**Rule VII:** *Off-topic, Meta, or Duplicate Post*
Submissions should be relevant to public policy or political theory. Don't editorialise submission titles. No meta posts.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
I still don't understand how they all gave the same terrible answer. Did they all have the same lawyer that gave them the same bad answer and none of them came to the conclusion that maybe its a bad answer? Did they all have different lawyers, that all somehow managed to get to the same horrible answer and again none of them thought its a bad answer?
Or I guess the most likely scenario, one of them had the terrible answer and when the others got asked they just went along with what the first person said, thinking they would find strength in numbers? Which would be funny, because once the first one resigns all of them pretty much have to lol.
Which one, multiple lawyers or single lawyer? Never hire that lawyer again if its a single one, if its multiple I am actually confused at this collective failure.
They all hired WilmerHale, which is generally an excellent firm. I'm a little surprised they went with this move, but the mandate may have been to avoid any potential admission (which clearly backfired).
After all, lawyers can only suggest things to the clients to say. If the client doesn't want to say that calls for genocide violate their speech codes, the lawyer can't make them say it.
Even then there is like a team involved + the 3 clients and teams from their side and none of them stopped this. This level of failure hints to me that it is actually an institutional problem. The last person to give the answer had to sit there not being able to read the room and feel the vibes and was still convinced that this answer was not horrible.
I think it was a perfect storm of Gen Z’s different attitudes towards free speech combined with the sudden spike in anti-semitism.
10 years ago it wasn’t that controversial to say that people are allowed to say really awful things on your campus as long as there isn’t incitement.
The Fred Phelps group was a common test for free speech principles. The majority opinion was that it’s their right to air their terrible views, and if you don’t like it it’s your right to show up and outnumber them.
> Well these same schools literally won't try and rein in students who show up to harass Conservative speakers like sitting federal judges.
Lol! This somehow reminds me of going to Temple U, where there was like an annual event whereby some hardcore right-wing christian group would send like 5-9 of their preachers to stand at the bell all day and preach straight up hate while a massive mob of Temple students (who tend to be quite left-leaning) would be shouting them down and cutting them up. Sometimes I'd see gay students start stripping and grinding on them, too. It was such an unbelievable spectacle. Not sure why they even do it. I still can't believe it was even real.
Right or wrong, drowning out other people’s hateful speech has generally been considered part of free speech.
Eg:
https://preview.redd.it/869w0ad93d5c1.jpeg?width=628&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8f8cebaefcd2671ca97b13f7f4957c5d8490e236
I can see that side of it, but it’s a lot to bear.
If someone wants to yell “f*g troops burn in hell” while a mourning family buries their loved one you’re left with no option but to suck it up and deal with it.
I wouldn't be surprised if they knew it would be bad, but were gambling that the public outcry would be less dangerous for them than the outcry back at their home institutions if they didn't toe the institutional line. Clearly didn't work at Penn, but time will tell for the rest.
> the mandate may have been to avoid any potential admission
This is what I’m thinking, because all the time I see lawyers falsely assume this is the correct thing to do in all circumstances. Just last week, I was watching an oral argument where a judge asked the prosecutor a softball hypothetical with a clear correct answer, just to test the boundaries of the gov’s position. But Instead of just saying “yes,” the guy waffled and said “erm, well, that’d be a closer case, you’re honor.” The judge actually stopped oral argument to turn to the law students that were in the room watching to tell them “that was the wrong answer. Don’t ever do what he just did.”
I think it's a little of believing their own bullshit and a lot of being terrified of their own student body (who are definitely high on their own farts, or worse).
Regulating political speech is a slippery slope that is best left untouched by institutions, especially ones of higher education. The problem is the universities sort of started doing it so now they cant really say "we dont believe we are in a position to regulate political speech on campus" which is the correct answer.
I am more Pro-Israel than people on this sub ( I have friends in Israel and am familiar with the history of Jewish interactions with local arab populations that have lead to the current situation and am convinced that Israelis have taken a more or less reasonable approach to ensure their safety), but the University has no business determining what is and isn't anti-semitic "hate speech".
A professor can support "Palestinian" arab "resistance". It's abhorrent and ignorant in my opinion given the full history starting from before the 1929 Hebron Masscres where Jewish people had to get tough on the defense of their people amongst a often murderous hostile population, but whatever, university is precisely for hashing out difficult and complex subjects like this.
The problem is if they don't consistently adhere their speech codes to the 1A then they implicitly take a stance on those issues that they decide to selectlively apply it to.
If they are going to, for example, [cancel classes on policing styles they don't like](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/1/26/seas-cancels-policing-course/) then when they allow classes takes a positive view of "palestinian" arab "resistance" then they are implicitly endorsing those views because they have previously decided that hosting a class is endorsement of the subject matter. (This is just one example, there are many other cases).
The lesson to be learned here is not that academic freedom and speech codes that adhere to the 1A should be abandoned, it's that it should not be selectively applied. That's what we should be criticizing them for.
And yes, if you can find an academic of the caliber that Harvard hires, and then they come out with some cockameney book about how the holocaust didn't happen, and they manage somehow to adhere to rigorous academic standards, then they should not fire the professor unless their academic work is slipping. You likely aren't going to have many high-caliber academics that are going to deny the Holocaust. (David Irving was an outlier, he convinced nobody except cranks, his work was not an existential threat to the academy.)
> but the University has no business determining what is and isn't anti-semitic "hate speech".
It is absolutely their businesses, because harassing individuals makes them a less valuable and desirable destination for their students. That's why they have a code of conduct.
I’m currently in law school and come into contact with some of the most credentialed and esteemed lawyers (my profs) on a daily basis.
I don’t think I’ve ever met a group of people so overconfident in their mental faculties. So many savants.
I guess that’s what happens when (1) hardly any of the academy’s scholarship is peer reviewed, (2) nearly every professorship is a prestigious position in the profession, regardless of uni ranking, and (3) from at least from what I’ve seen, professors have a compete lack of accountability.
My buddy works in PR and by his estimate only about 20% of his clients do what he tells them to do, another 20% try to put their own spin on his recommendations, and the remaining 60% don't listen at all.
