<p>P.S. I also think that to view anti-Semitism as a stepchild of the so-called left is pure political cant. My d. notes that the student body at her school on the whole would be well to left of that at my alma mater (some of that would simply be a function of class), yet her first response was that there would have been hundreds of students at a called townhall meeting to confront anti-Semitism regardless of the college administration’s actions, or lack therof.</p>
<p>Am looking for a link to a story I read earlier this week, that the U.S. Civil Rights commission/department has determined that college students do NOT understand their rights of protection against anti-Semitism on campuses, and the agency is ready to begin addressing that gap now. CAN’T find the link now, unfortunately.</p>
<p>This is a link to a report from the Office of Civil Rights from 2005 that is about Campus Antisemitism. The conclusions are on pages 72-73. I don’t know what has happened since then. Maybe that is what the article you are looking for is about.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.emetonline.org/briefingreport.pdf[/url]”>http://www.emetonline.org/briefingreport.pdf</a></p>
<p>Mini:</p>
<p>I agree. The left-wing thing is a canard. My daughter confirmed pretty much the same as yours. I don’t think the administration would have to do anything to prod a response. If anything, I think faculty would step in to moderate discussions in an effort to channel the responses in a positive direction.</p>
<p>What do you make of the influence of the boyfriend, Robert Shvern, who in this week’s Record says he did <em>not</em> design the Hitler posters after earlier boasting on his website that he came up with the idea and created them?</p>
<p>I have done enough reading on progressive sites and blogs, to believe that there is unquestionably so much anti-Israel vitriol that it borders (if not outright IS) on anti-semitism. </p>
<p>I used to belong to a group called United for Peace and Justice, but I withdrew my membership when I saw that they were affiliated, at least for anti-war marches and rallies. with ANSWER. Every anti-Iraq war rally in the past two or three years, which ANSWER has sponsored, ends up being filled with diatribes against Israel, not against the Iraq war.</p>
<p>This Williams student has some company in her thinking, by <em>some</em> in the progressive community. It is by no means universal thinking by those on the way left, but I have read way more than makes me comfortable, by people with whom I thought I shared a political ideology.</p>
<p>I wonder–does Cordray believe the drivel she spouted in her defense in the newspaper editorial, or did she invent this after the fact? Does she really feel there is more than one way to look at the events of WWII?</p>
<p>In other words, is she so “open-minded” her brains have fallen out? :D</p>
<p>I don’t think the surge in anti-Semitism as a step child of the left is political cant at all! Allmusic brings up a great point about the ANSWER anti-Israel pattern. And it’s not just a reasoned debate, criticizing Israel’s policies. It’s a true hatred of Israel.</p>
<p>
Great line…</p>
<p>“without realizing she in fact caused the uproar with hers that celebrated Hitler” (my post #169)</p>
<p>should have said, “without recognizing what it is about her posters celebrating Hitler that’s causing the uproar.”</p>
<p>My apologies for being unclear.</p>
<p>“Besides your opinion Hanna, please show me one case or brief that supports your position.”</p>
<p>Look, I’m a lawyer. I’m not basing my opinion on anything on the web. This is what I learned (and student-taught) in Constitutional Law. There’s plenty of room for disagreement among lawyers, but when you’re citing to cases involving public schools to prove what Williams can and can’t do, that says to me that you aren’t very familiar with the law in this area.</p>
<p>That being said, take a look at the “water buffalo” incident at the private University of Pennsylvania, where a student was disciplined, very publicly and over the course of several months, for violating the university’s hate speech rules. All perfectly legal.</p>
<p><a href=“http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/2003/04/15/News/The-Water.Buffalo.Incident.Through.Eyes.Of.Jacobowitz-2154732.shtml?norewrite200609060757&sourcedomain=www.dailypennsylvanian.com=1[/url]”>http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/2003/04/15/News/The-Water.Buffalo.Incident.Through.Eyes.Of.Jacobowitz-2154732.shtml?norewrite200609060757&sourcedomain=www.dailypennsylvanian.com=1</a></p>
<p>Also observe this article by a UCLA law professor, noting that “A private university may restrict what its faculty say in class, or even what its students say on campus.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/harass/substanc.htm[/url]”>http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/harass/substanc.htm</a></p>
<p>Just this week, Tufts <em>in Massachusetts</em> held a disciplinary hearing to evaluate charges stemming from allegedly racist articles published in a campus paper. It wouldn’t make sense to hold a hearing if the school were legally barred from administering any punishment (and formally hearing charges against a defendant is a form of discipline in and of itself).</p>
<p><a href=“http://media.www.tuftsdaily.com/media/storage/paper856/news/2007/04/30/News/Committee.On.Student.Life.To.Hear.Complaints.Against.Primary.Source-2888103.shtml[/url]”>http://media.www.tuftsdaily.com/media/storage/paper856/news/2007/04/30/News/Committee.On.Student.Life.To.Hear.Complaints.Against.Primary.Source-2888103.shtml</a></p>
<p>“Everything I found points to broad protections for speech on college campuses. I posted them here for all to read and they seem crystal clear to me. It was not just the BU case. Several other related cases are cited around the US–even in states without the special law protecting private college students.”</p>
<p>Other than BU, which I already distinguished, every single case you cited involved a PUBLIC school. Public schools are arms of the state and the First Amendment applies directly to them. Williams is not.</p>
<p>“The bringing of colleges with a strict religious base into the debate is obfuscation as they are not under the same legal limitations as their faith and the rules that go with it are basic to their religion.”</p>
<p>I provided secular examples, above, but with some exceptions (notably in California), religious schools have the same rights and duties as other private schools. Can you provide a case supporting your assertion that religious schools operate under an entirely different set of rules than secular private schools? See Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000), for a discussion of why an ecumenical private organization not affiliated with any church still has broad freedom of association rights.</p>
<p>I know you are a lawyer. I know lots of lawyers and many of them know little about anything but their legal specialty. Unless you are holding yourself out as an expert on constitutional law I’ll give your opinion as much weight as I give a dermatologist discussing heart conditions.</p>
<p>When did Penn move to Mass? And in the end all charges were dropped and there was no punishment–it never went to court so it is an example of nothing more than a major embarrassment to Penn. At least get your facts right.
