Rabbi David Wolpe has remarkably similar message to Former executive director’s message -
“One can criticize policies without calling for the end to the only homeland Jews have ever known. One can demand a Palestinian state without globalizing the intifada — the term for a protest that previously resulted in over 110 suicide bombings that targeted buses, cafes, and malls.”
Reminder that this is about specific responses by universities and we are straying back to politics. Please use the other thread in PF to discuss further.
I had hoped the controversy would simmer down in the second semester when students returned to campus but that doesnt appear likely anymore. It seems the spring will be filled with both violence and related protests again.
One perspective on how to address Harvard’s problems:
MIT’s latest plan:
https://president.mit.edu/writing-speeches/new-steps-new-year
Further evidence that all of these Ivy League billionaire donors have a lengthy list of hidden agendas.
I just read this, and it seems to be “let’s establish a committee to study the establishment of a committee”.
They’re going to evaluate and study and “benchmark” the student disciplinary process. Nowhere does it say that they’re going to do what needs to be done - remove students who disrupt the learning environment on campus with megaphones, block entrances, take over buildings, or carry and chant slogans designed to intimidate others on campus.
And they’re going to make a new committee to study an understanding of a new healthy culture that balances freedom of expression with mutual respect. Buzzzz, Buzzzzz, Buzzzwords!
They’ll make a new position (and up go the administrative costs), a VP of Equity and Inclusion, to think about the best approaches for advancing community, civility, and mutual respect on campus.
And they’re going to do a survey, so that they can better understand the nature and extent of antisemitism (what, they can’t just look out the windows or out their office doors at the signs, and listen to the chants?), Islamophobia (now that will be a little tougher, since there are no anti-Muslim demonstrations going on on campus), and hatred based on national origin or ethnicity. Can you imagine how the majority of the students on campus, who went to MIT to learn, would feel about this survey? The Jewish kids who are just trying to move on with their educations - let’s ask them how they FEEL about walking through the hate speech just trying to get to class, that will make it all better, won’t it?
Somehow, I don’t think that this is going to work out very well, if MIT won’t actually take steps to stop the hate-speech demonstrations on campus and remove the most egregious perpetrators.
A friend sent this to me.
https://x.com/billackman/status/1742441534627184760?s=42&t=5rbfKDndpQRNEHf4eEs4Ew
Some very compelling points.
Rich white dude who uses money to get his way.
This is the most concerning part to me. People with money wanting to decide what free speech is. That never ends well.
Why does the color of his skin matter?
A friend of mine brought up the whole reaction to Steven Spielberg’s movie, Munich. In 1972 Israeli athletes were murdered at the Munich Olympics by terrorists. The movie is about Israel’s seeking revenge and the moral dilemma of vengeance at all costs. It is a brilliant movie and very relevant to the debate going on. The reaction to Spielberg and what was said about him after is fascinating.
The point is that colleges are in an impossible position: Trying to support free speech but, pressured from political interests to take sides. The victims in all of this are innocent people regardless of race or political view. Yes, hate speech has no place anywhere and that has to be defined clearly. However, dissenting viewpoints may be painful to hear but, are not hateful.
There is one side to take. Those of innocent people.
If colleges were previously consistent in actually supporting free speech before October 7th, they wouldn’t find themselves in the impossible position they found themselves in, trying to defend their indefensible double standards.
Colleges chose to take sides of political issues. It’s a management decision, not unlike decisions that they make every day. It is certainly not impossible, to say, ‘No’.
So if a college chooses to take sides based on what “world view” of influential donors are, what happens when the demographics of the donor group changes? Colleges choose to take sides because of who funds them. That defeats the premise of free speech.
Not an impossible position. If any group protesting LGBTQ, Africa-Americans, etc chanted death to those groups; the Universities would quickly and unequivocally shut the protests down and the students would have been banned from campus. Free speech does not protect advocating death for a group of people.
Colleges are free to adopt political positions of donors, faculty and/or students, or not. That is a management choice.
btw: free speech does not apply to private colleges unless they choose to adopt and enforce it.
When has this ever happened???