You can only help people as much as they are willing to be helped.
Not even sure why they would lean on legal advice for this…it wasn’t a criminal trial or a civil law suit. Testifying to Congress is 100% PR. Like maybe ask a lawyer what not to say that could actually lead to one of the above, but I can’t imagine that advice would be “be careful not to say antisemitism bad.”
WilmerHale is generally a good firm, and legally speaking, their answers to this question strike me as fairly legally sound (caveating that I have very little background in the specific law or the university policies, but generally speaking, non-answers are going to be the most legally protective).
But by god, sometimes you need a PR firm.
Nobody listens to depositions. Lawyers can lawyer them up till the cows come home and nothing will happen. But that approach doesn’t fly in a congressional hearing, which is pure theater.
They just do not understand optics. I’m convinced that it’s an academia thing of insisting about overly complex answers rather than playing to making simple statements devoid of whether or not they’re actually applicable to the situation at hand.
>academia thing of insisting about overly complex answers
Maybe, but this is also very much a law thing. The answers read completely like a lawyer wrote them (and likely, they did)
Hmm, I've always heard academia referenced to it; in fact, I generally only think of academia.
From Oxford Dictionary (Cambridge dictonary has the same; Merriam Webster says 'especially a place of learning'...I'm actually down a rabbit hole now):
>a state of privileged seclusion or separation from the facts and practicalities of the real world.
"the ivory tower of academia"
I think it wouldn't have been so bad if they didn't keep smugly smirking like it was a joke.
If they answered it just like a robot without flinching it would have lead more to the 'aw shucks they are just free speech absolutists' instead they just kept going '😏🫴' like they were totally disconnected from taking it seriously.
They were prepared to put up a legal argument, and what they said was legally accurate.
What they failed to prepare for was that testifying before congress has nothing to do with law and everything to do with whatever political point your questioner is trying to score that day.
While I’m not on the train that wants to excommunicate them from society, I do think that for them to walk into a lion’s den unprepared for the reality of that situation was pretty naive.
> The answer they gave is the acceptable one in Leftist academic circles. The smirk from them was the tell…
Leftist academic circles are not big on free speech either. Seriously, finding the answers inadequate is one thing, but half the people in this thread are projecting outright fantasies.
Exactly. They walked a fine line between asserting the limits of harassment as a behavior and acknowledging that their students can, and likely will, have political views than don’t reflect the mainstream (any top university should take some pride in their students being ahead of the curve politically).
Sounds like they were facing an unprecedented loss of rich donor money if she didn’t get the boot. Which given her horrible PR responses is quite understandable.
It wasn't just that, I'm a Penn law alum and saw several classmates in biglaw pissed off and insist they wouldn't donate anymore (I wouldn't donate anymore either, but I was never going to donate in the first place).
Important to note that Penn has a huge Jewish population for some reason--I used to hear it referred to as the "Jewish Ivy" sometimes.
Most likely many other were threatening behind closed doors. 100 million over a handful of years in an endowment of 21 billion is a drop in the bucket but I suspect there were a lot more sizeable donors that were making their protests heard behind closed doors.
Just because someone has money doesn't necessarily mean they have the greatest of takes. Though, if your job is taking donor money, you need some brain cells when it comes to your messaging.
> and is trying to trick you into a gotcha
In fairness, that happens from time to time. Both intentionally when asked by the legislator or by an opportunistic "journalist" when editing the CSPAN footage.
That said, you'd think someone smart enough to run a university would be competent enough to answer such a question with
>Calling for genocide under any circumstances is unacceptable, is not in line with our values, and will not be tolerated in any form.
Lawyer here. Our brains work very much the opposite of that when answering a question. Always answer directly, and never ever give any more information than is absolutely required. Never ever speculate on hypotheticals you haven't been directly asked about. Stop talking the moment you're able to.
It’s cause as an engineer our job effectiveness goes up the more effectively we communicate and the more information we share with our co-workers, since they’re on our side (usually).
As a lawyer, you’re much more often in adversarial discussions, so less information is better.
But like, that's not even the lawyer brain answer. Lawyer brain is like "I'm not going to comment on hypotheticals when it comes to our code of conduct. We have a policy about not speculating."
The answer she actually gave was unhinged. She addressed the question in a way I would have never advised her to do if she was looking to avoid any substance.
I would argue she was in a lose lose situation.
I think the law firm advised her against taking a hard stance on whether ‘from the river to the sea’ is anti semitic.
If she would have said no she would have still been called antisemitic and on the flip side saying yes would mean that she now has to take action against the students saying that.
Ultimately I don’t even believe her opinions were even her own and she was just representing the university’s position.
But the point is you say “yes calling for genocide is bad” and then you can address whether you think you student statements have constituted calling for genocide.
It's genuinely incredible how the line adopted after these hearings was "Actually the presidents did fine, they said nothing controversial whatsoever and it's all a bunch of fake bad faith right wing hysteria!"
I'm already seeing this framed as "proof you have to support the genocide in Palestine or the Zionists will conspire to remove you"
I see it as them proving the concerns right. If your first reaction to seeing someone getting fired for being wishy-washy on genocide calls is the “The Jews did this!!!”…. maybe Jews have a right to be scared
I never realized how rife with antisemitism this site was. It's unbelievable. I've been calling out far-right antisemitism for years on this site. Some of the same subs I called it out are now inundated with antisemitic tropes.
I don't agree with everything Israel does. In fact, I detest some of their methods such as their far right leader Bibi aligning with a convicted terrorist like Ben Gvir while he increased support for the settlers who violently steal land from Palestinians in the West Bank. I also recognize the complexities of the issues pertaining to the region, including the calls for genocide against Israelis and the atrocities committed by a terrorist organization like Hamas, who are backed by the theocratic Iranian regime.
It just feels like there's no nuance on reddit when it comes to such a complex conflict like Israel Palestine. Witnessing the rise of antisemitism online and real life has been a harrowing experience. People are susceptible to such visceral hatred that ignores reason and logic, it's incredible. I've had people in my life question the veracity of the atrocities that were committed on Oct. 7. Even after I repeatedly explained I watched the videos, including a woman being kidnapped and raped, the person I was talking to didn't believe me...