“That being said, take a look at the “water buffalo” incident at the private University of Pennsylvania, where a student was disciplined, very publicly and over the course of several months, for violating the university’s hate speech rules. All perfectly legal.”</p>
<p>Again, there never was any discipline-just the threat of it. None was ever carried out.</p>
<p>In addition this case falls under the “fighting words” limit of free speech already recognized as a limit on all free speech by the courts. It was a one on one confrontation so it is not comparable to issue oriented speech not directed at an individual. Despite that most thinking people found Penn way out of bounds in their handling of the case.</p>
<p><a href=“http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/1998/12/07/Resources/Guest.Columnist.Kors.Penn.Hackney.Mishandled.water.Buffalo.Case-2170219.shtml?norewrite200609060803&sourcedomain=www.dailypennsylvanian.com=1[/url]”>http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/1998/12/07/Resources/Guest.Columnist.Kors.Penn.Hackney.Mishandled.water.Buffalo.Case-2170219.shtml?norewrite200609060803&sourcedomain=www.dailypennsylvanian.com=1</a></p>
<p>Mass law specifically applies their version of the Bill of Rights to private colleges as does California. Examples from other states are meaningless here.</p>
<p>Here’s an article that discusses the rights of religious schools to require all hired faculty to be members of that religion. That’s a pretty broad right.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.aaup.org/publications/Academe/2006/06jf/06jfhard.htm[/url]”>http://www.aaup.org/publications/Academe/2006/06jf/06jfhard.htm</a></p>
<p>Here is a detailed summary of the entire water buffalo case. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.shadowuniv.com/excerpts-wb1.html[/url]”>http://www.shadowuniv.com/excerpts-wb1.html</a></p>
<p>“Unless you are holding yourself out as an expert on constitutional law”</p>
<p>I typically don’t push the point, but in fact, I am. I was a teaching assistant in Constitutional Law at Harvard. I helped to re-design the Con Law syllabus and led small sections of the course. I spent three years clerking for federal judges at both the trial and appellate level. I’ve continued to work on constitutional issues in my pro bono practice after my clerkships ended.</p>
<p>“It was a one on one confrontation so it is not comparable to issue oriented speech not directed at an individual.”</p>
<p>If a poster is nailed to the door of my single dorm room, how can you argue that its message isn’t directed at me? Each poster was an unmistakable statement to the student in that room. If the posters were hung in the lounge, I would take your point, but they weren’t.</p>
<p>“Here’s an article that discusses the rights of religious schools to require all hired faculty to be members of that religion. That’s a pretty broad right.”</p>
<p>Yes, it is. Where in that article does it say that secular private colleges cannot likewise dictate the philosophy and speech of their professors? What support do you have for your argument that the UCLA law professor I cited is wrong about that? I see none.</p>
<p>“Examples from other states are meaningless here.”</p>
<p>They are? Then I wonder why you cited to articles discussing cases from the University of Michigan, among other places that are not Massachusetts, earlier in the thread. See post #159 where you refer to all the cases from “around the US” and you attempt to draw a parallel with a Nazi rally in Illinois. Are you withdrawing those examples, since they are “meaningless”?</p>
<p>If you’re focusing so closely on Massachusetts, it’s also odd that you spent so much time in posts #191 & 192 distinguishing the Penn case, and zero time at all addressing the Tufts case, which is occurring in Massachusetts as we speak. Why is Tufts holding a disciplinary hearing if it is legally barred from enforcing any discipline? How do you explain the fact that you know so much more about Massachusetts academic law than the corporate counsel advising the officers of Tufts? (““Could they issue a [punishment]? Yes, they could,” Dean of Student Affairs Bruce Reitman, who also sits on the CSL, said.”) Trust me, they have good lawyers.</p>
<p>Mini – I agree with you completely that it is the administration’s responsibility to lead. Or some other adults’. Where is the faculty, for example? The point of the Niemoller quote certainly was not to equate the action of one student with that of the Nazi government. It was in response to the student opinion piece on the need for more Williams students to express their disapproval (and on Cordray’s lack of empathy for the students she offended); and to the fact that only 17 students, most or many presumably Jewish, showed up to the discussion that was held. Perhaps most Williams student see the posters as free speech, or no big deal or, like Niemoller, something that doesn’t really affect them. The point I made to begin with remains, this is a question of community. How does this campus community respond when some of its members – of whatever group – feel distinctly threatened, vulnerable, offended.</p>
