable, and the person(s) wouldnât feel intimidated or harassed.
10 Likes
If those are too complex, then here are easy (real life examples) where yes, students should be not just disciplined but expelledâ
âGas the Jewsâ
âHitler was rightâ
âOn October 7, the Palestinian liberation fighters demonstrated their refusal to be dominated⊠They showed the world that the Palestinian people will fight for freedom instead of quietly adapting to subjugation. They showed us that with creativity, determination, and combined strength the masses can accomplish great featsâ
Protesters using paraglider depictions as symbols of something to celebrate.
All of these should be expelled. They clearly made an error in judging character in their âholisticâ admissions process.
9 Likes
Thatâs not what I asked, and it begs the question . . .
Which if any of my examples constitute calling for the genocide of Jews or any other group?
Are they? Iâm asking you, not telling you.
Great. But that isnât what I asked. Do you mind addressing the specific examples I provided? Thanks.
1 Like
That was the question my previous comments pertained to, and to which I had said the answer was simple.
Iâm not looking to get into a debate about other hypotheticals.
3 Likes
I, for one, believe free speech should be respected (including, btw, speech against the DEI preferences, for example - something universities have been known to suppress), but any and all policy violations stemming from these hateful demonstrations prosecuted with extreme prejudice.
1 Like
Many news updates at Penn:
1 Like
"The White House on Wednesday scolded the presidents of Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) for their responses a day earlier at a House on antisemitism hearing. "
https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4345708-white-house-university-antisemitism/
Ok I would say yes to discipline for all your examples; except only maybe the fourth one may warrant more information as it is currently worded because itâs calling for expulsion of âpeople considered disloyalâ - I donât know what that means nor have I seen it in protests in the US right now. If it means expulsion of noncitizens/non-permanent legal residents, itâs their prerogative as it is in any other country; if itâs referring to expulsion of citizens itâs anti-democratic and contrary to our democratic ways, but also not genocide. If intent is expulsion by any and all means including killing then yes that should be disciplined.
Your turn: do you think my examples are âeasyâ no brainers that should warrant discipline and expulsion?
I donât think the answers are simple.
But, I will try to answer your question.
I donât think students should be expelled or disciplined for making the statements you listed, unless they are specifically harassing other students (following them around and yelling, etc.) in which case I think they should be disciplined for a wider range of statements.
For example I wouldnât expect students to be disciplined for shouting slogans or holding signs during an outdoor rally saying, for example, âglobalize the intifadaâ (which to me is a call for violence), as long as it is not directed at specific individuals and there is adequate space for other students to walk around and avoid them. Students become very passionate at these rallies and want to shout things. They need some place to do it. I feel like there should be reasonable tolerance for a wide range of speech as long as itâs outdoors and others can avoid it. (although it can be very upsetting to others who feel the speech targets them or those close to them.) I feel like suppressing any mention of problematic slogans in a public place could backfire and cause the forbidden slogans to become more popular.
But I would hope that students would be disciplined if they are following Jewish or Israeli (or Palestinian or Muslim) students around and shouting slogans specifically at them, or vandalizing student school materials , other possessions, or lockers with these slogans. Or if they are displaying signs with slogans calling for violence on their door in a hall in a student dorm. (these are various examples that happened at either my daughterâs high school or sonâs college.)
Students should be able to go about their lives without feeling hounded or harassed by others.
10 Likes
I agreed with every part of your post except the quote above.
I would change that to:
âStudents should be able to go about their lives without BEING hounded or harassed by others.â
How someone feels about others protesting/shouting/holding up vile slogans on signs is not proof of being harassed or hounded. Those are actions and I think that distinction needs to be clear.
7 Likes
âUniversity of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill is being asked to resign by the board of Pennâs Wharton business school, according to a letter obtained by Axios.â
â[The Board] has been, and remains, deeply concerned about the dangerous and toxic culture on our campus that has been led by a select group of students and faculty and has been permitted by University leadership
âŠ
As a result of the University leadershipâs stated beliefs and collective failure to act, our board respectfully suggests to you and the Board of Trustees that the University requires new leadership with immediate effect.â
The letter available at the link below also proposes changes to the Code of Conduct:
Students ( and Faculty/employees) will not celebrate or advocate for the murder, killing, genocide, or annihilation of any individual classmate or any group of individuals in our community.
Students ( and Faculty/employees) will not engage in hate speech, whether veiled or explicit, that incites violence.
Students ( and Faculty/employees) will not use language that threatens the physical safety of community members.
Students ( and Faculty/employees) who violate the above standards of behavior will be subject to immediate discipline.
https://www.axios.com/2023/12/08/penn-antisemitism-wharton-magill-resign
4 Likes
I understand what you are saying, but the problem is that when the student is in the minority in a situation (such as a Jewish Israeli student with a teacher and classmates who are profoundly anti Israeli), a situation perceived as harassment by the individual (such as repeatedly referring to the student in class when discussing the current situation and calling the student by a politically charged term such as âcolonizerâ) may not be perceived as harassment by the teacher and other students (they may see this as purely factual from their perspective). I think there has to be some middle ground where the administration should seek to understand and respect a studentâs feeling of harassment.
Edited to add: Sorry, I think the above example is off topic for this thread because it happened in high school. But what Iâm trying to say is that when a student is in the minority it might be hard for people in the majority group to recognize behavior as harassment.
3 Likes
Your previous answer was referring to the Congressional hearing, wherein Stefanik interpreted âintifadaâ as âa call to commit genocide against the Jewish people in Israel and globally.â She then asked whether calling for âintifadaâ was contrary to the code of conduct. She also specifically asked the same about students who say âfrom the river to the sea.â
So what is the simple answer to those two questions by Stefanik? Should students who call for âintifadaâ be disciplined? Should students who say âfrom the river to the seaâ be disciplined?