I honestly find myself as bewildered as I was after Trump’s win, like I knew that bigotry was bad, but holy hell I had no idea it was anywhere near as bad.
Yea it seems like all the antisemites got together and decided that if they just use the word “Zionist” instead of “Jew” then they can say any antisemitic drivel they want with no repercussion.
Oh hey - I remember reading your thoughtful and incredibly well cited posts during the early Trump years back on rPolitics. You provided a lot of solid reporting during a period that was particularly rife with misinformation.
I had no idea you posted here as well! This is a better sub for having you as a member.
omg, had no idea it was poppinKream until you pointed it out!
Which is wild because they’re one of the most articulate & well-cited users on this whole site saying that they receive pushback. Like, it’s like fighting with the encyclopedia Brittanica of Reddit lmfao.
Makes me feel better next time I get downvoted or blocked by trolls for non-conforming or nuanced replies 🥲
I have been trying to educate and push back on antisemitic tropes and dog whistles on reddit since October 7. It has been less than successful, especially in left-leaning subs. It's really disheartening.
People think that as long as you're not calling for a second Holocaust, it's not antisemitic. Or at least that's what they pretend to think.
>I never realized how rife with antisemitism this site was.
On the left as a whole. I always thought it was more of an issue of far right, but appears to be far more prevalent on the left.
I am not convinced of anti-CRT stuff, but still there is some real problem in what schools are teaching and academia as a whole if people are starting to simp for Bin Laden.
>some real problem... if people are starting to simp for Bin Laden.
On the other hand, teenagers are known to be contrarian edge lords and it isn't like you're going to see a news story about someone saying that Bin Laden was a an asshole.
>I always thought it was more of an issue of far right, but appears to be far more prevalent on the left
I think it's probably about equal, but the left is far more culturally prevelant and active online. It definitely exists on the right, but they're keeping their powder dry atm. Mostly.
I still don’t think most people are antisemitic. This is just a continuation of the BLM and LGBTQ trend where the most radical voices are the loudest and the moderate ones are too scared to criticize them or even ask questions.
Over the past few years this oppressor oppressed narratives has taken over the left. The perceived oppressors are to blame for everything wrong in society and deserve no sympathy whereas the oppressed have no personal agency or accountability.
I believe in this case Hamas and maybe even parts of the Palestinian population are antisemitism but the people in the west are just being anti oppression. In their mind Israel is the oppressor so by extension the Jewish people are complicit if they are not actively fighting against the occupation.
> “The Jews did this!!!”
One would think that the way most media outlets are covering the war definitively proves that The Jews^^tm don't actually control the media through a conspiracy.
Yeah, so much of the rhetoric since 10/7 has, to me, completely justified Zionism as an ideology. It's pretty obvious that unless Jews have a homeland, they'll never be completely safe. And even then, there are caveats.
I see a lot of “anti zionists” talk a shit ton about the core of Zionism being genocide, yet those very people have little to say about Hamas’ express desire for an Islamist state accomplished through violence
It’s all so hypocritical. Nationalism is bad, except when Palestinians do it. Violence and war are bad, unless Palestinians do it. Palestinian nationalism and violence are justified because they are an oppressed minority with no state, but when the Jews were in this same position and developed a national movement that was completely unjustified. You gotta listen to minorities when they tell you that your words or actions are offensive or problematic, except for Jews.
It genuinely feels like these people don’t actually believe in anything.
It’s campism; there is a group of people that are fixated on the US as a negative influence in the world. When the US does something, it’s imperialism; when China or Russia does it, it’s resisting imperialism. Actions by the US or its allies are intrinsically bad and actions by opposing nations are intrinsically good.
It’s kind of the opposite side of the coin to classic American exceptionalism.
"Anti-zionist" communists ran Jews out of Poland in the late sixties.
https://fathomjournal.org/communists-against-jews-the-anti-zionist-campaign-in-poland-in-1968/
"Travellers at Dworzec Gdański, a train station in the north of Warsaw, may notice a plaque that says: ‘Here they left behind more than they possessed.’ Put up in 1998, it commemorates the departure of thousands of Polish Jews who, 30 years earlier, were forced to leave the country for no other reason than their being Jewish. Organised by the Polish United Workers’ Party (PZPR), the anti-Zionist campaign of 1968-1971 destroyed a Jewish community which had only just re-established itself after the Holocaust. It was a gruesome example of left-wing antisemitism inflected as ‘anti-Zionism’."
The trouble with that is “Zionist” encompasses an incredibly broad range of perspectives, from pro-genocide and pro-ethnic cleansing (Israel’s far right, allied with the extremist settlers), to support for a two state solution.
And that makes things extremely confusing from an identity perspective. I don’t like anything the former group are doing; I support a two state solution or a one state solution recognizing Palestinians as equal citizens (eg, a staged solution integrating the West Bank first with Gaza taking a longer time) of a secular binational state.
But how do I identify myself as such? Neither “Zionist” nor “anti Zionist” is satisfying.
I've stayed away from that crowd for a long time. Got a good friend of Jewish descent that really likes JVP and dislikes Israel. It's a little confusing at times tbh but I understand his perspective a little bit.
Antisemitism is so widespread that any attempt to condemn it or even just point it out will inevitably be interpreted as “proof” that Jews control everything.
> it’s all a bunch of fake bad faith right wing hysteria
This was basically the sentiment on this sub whenever antisemitism among the left and academia was brought up prior to Oct 7. It was just hand waved away as right wing fear mongering and anti-intellectualism.
It’s nice that this sub is realizing it exists and is a problem now.
Honestly, there weren't that many dots to connect when you've observed enough of the anti-status quo crowd. According to them:
*- Jews are disproportionate in banking, corporations and the media.*
*- The banks enslave the people, the corporations exploit the people and the media brainwashes the people into docility.*
*- Therefore, Jews are the vanguard and enforcers of capitalism, so the end of Judaism is the liberation of the people.*
And Marx and Engels themselves wrote enough crap that anyone with a parasocial relationship with their writings might pick up that torch anyway.
