I will duck out of this before I offend respected posters even more.
A final thought from an admittedly non-Jewish perspective… The link I posted earlier about President Summers’ warning of antisemitism on Harvard’s campus in 2002 confirms to me that the sentiments from all sides that are currently amplified by the conflict in Israel existed back then, and probably existed long before that. While I am a strong advocate that hard working kids can find their way at non-elite colleges, and even without college, if a place like Harvard is truly a good fit…have some patience. This will pass.
As everyone here is aware, because everyone here agreed to the TOS when they joined CC, discussion of moderator actions, thinly veiled or otherwise, is in violation of TOS. Anyone who would like to take issue with moderator actions is free to contact admin@collegeconfidential.com. Please do not discuss mod actions here.
Meanwhile, until CC changes TOS, posts discussing moderation will be removed and users will be notified, and/or warned, and/or silenced.
This thread has been flagged dozens of times. We have a politics forum for those who want to throw barbs at one another, or discuss this topic in a way that is not in line with general Forum Rules. If anyone wants to move to the Politics forum, it might stop this thread from being flagged and shut down every ten minutes.
Forum Rules and TOS are linked at the bottom left of every page.
We are trying our best to keep this thread open. So we would appreciate your cooperation in maintaining civilized discourse. Thank you.
“Students on campuses are terrified and have been instructed by administrators to hide their Judaism. We are launching an initiative for students who because of antisemitism fear for their safety on campus and need to seek refuge outside traditional establishments of higher education,” the company wrote. “They are welcome to join Palantir, and we are setting aside 180 positions for them immediately. More details to follow shortly.”
“Following the surge of antisemitism and anti-Israel rhetoric around the world: the Technion invites undergraduate and graduate students and academic faculty residing abroad to come to our campuses in Haifa to carry out their research, teaching and learning”
Our older during his time at MIT collaborated with scientists at the Technion (a truly top-notch institution) through the MISTI program whose offices were recently harassed by the anti-Israel protesters:
“The students used a megaphone to amplify their chants within the CIS offices; they insistently rattled the door handles of offices that were closed with staff inside; and they congregated outside of and entered the office that facilitates MISTI’s programming in the Middle East, and at least one other office. Their chants included the refrain, “From the river to the sea…”, “MISTI, MISTI, you can’t hide,” and cries associating MISTI with genocide. After the incident ended, many staff reported having felt alarmed, intimidated and even afraid during the protest. Some staff members said they felt trapped in their offices, anxious about the prospect of verbal and/or physical assault. The students later protested outside the office of the faculty director of MIT-Israel, linking his name with genocide.”
In today’s context, empathy seems to be a zero-sum game. If you are a supporter of the right of the state of Israel to exist, you get pilloried for being empathetic toward the deaths of Palestinians and if you are a supporter of Palestinians, you get pilloried for empathy towards raped Jewish women. It is telling that Harvard’s women’s advocacy groups have not issued a peep about the women raped in Israel.
Although Claudine Gay failed again to distinguish herself, I doubt that she is going to be fired right away. It would be a very bad look for a Harvard’s first African-American president to be pressured out by Jews alumni/donors. But, the advice she and Magill were getting from their law firm (I think it is Wilmer Hale) has been atrocious. I wonder if she has not sought advice from Larry Bacow or even Larry Summers or if she has, if she has decided not to follow their advice.
I wonder if this WSJ opinion piece is accurate, " What constitutes bullying and harassment at Harvard? A mandatory Title IX training last year warned all undergraduate students that “cisheterosexism,” “fatphobia” and “using the wrong pronouns” qualified as “abuse” and perpetuated “violence” on campus."
But, if the piece is accurate, it would seem pretty hard for Harvard to not classify a statement supporting genocide of Jews as abuse and perpetuating violence on campus.
Last night, I was talking to a parent whose child is a teaching fellow in a course at Harvard. One of the other teaching fellow is outspoken, angry, staunchly pro-Palestinian and can be physically confrontative. She told her parents that she looks over her shoulder when she walks home at night as she thinks a confrontation with him is not unlikely.
This was the argument I heard last night on CNN. Universities were so focused on education around managing micro aggressions that they missed the boat on actual aggressions.
What a great offer from Technion. I hope more opportunities like this and Palantir become available to students.
