Circular discussion - posted in this thread before.
Rather than rehashing - here the link:
Already answered in the post above. Do the math, how little that actually is, per year and institution.
Also already answered in the post above. Not realistic to hint that this drives all these individual students’ opinion with respect to the situation in Palestine.
You asked for clarification on how much money foreign governments are giving to universities. I provided it. It’s billions of dollars. And as has been pointed out on this thread, numerous times, no one gives money without strings attached.
Murdoch’s NY Post has always been a rag and not a legit news source, but this article was particular pathetic. The entire article comes down to the “intuition” (his words, not mine) of one random private college counselor looking for free publicity. They didn’t even try to get more sources or have any actual, you know, facts.
Going back to the question of what was different at Dartmouth, it may be related to the location but i think more importantly is that in the days after the massacre, 2 faculty members who co-teach a course hosted a seminar to educate the students on the history and possible paths forward. One of the professors is from the Jewish Studies Dept and the other was from Middle East Studies.
Dartmouth reported that there were more than 1000 people there plus more online. Contrast that with a school where a professor was in the street saying he was “exhilarated” by the massacre.
Yes, the New York Post is a tabloid. My post was meant to be tongue in cheek.
My son told me that Qatar also offers really great sounding free trips for students (that is, the trips sounded great to him until he found out that the destination was Qatar… 
)
It would make sense that colleges known for their teaching would fall back on their biggest strength during an international crisis:
The NBC article above also mentions that Rutgers suspended their chapter of the SJP today.
Some points had been raised two months ago, and had been panel-reviewed when they were originally made:
And an author whose work Rufo alleged had been plagiarized, instead had this to say about Rufo’s claims:
…Mr. Rufo also said that Dr. Gay “composes an entire appendix” from a book by Gary King, without acknowledging that it is “entirely grounded in King’s concepts.”
Dr. King was Dr. Gay’s adviser and is a Harvard professor.Dr. King … rejected Mr. Rufo’s accusation, calling it “false and absurd” and said the dissertation “met the highest levels of academic integrity.”
“If you were going to commit plagiarism, would you plagiarize your faculty adviser’s work (the person whose job it is to evaluate your dissertation) and expect to get away with it?” Dr. King wrote in an email.
Constitutional lawyer opinion piece addressing free speech, donors and protests. His arguments are interesting. I would have liked the author to flesh them out a bit more.
Addition opinion regarding constitutionally available options for schools to address the free speech issues they’re facing.
From the second link above:
“In many cases, administrators wringing their hands and refusing to exercise leadership are hiding behind the First Amendment, pretending that this is all about free speech. They are ignoring the desperate pleas for help, implying that someone has to actually get physically hurt or killed before they can step in.”
In fairness, the highlighted part is wrong, this is not what “when speech crosses into conduct” means, even though during the 3 minute clip Cong. Stefanik implied exactly that. It rubbed me the wrong way immediately, because I watched the entire preceding four hours, and knew she should have known better than someone watching just these three minutes would.
What all three presidents meant (and articulated poorly under her pressure for a yes/no answer, and having articulated it earlier) is that speech becomes harassment when it exhibits certain patterns of behavior, such as targeting speech at individuals etc.
In fact, Kornbluth, who was first to answer, was precise and succinct: hate speech violates rules of conduct “if targeted at individuals, not making public statements.”
When Gay used the same language, Stefanik accused her of dehumanizing Jews by not considering them “individuals” (I guess saying the same thing to Kornbluth, who is herself Jewish, would have sounded even more ridiculous, or maybe it took a minute to Stefanik to come up with such a brilliant rhetoric device).
Of course, anyone who suffered through my posts in this thread knows there is no love lost between me and antisemitic anti-Israel protesters on college campuses. But I have to acknowledge that while Stefanik laid an effective trap for a typical 3-minute attention span, it wasn’t the correct one.
The correct question to ask, all along, would have been:
where have you all been with your deference to free speech before the Jews on your campuses started being targeted?
Of course, all three presidents are new, and were barely getting comfortable in their office chairs on October 7, so there’s not a whole lot they could do but to admit and atone for the past mistakes of their institutions in stifling speech on campuses. But none of them were going to do that. Instead they acted as if their institutions were on the forefront of the free speech battle all along, showing no real intent to get at the root causes of their past censoriousness that was, in fact, a major contributor to development of the present campus culture.
And for that, they got what they ultimately deserved.
Here is hoping they learned the right lessons.
An unauthoried protest that took place on Monday afternoon occurred alongside a global strike calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. Two journalists in Gaza, Motaz Azaiza and Bisan Wizard, who have been documenting the war, called on the world to stop going to work, school, spending money, and instead attend protests. The goal of this strike is to increase pressure on world leaders to “stop supporting and blessing the massacre that is happening in Gaza.”
On Saturday, December 9, an Instagram post from SJP and JVP called on the Barnard community to participate in an emergency protest. The groups demanded that “President Rosenbury must represent the Barnard community by publicly demanding a permanent ceasefire immediately on behalf of Barnard College.”
Monday’s post also mentioned the UN Security Council resolution calling for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza—on which the United States was the sole veto—and said that “the genocide in Gaza has severely esclated in the days following the temporary truce.”
https://bwog.com/2023/12/students-gather-in-barnard-4-palestine-emergency-protest/
But Arabs and Arab countries are also big donors.
What colleges receive Arab money?
The top five university recipients of Arab donations were Cornell, Georgetown, Carnegie Mellon, Texas A&M and Northwestern, according to the report from AICE.
So - do we now need a breakdown of college donations by ethnicity, religion, race, political affiliation,…?
Really?
Is everyone here really that biased, that only donations by evangelical Caucasians are beyond reproach for us? Only one group gives out of the goodness of their heart, every other group must have a secret agenda.
We want colleges’ AOs, landlords, employers,… not ask or consider these factors - but deep down, it apparently still is all we care about at the end, while carrying our supposed neutrality on our sleeves?
Why is it biased to believe that extremely generous donors don’t have motivations behind their money? Money talks, money influences, money convinces, money purchases…that’s nothing new. Why would it be different within the higher education sphere? Those benefits accrue to all large donors, including evangelical Caucasians. However, when foreign governments, and in particular authoritarian governments, are providing billions in funding heightened scrutiny of motives and agenda is definitely warranted.
Because thus far, I’ve only see exactly one group been singled out – hence bias.
Fine. What share are Jewish donations? What motivation do you suspect them of?
Let me guess: None? – A slippery slope.
I have no idea. Google is your friend.
(deleted)
Deleted