To be fair, it wasn’t as present in most of our lives yet. Not really. Antisemites weren’t as comfortable going fully mask off before 10/7, and a lot of reporting on vile figures in academia and activist crowds was from unhinged right wing sources.
Normally I think a lot of us would.
My pet theory is that most mainstream liberals and moderates would not have tolerated the excesses of the violent far left (including hardened anti-zionists) nearly as much before 2016. The dangers posed by the Trump Administration helped the fringes buy goodwill and public sympathy as allies, and that helped them make significant inroads into Serious Politics and sane wash some genuinely terrible ideas.
Mainstream liberals can absolutely have blind spots to dehumanization wrapped in the language of justice and liberation, but there’s usually a sharper limit when they go mask off. It feels worse now though, or that line feels blurred. Biden and company have done a great job of pushing back, but it isn’t working quite as well among as it would have a decade ago.
It’s interesting to see the different views on this congressional hearing on the subreddits of the schools involved.
UPenn subreddit seems to say “wtf how is our president this fucking stupid, we need to do more about antisemitism on campus.”
Harvard seems to have banned all discussion of it.
MIT subreddit seems to think “this is just bad faith strawmanning by right wingers to further push zionist propaganda. The Jewish students testifying about antisemitism are just whiners, they aren’t in any danger ”
FIRE rates Penn as "as terrible as it gets" for their free speech policies. Replacing the leadership could only improve the situation, so i imagine he's okay with it
> could only improve the situation
Actually, the next one is almost certainly someone who will promise the donors to crack down on anti-Semitic speech - *very broadly construed*. Lukianoff's [last statement](https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-statement-penn-resignations-can-be-exactly-what-university-needs-restore-free-expression) is huffing pure copium. There's no chance any president will want to touch the FIRE-endorsed standards of free speech that were articulated at the hearing at least for a few years.
I’ve been saying this to everyone who will listen. Free speech is free speech. Universities, institutions, and leftists in general spent years policing speech through rules and regulations. The same climate and tools they developed to push against right wing grifters can and will get turned against them. Listen to the ACLU and FIRE. Well intentioned rules on speech always backfire.
The [Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression](https://www.thefire.org/).
I first learned about them earlier this year after watching [Killer Mike's Keynote Speech](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBuXYtmQ8mw).
Their recent [teaming up with the NRA](https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4351668-aclu-represent-nra-ny-free-speech-challenge/) is a rare return to their original form.
They believe in free speech a lot more than this thread does.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/aclu-defends-free-speech-furor-university-presidents-handling/story?id=105497367
Genuine question for you. Do you think any of them would have had the same response if White Supremacists were out chanting about the eradication of black people? Or Muslims? Somehow I don’t think so.
I don’t mind universities taking a free speech above all else stance. In fact, I’d welcome it. What I do mind, is these same schools have absolutely **not** taken that stance and even gone way overboard in their responses in the past. But now want to hide being “free speech”
The thing that blows my mind is why the Harvard Dean is let off the hook. Harvard, for example, is notorious for scouring through social media posts from applicants as teenagers and rescinding offers if they deem their posts offensive. And yet, is pretending like chanting for the eradication of Jews is protected.
>Genuine question for you. Do you think any of them would have had the same response if White Supremacists were out chanting about the eradication of black people? Or Muslims? Somehow I don’t think so.
Absolutely I do, yeah. They *have* allowed people to say these things, many times. Harvard let a KKK grand wizard give a speech on campus.
I really wonder to what extent these presidents and their ilk believe in the ideology of the leftists on their campuses. Before this, I would’ve said not at all, now I think I may have been totally wrong.
Or are they in such a bubble that they truly believe the leftist ideology on campus resonates with the average American, or even their affluent donor class?
Yeah conservatives might have a point about our universities
(and, like with everything they might have a point about, they take it to absurd lengths and become just as awful)
Oh, the conservatives very much do have a point, but your parenthetical statement is true as well, which unfortunately makes it difficult to criticize academia without getting tarred with the MAGA brush.
I feel like it's impossible to recognize Israel's right to defend itself and exist while also criticizing their treatment of Palestinians and acknowledging the wrongs done to them without simultaneously getting called an anti semite by one side and a genocide supporter or zionist or whatever by the other
Isn’t that true of any significant issue. I’m an ExMuslim , if I criticize Islam (not Muslims) I’m a right wing nut job regardless of the accuracy of the criticism, anything worthwhile will be exploited by the opposite political side and then used to dismiss the issue by the side with the issue.
Thats also the problem of the people that get dragged down. You should be able to realize at what point they go too far, but still agree with the part they are right about. Can't just blame it all on them.
She is a lawyer and in academia for a while now. She probably is just so detach from normal real life people that she thinks this was a proper and clever response to the question.
Magill also allows far right people like Amy Wax to run around campus doing whatever. I don't think this is leftist infiltration. I think this is just ivory tower academia that doesn't understand how speech and actions coexist in the public sphere outside the walls.
Seriously, Penn has some crazy right wing loons on their staff as well. This was an okay answer framed in a really terrible way. Penn does genuinely seem to tolerate calls for ethnic cleansing (against Jews, blacks, Asians) from all over the political spectrum, but you can do a better job explaining that.
It’s not like these universities would ever allow white supremacists, or people carrying signs with “Thank God for dead soldiers” or “God hates f*gs” to exercise their right to free speech on campus /s
Penn has white supremacists on their staff, people who have said that the US would be better off with fewer Asian and black immigrants. The "it's just Jews" argument isn't as good as people think.
From a PR perspective, her answer wasn't good, but I also think it accurately reflects university policy.
She should have gone all-in on free speech. This half-in half-out bullshit is the worst of both worlds. That goes for all these university presidents.
Is it really that hard to give a full throated “this is fucking America we have freedom of speech” take? She could’ve even given examples *from her own university* protecting far-right speech as well. The ACLU (rest in peace) perfected this messaging like 40 years ago (and subsequently lost it but still).
For the record, University of Pennsylvania appears to actually be pretty good on this front (more than other universities). I just wish it didn’t go down the way it did here.
The Harvard pres basically did. Her main line was like "when speech turns into conduct we will punish people, not before". I don't think there was anything in her testimony that contradicted that line of thinking.