I honestly donât know any simple answer to these questions, but Iâd like to, so help me out.
Then you are willing to limit speech which is pretty mainstream among many, both on campuses and in Israel. I know youâve mentioned the FIRE rankings and such, and I took you as a supporter. But given your answer I guess you reject FIREâs whole notion that even abhorrent speech on campus must be protected? Is that correct?
IMO regulation of speech on campus requires balancing the desire for free expression with the necessity of providing the college community with a place where they are safe and comfortable enough to participate in the conversation (or to not participate if they choose not to.) While I donât think there are many âeasyâ answers, chants of âgas the Jewsâ or âHitler was rightâ are about as close as we get. IMO, such speech is more about intimidation than the exchange of ideas. Provided the context so indicates, and that campus rules are clearly defined and fairly enforced, I think Iâd okay with discipline for such statements.
But generally, it is tricky. And contextual. And difficult. And honestly I am not sure I have the balance correct. That is why I found Stefanikâs questioning/bullying at the hearing to be outrageous.
7 Likes
@tamagotchi and @beebee3, thanks for your thoughtful answers. I think I agree with you both. There is sometimes a tension between the perception and intention, and it is a difficult balance to strike.
2 Likes
If a student perceives harassment, they can make a complaint to the school administration. That complaint can be investigated and adjudicated. It isnât solely up to the professor or the fellow students in the class as to whether harassment has occurred. The specific targeting of that individual student by name leans it towards harassment in my opinion, but I would not consider it harassment if fellow students said, âI think Israeli Jews are colonizersâ. I would find that potentially anti-semitic, potentially not*, but not necessarily harassment.
I have lots of questions about the situation as described: Is this a class on Israeli/Palestinian relations? War? Or is this a Organic Chem class? Classics? If the course is geared towards this topic - then I would have a different answer than if this is a Chemistry class, or Art History class (Iâd be wondering why time was being spent not teaching the material that was supposedly on offer and then the question of is this harassment seems much more clear cut towards yes).
I think the hard part of the current situation is that there is very nasty anti-semitic behavior and speech going on while at the same time there is legitimate political protest and conversations happening. And the two are often being conflated as being the same.
I donât want Jewish students being harassed, I also donât want freedom of expression within academia to be squashed as I do worry about the slippery slope of censorship via politics.
*(The Extreme Ambitions of West Bank Settlers | The New Yorker)
3 Likes
Iâm sorry. I realized after I posted it that it was off topic for this thread since it happened in high school (9th grade history).
I def think thereâs a limit to how abhorrent is acceptable on campus. I only posted those links to share the hypocrisy in the schoolsâ stance because they have in fact limited speech when it violated their belief system, even as they claim to uphold academic freedom and exchange of ideas at all cost. I obviously believe in first amendment but that pertains to the government regulating speech not private organizations. Even then, that freedom still has to be balanced against other peopleâs rights. Thatâs really what it comes down to for me. Particularly in a setting where there are individuals who cannot escape the aggressiveness of the words, noise, or whatever. Controversial statements in a designated space is one thing because OTHER people can choose to avoid. When those same protests occur in the middle of a math lecture, thatâs not ok. And then some speech goes beyond even controversial or obnoxious or even hate speech. Speech praising terrorist acts against any group should not be tolerated on campuses or at places of work - because the school (and employer) not only has a responsibility to grant freedom to the speaker to speak but also needs to balance that with the other students around them. Itâs not speech, but in my mind itâs similar to smoking in a private space - smoke on the street - thatâs fine, itâs perfectly legal, I can walk somewhere else to escape it. But if there are 20 people smoking inside a restaurant, itâs not fair to the patrons who donât want to smell and breathe that. Even though the person is free to smoke, the private restaurant has a responsibility to both so they can and should (and largely now do) limit it.
In the example of the one poster about teacher/students calling out specific students is even worse - I donât care if itâs a relevant class to the discussion or not. What if itâs a discussion about another countryâs policies and that student just looks like theyâre from that country but really they are born here and have no ties to that country at all? (There are a lot of people like that who may look like minorities and are treated as such but only know of themselves as American - theyâve never been to the foreign country, donât speak the language) - In that instance, you have students and professor making derogatory assumptions about this student based on nothing but their appearance, skin color or their name. Not that itâs much better if the student is an immigrant from that country because they obviously have nothing to do with the policies of that government. (Eg, people always ask me why I donât have an accent - they assume Iâm a foreigner for no reason than how I look). I wonder if my kids will be assumed to be from that country too, even though theyâre born here, never even been and know nothing of it. If that country tomorrow is hated for its policies, its not ok for them to be singled out in class based on how they look. That has to stop.
1 Like
Iâm not moved by FIREâs claims with regard to Harvard or any other school, nor am I convinced there is any meaningful hypocrisy on display here on the part of Harvard. If anything, FIREâs examples with regard to Harvard evidence the absurdity of FIREâs standard, while not saying much about Harvard one way or another.
For example, respecting speech ought not mean that Harvard must admit applicants who regularly engaged in extraordinarily racist and anti-semitic speech, including exclamations like âKill all the f***ing Jews.â To my mind, Harvard did nothing wrong in rescinding the contingent admission of such an an applicant, any more than had it denied applicant who had included such things on the application itself. Moreover, doesnât Harvardâs action in that case indicate that Harvard is concerned with antisemitic expressions that go too far?
Should Harvard have expelled all the students who signed the letter blaming Israel for Oct. 7th? Surely the government of Israel ought not be insulated from criticism, even if such criticism is stupid and offensive. Without more, is being stupid and offensive grounds for expulsion?