Harvard, Penn and MIT presidents under fire over 'despicable' testimony on antisemitism and genocide

[brooklynite]

Source: CNN

The presidents of Harvard, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania faced intense scrutiny on Wednesday from business leaders, donors and politicians following their testimony at a House hearing on antisemitism on campus and calls for genocide in Israel.

The criticism focused on the university leaders’ answers to questions on Tuesday about whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates their respective school’s code of conduct on bullying or harassment.

None of the school leaders explicitly said that calling for the genocide of Jews would necessarily violate their code of conduct. Instead, they explained it would depend on the circumstances and conduct.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said in a post on X he was “ashamed” to hear the testimony, calling it “one of the most despicable moments in the history of US academia.”

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/06/investing/bill-ackman-harvard-penn-antisemitism/index.html

[Voltaire2]

1. A coordinated media campaign from the RNC.

[JohnSJ]

5. Those presidents of those prestigious universities did this to themselves. It has nothing

to do with a coordinated republican debate.

Calling for genocide against any group is against another group at that university is bullying and harassment, and worse, and that these presidents can’t figure that out speaks volumes

[The Magistrate]

6. If An Ivy President Can't Avoid Traps Repiblican Congresscritters Lay, Sir

They aren't fir for their post.

The right answer was 'Of Course!' delivered emphatically, and with some emotional heat.

Nothing more, and certainly nothing less.

[C_U_L8R]

7. Outwitted by Rep Elise Stefanik

Say no more.

[tenderfoot]

15. Elise Stefanik, the same person that endorsed the guy that dined with Nick Fuentes

Totally outwitted

[JohnSJ]

2. They are a disgrace.

[spooky3]

3. According to the New York Times, the Presidents may have been correct

Re: students’ rights:

“But on the question of disciplining students for statements about genocide, they tried to give lawyerly responses to a tricky question involving free speech, which supporters of academic freedom said were legally correct.“

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/us/donors-and-alumni-demand-that-penns-president-resign-over-remarks-at-hearing.html?unlocked_article_code=1.EE0.lawU.ykUNW0GU2Hfx&hpgrp=ar-abar&smid=url-share

[marshall]

39. The KKK will be glad to hear that

It clears the field for all kinds of speech.

[Prairie Gates]

4. Me waiting for FIRE to chime in

[LauraInLA]

11. Interesting -- in the article, FIRE supported the presidents that it depended on the context.

[Prairie Gates]

13. Well, at least they're consistent

[DURHAM D]

8. The biggest problem is that they are women.

End of story.

[nycbos]

12. Um no.

The problem is that they wouldn't say if they would discipline students who call for the genocide of Jews. If white supremacist students called for killing all black people, ,uslims. or gays they would be. And rightly so. But antisemitism is treated differently on college campuses because in the academic world, it's an acceptable form of prejudice.

[madaboutharry]

27. No.

The reaction would be exactly the same if three men offered the same answers.

[Jose Garcia]

32. You are saying that women should not be University presidents?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

9. These assholes need to be fired

[SoFlaBro]

10. For them to side with fucking genocide and genocide talk directed towards a group is fucking shitty behavior.

Disgusting.

[elias7]

14. Calling for the genocide of of any group should violate any school's code of conduct. Not a free speech issue.

Replace the word Jew with transgender and see how it feels to say it is contextual. Watch how fast that group would cancel that president.

[iemanja]

16. It's not like allowing genocide calls maintains some sort of balance

It's outrageous.

[Mz Pip]

34. Exactly

Try saying that about any religious, ethnic or minority group and see where it lands you.

[Shermanator]

17. What is the general policy?

If they don't have a policy against calling for genocide against any group, why would it be different for Jewish people?

[GP6971]

19. Did you take a wrong turn somewhere? n/t

[GP6971]

21. I have a neutral position.

And I don't discuss I/P issues. I just asked if you stumbled on this website thinking it was something else.

[GP6971]

23. Fine. Then I suggest

you tone down your posts. You're coming across as a Troll.

Welcome to DU.

[elias7]

29. Stefanik could have honed in on this

Either clarify what was that line between speech and conduct or broadened the question to involve criticism of other groups. We older folks have been “schooled” by the very institutions we attended to be sensitive to aggressions (micro or otherwise) of language and how it triggers some.perhaps she could have better pinned down the statements of the presidents by using (?hypotheticals) other groups as you state. Does calling for genocide of Muslims or transgenders or any other group constitute a disciplinary offense.

So many comments in the NYT misapprehension the question, stating that calls for intifada are not calls for genocide. I agree. But calls for genocide are calls for genocide, and they were being asked to define what crossed the line, clearly mere calls for genocide against any group are a gray area to them. Astounding.

[DallasNE]

25. The Question Is So Poorly Framed It Is No Wonder That The Responses Made No Sense

"The criticism focused on the university leaders’ answers to questions on Tuesday about whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates their respective school’s code of conduct on bullying or harassment."

I would expect that calls for genocide of any group, especially Jews, would come under other provisions rather than a code of conduct on bullying or harassment, which has First Amendment considerations.

I do find it surprising that they all fell into the trap where there is little correlation between the premise and policy. Calling for genocide is in the same league when it comes to speech as shouting in a croweded theatre. Neither would be protected.

[Abolishinist]

37. What? Shouting in a crowded theatre is not protected speech?

I'm almost certain this happens in theaters around the world on a daily basis. Under which provisions of the law could you see prosecuting these "overly-emotional" movie-going folks?