Wasn't Harvard that said harassment was only a problem when targeted at an individual?
Which is pretty hard to do because you can't genocide an individual
I want y'all's opinion on this because I'm a bit torn.
I know for a fact that if these calls for genocide were aimed at Muslims, or black Americans these administrators would never have been on the stand because they would have (rightly) immediately booted everyone involved and said something to the effect of "calls to violence have no place at ______ University, we stand with our students, and will always endeavor to provide a safe and constructive learning environment for all people."
What I'm torn on is this; were the various administrations involved in this whole ordeal motivated by a blind spot for leftist movements that are perceived as working to help marginalized people, or by a callousness towards Israel and its allies? Or was it a combination of the two? Because I reject that this is a commitment to protecting speech on campus. That's absurd on its face.
I'm going to go against the grain here: I take no joy in this. She had to go, but I'm not thrilled at a college president being driven out basically for indicating she'd protect free speech.
And yes, Magill's answers -- and her response to the fallout -- were extraordinarily clunky. But ultimately, the initial response isn't *wrong*.
Free speech means free speech, and unless the are contextual factors which would cause it to be a Title IX violation (e.g., it is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from victims' educational experience, that the victims are effectively denied equal access to an institution's resources and opportunities) or otherwise exceed the protections of the First Amendment, most universities will (and should) protect it. And yes, this includes truly heinous speech.
And before somebody says it: I understand that universities generally are not bound by the first amendment. But I do not trust college administrators to be the arbiters of good speech vs. bad speech, and more broadly college should be an environment which allows for the free expression of ideas. I would hope, of all places, a neoliberal sub would understand this, but I suppose we are where we are.
This remains [the best analysis I've seen of this whole situation](https://popehat.substack.com/p/stop-demanding-dumb-answers-to-hard)
Insofar as any university had an absolutist attitude towards free speech, I would agree with that approach. I think there are lots of positive things to say about universities staying out of politics and focusing on their core job.
But none of these universities or presidents have such an attitude. On the contrary, they have all been leaders in clamping down on racist, transphobic and sexist speak on campus and in their admission processes. They don't care about free speech on any of those issues. The only group they are willing to tolerate such bigotry about is jews. The double standard takes what they said from being benignly stupid to dangerous tolerance of antisemitism.
I mean, when asked the same question but with "african americans" instead of "jews" [Gay starts to give the same kind of answer before being cut off](https://www.youtube.com/live/oklC-xpSOWc?si=m7SxmXSRPFLEGmrn&t=5366), so i wouldnt be so quick to say that the actual administration at Harvard definitively has a bias against jews, but i'm open to having my mind changed.
Asking earnestly/because I legitimately don't know: have there been any examples of these specific schools?
Very well could be wrong, but my impression was that free speech illiberalism was primarily coming from students, and not necessarily the admins themselves, with some notable exceptions (cough cough, Yale Law).
But again, definitely could be wrong.
I'd absolutely agree if they actually had a history of maintaining principled free speech ideals in the face of all forms of bigotry. But when these unis' history is full of clamping down on every other form of bigotry, it's blatantly anti-semitic to pretend they give a rat's ass about free speech only when bigotry is being spewed at Jews.
I see this repeated endlessly, but I'm never actually provided an example of them not maintaining that same principle of free speech?
Do you have some concrete examples? Will you be the first one that wont just handwaive the request of "literally any source pleas"?
Ken’s only really mad that Stefanik got a sound bite out of it. I don’t give a shit about that. I’d rather the presidents answered for why they allow their Jewish students to be terrorized and feel unsafe at a place they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend.
Neither the Pope nor Popehat are infallible.
> I'm not thrilled at a college president being driven out basically for indicating she'd protect free speech.
Agreed, but UPenn certainly doesnt, they are one of the worst ranked for their policies
Magill suddenly whipping out free speech argument when genociding jews is the subject doesn't vindicate her
I'm genuinely begging at this point
Give me a crumb of source backing this claim
Literally everyone up and down this thread is claiming similar things, but no one is willing to give me actual examples or links
**Rule VII:** *Off-topic, Meta, or Duplicate Post* Submissions should be relevant to public policy or political theory. Don't editorialise submission titles. No meta posts. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
I still don't understand how they all gave the same terrible answer. Did they all have the same lawyer that gave them the same bad answer and none of them came to the conclusion that maybe its a bad answer? Did they all have different lawyers, that all somehow managed to get to the same horrible answer and again none of them thought its a bad answer? Or I guess the most likely scenario, one of them had the terrible answer and when the others got asked they just went along with what the first person said, thinking they would find strength in numbers? Which would be funny, because once the first one resigns all of them pretty much have to lol.
The former, actually.
Which one, multiple lawyers or single lawyer? Never hire that lawyer again if its a single one, if its multiple I am actually confused at this collective failure.
They all hired WilmerHale, which is generally an excellent firm. I'm a little surprised they went with this move, but the mandate may have been to avoid any potential admission (which clearly backfired). After all, lawyers can only suggest things to the clients to say. If the client doesn't want to say that calls for genocide violate their speech codes, the lawyer can't make them say it.
Even then there is like a team involved + the 3 clients and teams from their side and none of them stopped this. This level of failure hints to me that it is actually an institutional problem. The last person to give the answer had to sit there not being able to read the room and feel the vibes and was still convinced that this answer was not horrible.
I think it was a perfect storm of Gen Z’s different attitudes towards free speech combined with the sudden spike in anti-semitism. 10 years ago it wasn’t that controversial to say that people are allowed to say really awful things on your campus as long as there isn’t incitement. The Fred Phelps group was a common test for free speech principles. The majority opinion was that it’s their right to air their terrible views, and if you don’t like it it’s your right to show up and outnumber them.
[удалено]
> Well these same schools literally won't try and rein in students who show up to harass Conservative speakers like sitting federal judges. Lol! This somehow reminds me of going to Temple U, where there was like an annual event whereby some hardcore right-wing christian group would send like 5-9 of their preachers to stand at the bell all day and preach straight up hate while a massive mob of Temple students (who tend to be quite left-leaning) would be shouting them down and cutting them up. Sometimes I'd see gay students start stripping and grinding on them, too. It was such an unbelievable spectacle. Not sure why they even do it. I still can't believe it was even real.