This is an important consideration when discussing what crosses the line from free speech into harassment and bullying. I believe another poster commented on this distinction upthread. The ability to leave or avoid a protest entirely is critical. Protesting inside buildings, classrooms, offices should not be permitted IMO even if peaceful, if people who want to avoid it are unable to do so.
“Protests in highly public spaces, where bystanders are free to listen or to exit, are important strategies for raising awareness. However, in this particular case, the students’ methods and approach were concerning and upsetting.”
Unfortunate that additional security measures are necessary but glad to see affirmative steps being taken to increase the safety and security, (although these same people still have walk to and through the building) and to hold the perpetrators responsible for their violation of school policy.
“It saddens me that as a result of this incident, I concluded that it was necessary to take the step of increasing the security of our offices, requiring “swipe” access to enter our suite. The safety of our faculty, staff, and students is paramount.”
“Because the protest involved methods that we consider to be unacceptable and a violation of MIT policy, we have reported the incident to the Committee on Discipline (COD).”
Well, this is a theme that has taken on a momentum of its own in certain circles, including frequent NYT opinionator, David French. French, no namby-pamby liberal (he was president of F.I.R.E. from 2004-2005) proposes in this morning’s column that universities dismantle the entire D.E.I. “apparatus that is itself all too often an engine of censorship and extreme political bias” so that going forward universities would
not protect students from speech. Let them grow up and engage with even the most vile of ideas.
I mean, it’s a wonderful idea in the abstract and would that it were such that all young people possessed that young woman’s presence of mind and utter calm. But, is this really what Jewish parents want to buy into for the next twenty years?
As I said repeatedly in this thread, I support prosecuting time, place, and manner policy violations with an iron fist.
Had that been done promptly and consistently from day one, there would not have been congressional hearings and all they entailed.
But we all know there’s been a double standard; it’s been discussed upthread, and David French’s article you cite mentions it as well (thank you for bringing it to my attention; I will provide the link below for everyone’s convenience), and it’s that double standard that is untenable, and that put them into an unwinnable position at those hearings:
So if the university presidents were largely (though clumsily) correct about the legal balance, why the outrage? To quote the presidents back to themselves, context matters. For decades now, we’ve watched as campus administrators from coast to coast have constructed a comprehensive web of policies and practices intended to suppress so-called hate speech and to support students who find themselves distressed by speech they find offensive.
…
So even if the presidents’ lawyerly answers were correct, it’s more than fair to ask, where was this commitment to free expression in the past?
That said, some of the responses to campus outrages have been just as distressing as the hypocrisy shown by the school presidents. With all due apology to Homer Simpson and his legendary theory of alcohol, it’s as if many campus critics view censorship as the “cause of, and solution to, all of life’s problems.”
…
Confronting hatred with courageous speech is far better than confronting hatred with censorship. It is obviously important to protect students from harassment. I’m glad to see that the Department of Education is opening numerous Title VI investigations (including an investigation of Harvard) in response to reports of harassment on campus. But do not protect students from speech. Let them grow up and engage with even the most vile of ideas. The answer to campus hypocrisy isn’t more censorship. It’s true liberty. Without that liberty, the hypocrisy will reign for decades more.
So…we’re no longer dissecting the content of the pro-Palestinian messages (“Intifada”, “From the River to the Sea”, “Death to Israel”), but basically, the fact that they took place at inappropriate venues? Is that it?
I think it is safe to say we are discussing many a thing in this thread.
And I think we can, among other things, simultaneously discuss whether or not certain messages constitute hate speech, and whether or not they should still be allowed to be expressed, and in what format.
After all, if there wasn’t a disagreement about the former (i.e. if everyone just agreed there is no antisemitic hate speech on campus), there wouldn’t be a need to discuss the latter.
I don’t know if “should” is the right word here. I’d obviously much prefer if they weren’t. But I do not think expanding the current censorship apparatus is what is needed.
Do I understand correctly that your position is that hate speech should in fact be banned, but that there is no anti-Jewish hate speech on campuses?
Well… perhaps we could find some common ground when it comes to public urination at the Jewish prayer room window?
Wednesday afternoon … a man who had been harassing Jewish students showed up at the [MIТ] Hillel and urinated on the windows of the Jewish prayer room while students were inside.
A man came to the MIT Hillel center, banged on the window, flipped Jewish students off, and proceeded to urinate all over the window… for the second day in a row.