Calling for genocide is in the same league when it comes to speech as shouting in a croweded theatre. Neither would be protected.

[DallasNE]

41. Stop being a butt

Surely you know the statement is "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" and this was an obvious typo.

[Abolishinist]

44. Makes no difference, it's perfectly legal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.

Makes no difference, it's perfectly legal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.
The “fire in a crowded theatre” metaphor is lazy, and its pedigree is rooted in a legal decision that is no longer regarded by the Supreme Court of the United States as a solid standard regarding the parameters on freedom of expression. It shouldn’t be used by anyone making a serious case for restrictions on free speech, and free speech absolutists shouldn’t have to waste their time dismantling the expression.

https://speaking-liberally.com/2019/07/14/stop-it-with-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theatre-thing/
https://reason.com/2022/10/27/yes-you-can-yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/

Surely you know the statement is "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" and this was an obvious typo.

[moniss]

30. Well a couple of observations I have about

this "testimony". First of all the people coming to testify fairly obviously thought that this hearing was called in order to elicit facts from them for the purposes of informing Congressional understanding and perhaps policy or legislation. That is usually not at all why hearings are held in Congress anymore and their failure to be better advised of that is naive and on them. These questions from the lawmakers are designed, usually, to allow the questioner to frame a long winded question or a gotcha question in a manner to elicit a response that can then be turned into a soundbite/twisted to imply meaning etc. For example you can now be sure that there has been a ton of media and talking heads claiming these witnesses are anti-Semitic, support genocide etc. That was the whole purpose from the beginning.

Then we come to the responses. Being asked to make responses of specific conclusion for broad open ended questions is an old debate/propaganda trick. There are only 4 scenarios of responses to anything in those circumstances and they all allow the questioner to use the response to play their game.

First if the witness says "I don't know" then the questioner gets to jump on the witness and claim them to be ignorant etc. and therefore failing. The second would be to say "It is a general question and the circumstances can dictate an appropriate action to take" in which case the questioner(s), as happened here, will jump all over the witness and claim they are "trying to go easy", "endorsing", etc.

The third scenario response is to say "We have policies in place to address the situation" at which moment the questioner will immediately shoot back a response like "why are you failing to enforce those policies?" and of course any explanation about needing to go through a process for legal reasons will quickly be cut off by the questioner. The fourth scenario response would be to actually say "It is improper to take a broad term describing something and then immediately strap it over to something far more specific and detailed. There is an entire process in properly addressing these things and that process is there because you don't just go, as a University Official, and make/announce conclusions and disciplinary decisions by way of failing to go through what is an administrative and legal process for complaints about hate speech, bullying, harassment etc." Now of course that answer would also be cut off and in any event would be summarily ignored even if given or twisted to fit a narrative anyway during a media interview.

Honestly the real response that should have been given, in today's environment in Congress, would have been at the outset when requested to appear in the first place. "I see no constructive purpose in my appearing because this Congress has demonstrated over and over again that this is about grandstanding to the media by members of Congress and others. The members and others routinely use this grandstanding to do fund-raising to enrich themselves and enhance their hold on power. They demonstrate by example and experience that once a short time passes the issue they did the grandstanding about will be a forgotten matter on their agenda and they will be on to their next item of outrage.

To further their ends they will use willing sycophants in the media and in political think tanks/consultancy to join in and validate the grandstanding and the sham also for their financial gain and influence as well. Being in leadership at a university in times of controversy clearly means that my priorities for time, effort and dealing with controversy impacting students means that I dedicate all my time and effort towards that." Now of course I'm being polite in phrasing that for how they should have responded. My real feeling is that it would be a delight of my life if one of them would just say it like we might hear it at a pub.

[yardwork]

38. This is the correct answer.

I also think that the Republicans are making hay with this opportunity to cast liberals as antisemites (and they're getting lots of assistance from some liberals on this).

Republicans are currently at war with institutions of higher education and this was a beautiful opportunity to score points.

At least one of these three women presidents is Jewish herself. I doubt any of them are in favor of antisemitism, but the free speech requirements on college campuses (which Republicans typically think don't go far enough!) make it very difficult to ban public talks, no matter how vile. Most campuses have a resident "campus preacher," for instance, who daily spews foul statements about gays and women. Tucker Carlson speaks on college campuses and says vile things.

The presidents should not have testified. Next time they should take your advice.

[FBaggins]

31. They're quickly trying to walk it back

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1732549608230862999%7Ctwgr%5E3a3d8d0dab634526a7d1424d0ab6e2961113a318%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Farchives%2F2023%2F12%2Fthe-presidents-walk-it-back.php

Link to tweet

[OldBaldy1701E]

33. They just won't say anything that might endanger that alumni money, will they? (n/t)

[EX500rider]

40. Too late for that:

Israel Gaza war: UPenn loses $100m donation after House testimony

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67655910

[tenderfoot]

35. I'm just glad Amy Wax gets to stay at PENN

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/13/us/upenn-law-professor-racism-freedom-speech.html

[LeftInTX]

36. These will be used by Republicans as campaign fodder against higher education

It's a way to bash the "liberal elite" and bashes on higher education are often anti-Semitic in nature, so there's that.....

"Harvard, MIT, and University of PA support genocide" "Liberal states are anti-Semitic" (Notice none of these universities are in Texas)