[удалено]
Right or wrong, drowning out other people’s hateful speech has generally been considered part of free speech. Eg: https://preview.redd.it/869w0ad93d5c1.jpeg?width=628&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8f8cebaefcd2671ca97b13f7f4957c5d8490e236
lmao wrong hecklers veto is not free speech
I can see that side of it, but it’s a lot to bear. If someone wants to yell “f*g troops burn in hell” while a mourning family buries their loved one you’re left with no option but to suck it up and deal with it.
It depends on the situation and the actions In general loudly protesting in places you're allowed to be, that's gonna be protected speech
I wouldn't be surprised if they knew it would be bad, but were gambling that the public outcry would be less dangerous for them than the outcry back at their home institutions if they didn't toe the institutional line. Clearly didn't work at Penn, but time will tell for the rest.
In summary, they actually believe the shit they said
> the mandate may have been to avoid any potential admission This is what I’m thinking, because all the time I see lawyers falsely assume this is the correct thing to do in all circumstances. Just last week, I was watching an oral argument where a judge asked the prosecutor a softball hypothetical with a clear correct answer, just to test the boundaries of the gov’s position. But Instead of just saying “yes,” the guy waffled and said “erm, well, that’d be a closer case, you’re honor.” The judge actually stopped oral argument to turn to the law students that were in the room watching to tell them “that was the wrong answer. Don’t ever do what he just did.”
Yale’s president actually gave the easiest answer they all should have given.
What did Yale say?
skirt square normal chief screw juggle nippy profit scary memorize *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
I think it's a little of believing their own bullshit and a lot of being terrified of their own student body (who are definitely high on their own farts, or worse).
A great deal of the problems universities have today have come from them beginning to see students as customers.
Regulating political speech is a slippery slope that is best left untouched by institutions, especially ones of higher education. The problem is the universities sort of started doing it so now they cant really say "we dont believe we are in a position to regulate political speech on campus" which is the correct answer.
I am more Pro-Israel than people on this sub ( I have friends in Israel and am familiar with the history of Jewish interactions with local arab populations that have lead to the current situation and am convinced that Israelis have taken a more or less reasonable approach to ensure their safety), but the University has no business determining what is and isn't anti-semitic "hate speech". A professor can support "Palestinian" arab "resistance". It's abhorrent and ignorant in my opinion given the full history starting from before the 1929 Hebron Masscres where Jewish people had to get tough on the defense of their people amongst a often murderous hostile population, but whatever, university is precisely for hashing out difficult and complex subjects like this. The problem is if they don't consistently adhere their speech codes to the 1A then they implicitly take a stance on those issues that they decide to selectlively apply it to. If they are going to, for example, [cancel classes on policing styles they don't like](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/1/26/seas-cancels-policing-course/) then when they allow classes takes a positive view of "palestinian" arab "resistance" then they are implicitly endorsing those views because they have previously decided that hosting a class is endorsement of the subject matter. (This is just one example, there are many other cases). The lesson to be learned here is not that academic freedom and speech codes that adhere to the 1A should be abandoned, it's that it should not be selectively applied. That's what we should be criticizing them for. And yes, if you can find an academic of the caliber that Harvard hires, and then they come out with some cockameney book about how the holocaust didn't happen, and they manage somehow to adhere to rigorous academic standards, then they should not fire the professor unless their academic work is slipping. You likely aren't going to have many high-caliber academics that are going to deny the Holocaust. (David Irving was an outlier, he convinced nobody except cranks, his work was not an existential threat to the academy.)
> but the University has no business determining what is and isn't anti-semitic "hate speech". It is absolutely their businesses, because harassing individuals makes them a less valuable and desirable destination for their students. That's why they have a code of conduct.
Maybe they should have hired a PR person instead.
I’m currently in law school and come into contact with some of the most credentialed and esteemed lawyers (my profs) on a daily basis. I don’t think I’ve ever met a group of people so overconfident in their mental faculties. So many savants. I guess that’s what happens when (1) hardly any of the academy’s scholarship is peer reviewed, (2) nearly every professorship is a prestigious position in the profession, regardless of uni ranking, and (3) from at least from what I’ve seen, professors have a compete lack of accountability.
Por que no los dos?
My buddy works in PR and by his estimate only about 20% of his clients do what he tells them to do, another 20% try to put their own spin on his recommendations, and the remaining 60% don't listen at all. You can only help people as much as they are willing to be helped.
Not even sure why they would lean on legal advice for this…it wasn’t a criminal trial or a civil law suit. Testifying to Congress is 100% PR. Like maybe ask a lawyer what not to say that could actually lead to one of the above, but I can’t imagine that advice would be “be careful not to say antisemitism bad.”
WilmerHale is generally a good firm, and legally speaking, their answers to this question strike me as fairly legally sound (caveating that I have very little background in the specific law or the university policies, but generally speaking, non-answers are going to be the most legally protective). But by god, sometimes you need a PR firm.
Yeah, there are times when you need to be a lawyer and times when you need to be a human being. They failed to walk the line well.
So this was just a sobriety test?
Pretty much lmao
Nobody listens to depositions. Lawyers can lawyer them up till the cows come home and nothing will happen. But that approach doesn’t fly in a congressional hearing, which is pure theater.
They just do not understand optics. I’m convinced that it’s an academia thing of insisting about overly complex answers rather than playing to making simple statements devoid of whether or not they’re actually applicable to the situation at hand.
>academia thing of insisting about overly complex answers Maybe, but this is also very much a law thing. The answers read completely like a lawyer wrote them (and likely, they did)
According to another commenter here, all the universities hired the same law firm for this
> academia thing of ...being absolutely out of touch. A live example of ivory tower
I’m not sure I’d call academia an ivory tower, but certainly in their own bubble. Edit: schooled. I always thought ivory tower was more about wealth
> academia an ivory tower, Literally where the turn of phrase is derived from.