<p>Per anti-Israel sentiment, it is often very difficult to determine the fine line between antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment.</p>
<p>Anyhow, maybe that is off-point. The real question is why, at such an exclusive, “intellectual” college as Williams, there is so little regard for the feelings of some of their students, alums, and staff. who are offended by posters displaying Hitler. Even if one student was offended and feeling targeted, isn’t that enough to begin a dialogue? It’s just so strange.</p>
<p>If free speech is their chief concern, then why cannot this be combined with sensitivity to those who have been “free-speeched?”</p>
<p>No one made any connection ( to my knowledge) between where the posters were placed and the religion of the student in that room. It was much like the distribution of Chinese delivery menus–randomly posted to doors. </p>
<p>The Tufts case has not yet gone to any level of court review so we shall see. Penn folded like a Kmart deck chair in their case as soon as the heat was turned up. I suspect they had good lawyers too.</p>
<p>From the NYTimes. I guess this is what students and faculty are more interested in:</p>
<p>April 29, 2007
Connecticut
Et tu, Yale?
Yale University’s short-lived decision, in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, to ban realistic-looking but fake weapons from student plays was a classic case of overreaction. </p>
<p>The administration may have meant well, but requiring students to use wooden swords in a play and find something other than a prop handgun did not do a thing to lessen violence or make the world a safer place. After all, any violence the students were prepared to engage in on stage was not real to begin with. Perhaps that’s why they call it acting. </p>
<p>Students were eloquent in their condemnation of the move, saying that the arts should be a vehicle to heal and inspire, leading people away from their darker selves. Their spirited protests helped persuade Yale to end the ban after a week. An attempt to be sensitive to others by engaging in sweeping censorship seemed contradictory. </p>
<p>Rescinding the ban was a very wise move. The attempt to weed out weapons from plays looked ridiculous. “Macbeth” should have sword fights. Operas should have acts of revenge. And Brutus should not have to resort to using a banana to kill Julius Caesar.</p>
<p>ANSWER is run by the Socialist Workers Party and they are three steps to the left of progressive. These are the guys who broke with CPUSA because they thought the Russians were too soft during the Hungarian Uprising. They have been extremely successful in sucking all kinds of grops into their front group ANSWER - which btw literally organized the first anti-war march before 9/11.</p>
<p>SWP through the work they are doing with ANSWER among other things has managed to spread a virulent anti-Israel gospel that more than borders on anti-semitism among very many progressive groups. Mind you I do not equate opposition to some or even many of Israel’s policies to anti-semitism, but when you wholeheartedly embrace Islamix groups whose stated aim is to drive Israelis into the sea I don’t know how you can not call it anti-semitism.</p>
<p>The depth and spread of this anti-Israel feeling is growing rapidly among even moderate progressives. When you touch a subject like the holocaust which is afterall the justification for the existence of the state of the universe it has a right wingpolitical cast to it that tends to turn the Left off. Basically what I am saying is you can get the left more excited about anti-semitism if that anti-semitism does not involve the holocaust.</p>
<p>Frankly on the whole in this country and Europe conservatives are becomming less anti-semitic and liberals more anti-semitic and it is being driven by attitude towards Israel, Palestine, Islam, terrorism, and America’s role and place in the world. You see attacts on Jews and synagogues in Europe today on a scale not seen since WWII. They may be mainly perpetrated by Islamofacists, and the old original facist but they are tolerated by Left-Center governments. What does that tell you?</p>
<p>state of the universe should have read state of Isreael of course</p>
<p>“Even if one student was offended and feeling targeted, isn’t that enough to begin a dialogue? It’s just so strange.”</p>
<p>If any speech that offends anyone has to engenders a campus wide dialogue you might just as well cancel classes becase nothing is going to happen except dialoguing. There is no point in saying you are for free speech as long as it doesn’t offrnd someone, because you are in effect saying you are only in favor of it in a situation that cannot exist.</p>
<p>The real measure of a persons commitment to civil liberties and free speech is how well they tolerate being called a horse’s behind by a horse’s behind.</p>