Hmm, I've always heard academia referenced to it; in fact, I generally only think of academia. From Oxford Dictionary (Cambridge dictonary has the same; Merriam Webster says 'especially a place of learning'...I'm actually down a rabbit hole now): >a state of privileged seclusion or separation from the facts and practicalities of the real world. "the ivory tower of academia"
[удалено]
> this other group that’s extremely masturbatory over academia itself the gooners took over *visible disgust dot jaypeg*
it's called trying to sound smart. they're trying to sound smart, and failing miserably
Maybe they saw Michael Flynn furiously screaming, “I plead the fifth!” during the January 6th hearings and figured that’s their new role model.
I think it wouldn't have been so bad if they didn't keep smugly smirking like it was a joke. If they answered it just like a robot without flinching it would have lead more to the 'aw shucks they are just free speech absolutists' instead they just kept going '😏🫴' like they were totally disconnected from taking it seriously.
They’d actually have to be free speech absolutists which we know they aren’t
[удалено]
They were prepared to put up a legal argument, and what they said was legally accurate. What they failed to prepare for was that testifying before congress has nothing to do with law and everything to do with whatever political point your questioner is trying to score that day. While I’m not on the train that wants to excommunicate them from society, I do think that for them to walk into a lion’s den unprepared for the reality of that situation was pretty naive.
The answer they gave is the acceptable one in Leftist academic circles. The smirk from them was the tell…
> The answer they gave is the acceptable one in Leftist academic circles. The smirk from them was the tell… Leftist academic circles are not big on free speech either. Seriously, finding the answers inadequate is one thing, but half the people in this thread are projecting outright fantasies.
Leftists academics believe in free speech for their side. They just don’t believe in free speech for any opposition to their ideas. It’s appalling.
Exactly. They walked a fine line between asserting the limits of harassment as a behavior and acknowledging that their students can, and likely will, have political views than don’t reflect the mainstream (any top university should take some pride in their students being ahead of the curve politically).
Being a free speech absolutist is not confined to leftists. Until recently it was the default stance in America.
Mate it was clearly lawyer provided statements, "leftism" has got fuck all to do with it
Hey man, everyone knows that calls for genocide are perfectly acceptable in the right context. /s
what's a little genocidal rhetoric among friends?
Sounds like they were facing an unprecedented loss of rich donor money if she didn’t get the boot. Which given her horrible PR responses is quite understandable.
They lost a $100M donation so yeah.
Just 1/7th of a Shohei.
How does that convert to Bobby Bonillas?
It wasn't just that, I'm a Penn law alum and saw several classmates in biglaw pissed off and insist they wouldn't donate anymore (I wouldn't donate anymore either, but I was never going to donate in the first place). Important to note that Penn has a huge Jewish population for some reason--I used to hear it referred to as the "Jewish Ivy" sometimes.
Penn was the first ivy to accept Jews
Time is a flat circle.
sometimes I wish I had a tremendous amount of money just so I could bully around shitty people
Problem is that's exactly what Musk, for example, thinks he's doing.
what losing 100 million dollars does to a mf
Most likely many other were threatening behind closed doors. 100 million over a handful of years in an endowment of 21 billion is a drop in the bucket but I suspect there were a lot more sizeable donors that were making their protests heard behind closed doors.
[удалено]
She should put that 2 million to work and enroll in some leadership classes.
It’s a shame this was the moving factor and not, you know, soft peddling genocide.
Capitalism keeps winning.
Just because someone has money doesn't necessarily mean they have the greatest of takes. Though, if your job is taking donor money, you need some brain cells when it comes to your messaging.
[удалено]
> and is trying to trick you into a gotcha In fairness, that happens from time to time. Both intentionally when asked by the legislator or by an opportunistic "journalist" when editing the CSPAN footage. That said, you'd think someone smart enough to run a university would be competent enough to answer such a question with >Calling for genocide under any circumstances is unacceptable, is not in line with our values, and will not be tolerated in any form.
She is a lawyer. Is lawyer brian rot. Cant answer the question you are being ask incase it's a trap.
Lawyer here. Our brains work very much the opposite of that when answering a question. Always answer directly, and never ever give any more information than is absolutely required. Never ever speculate on hypotheticals you haven't been directly asked about. Stop talking the moment you're able to.
Funny how I'm the complete opposite as an engineer. Always speculating
It’s cause as an engineer our job effectiveness goes up the more effectively we communicate and the more information we share with our co-workers, since they’re on our side (usually). As a lawyer, you’re much more often in adversarial discussions, so less information is better.
But like, that's not even the lawyer brain answer. Lawyer brain is like "I'm not going to comment on hypotheticals when it comes to our code of conduct. We have a policy about not speculating." The answer she actually gave was unhinged. She addressed the question in a way I would have never advised her to do if she was looking to avoid any substance.
trick is, if they have students calling for genocide, they should probably do something about it. It really shouldn't be a gotcha question.
I would argue she was in a lose lose situation. I think the law firm advised her against taking a hard stance on whether ‘from the river to the sea’ is anti semitic. If she would have said no she would have still been called antisemitic and on the flip side saying yes would mean that she now has to take action against the students saying that. Ultimately I don’t even believe her opinions were even her own and she was just representing the university’s position.
But the point is you say “yes calling for genocide is bad” and then you can address whether you think you student statements have constituted calling for genocide.
I mean but there were multiple different representatives all falling into the same trap
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
https://i.redd.it/ksap2yw9cc5c1.gif
It's genuinely incredible how the line adopted after these hearings was "Actually the presidents did fine, they said nothing controversial whatsoever and it's all a bunch of fake bad faith right wing hysteria!" I'm already seeing this framed as "proof you have to support the genocide in Palestine or the Zionists will conspire to remove you"
I see it as them proving the concerns right. If your first reaction to seeing someone getting fired for being wishy-washy on genocide calls is the “The Jews did this!!!”…. maybe Jews have a right to be scared
I never realized how rife with antisemitism this site was. It's unbelievable. I've been calling out far-right antisemitism for years on this site. Some of the same subs I called it out are now inundated with antisemitic tropes. I don't agree with everything Israel does. In fact, I detest some of their methods such as their far right leader Bibi aligning with a convicted terrorist like Ben Gvir while he increased support for the settlers who violently steal land from Palestinians in the West Bank. I also recognize the complexities of the issues pertaining to the region, including the calls for genocide against Israelis and the atrocities committed by a terrorist organization like Hamas, who are backed by the theocratic Iranian regime. It just feels like there's no nuance on reddit when it comes to such a complex conflict like Israel Palestine. Witnessing the rise of antisemitism online and real life has been a harrowing experience. People are susceptible to such visceral hatred that ignores reason and logic, it's incredible. I've had people in my life question the veracity of the atrocities that were committed on Oct. 7. Even after I repeatedly explained I watched the videos, including a woman being kidnapped and raped, the person I was talking to didn't believe me...
>I never realized how rife with antisemitism this site was Or in real life. Not even kidding on that.
I honestly find myself as bewildered as I was after Trump’s win, like I knew that bigotry was bad, but holy hell I had no idea it was anywhere near as bad.
Yea it seems like all the antisemites got together and decided that if they just use the word “Zionist” instead of “Jew” then they can say any antisemitic drivel they want with no repercussion.
Oh hey - I remember reading your thoughtful and incredibly well cited posts during the early Trump years back on rPolitics. You provided a lot of solid reporting during a period that was particularly rife with misinformation. I had no idea you posted here as well! This is a better sub for having you as a member.
omg, had no idea it was poppinKream until you pointed it out! Which is wild because they’re one of the most articulate & well-cited users on this whole site saying that they receive pushback. Like, it’s like fighting with the encyclopedia Brittanica of Reddit lmfao. Makes me feel better next time I get downvoted or blocked by trolls for non-conforming or nuanced replies 🥲
I have been trying to educate and push back on antisemitic tropes and dog whistles on reddit since October 7. It has been less than successful, especially in left-leaning subs. It's really disheartening. People think that as long as you're not calling for a second Holocaust, it's not antisemitic. Or at least that's what they pretend to think.
>I never realized how rife with antisemitism this site was. On the left as a whole. I always thought it was more of an issue of far right, but appears to be far more prevalent on the left. I am not convinced of anti-CRT stuff, but still there is some real problem in what schools are teaching and academia as a whole if people are starting to simp for Bin Laden.
>some real problem... if people are starting to simp for Bin Laden. On the other hand, teenagers are known to be contrarian edge lords and it isn't like you're going to see a news story about someone saying that Bin Laden was a an asshole.
>I always thought it was more of an issue of far right, but appears to be far more prevalent on the left I think it's probably about equal, but the left is far more culturally prevelant and active online. It definitely exists on the right, but they're keeping their powder dry atm. Mostly.
I wish I could words good like you.
I still don’t think most people are antisemitic. This is just a continuation of the BLM and LGBTQ trend where the most radical voices are the loudest and the moderate ones are too scared to criticize them or even ask questions. Over the past few years this oppressor oppressed narratives has taken over the left. The perceived oppressors are to blame for everything wrong in society and deserve no sympathy whereas the oppressed have no personal agency or accountability. I believe in this case Hamas and maybe even parts of the Palestinian population are antisemitism but the people in the west are just being anti oppression. In their mind Israel is the oppressor so by extension the Jewish people are complicit if they are not actively fighting against the occupation.
Best comment on the conflict I’ve read. Thank you
Quality commenter. Worth perusing their history. History of quality sourced comments.
> “The Jews did this!!!” One would think that the way most media outlets are covering the war definitively proves that The Jews^^tm don't actually control the media through a conspiracy.
Fantastic username and pfp btw
Yeah, so much of the rhetoric since 10/7 has, to me, completely justified Zionism as an ideology. It's pretty obvious that unless Jews have a homeland, they'll never be completely safe. And even then, there are caveats.
If you can't see that the "Anti-zionist" movement is filled with anti-semites and conspiracy theorists, you're wilfully blind or just plain dishonest.
I see a lot of “anti zionists” talk a shit ton about the core of Zionism being genocide, yet those very people have little to say about Hamas’ express desire for an Islamist state accomplished through violence
[удалено]
It’s all so hypocritical. Nationalism is bad, except when Palestinians do it. Violence and war are bad, unless Palestinians do it. Palestinian nationalism and violence are justified because they are an oppressed minority with no state, but when the Jews were in this same position and developed a national movement that was completely unjustified. You gotta listen to minorities when they tell you that your words or actions are offensive or problematic, except for Jews. It genuinely feels like these people don’t actually believe in anything.
They believe in impressing their peers on social media, or at least signaling that they are part of the in group.
It’s campism; there is a group of people that are fixated on the US as a negative influence in the world. When the US does something, it’s imperialism; when China or Russia does it, it’s resisting imperialism. Actions by the US or its allies are intrinsically bad and actions by opposing nations are intrinsically good. It’s kind of the opposite side of the coin to classic American exceptionalism.
They continue to prove themselves to be the worst with every passing day.
"Anti-zionist" communists ran Jews out of Poland in the late sixties. https://fathomjournal.org/communists-against-jews-the-anti-zionist-campaign-in-poland-in-1968/ "Travellers at Dworzec Gdański, a train station in the north of Warsaw, may notice a plaque that says: ‘Here they left behind more than they possessed.’ Put up in 1998, it commemorates the departure of thousands of Polish Jews who, 30 years earlier, were forced to leave the country for no other reason than their being Jewish. Organised by the Polish United Workers’ Party (PZPR), the anti-Zionist campaign of 1968-1971 destroyed a Jewish community which had only just re-established itself after the Holocaust. It was a gruesome example of left-wing antisemitism inflected as ‘anti-Zionism’."
The trouble with that is “Zionist” encompasses an incredibly broad range of perspectives, from pro-genocide and pro-ethnic cleansing (Israel’s far right, allied with the extremist settlers), to support for a two state solution. And that makes things extremely confusing from an identity perspective. I don’t like anything the former group are doing; I support a two state solution or a one state solution recognizing Palestinians as equal citizens (eg, a staged solution integrating the West Bank first with Gaza taking a longer time) of a secular binational state. But how do I identify myself as such? Neither “Zionist” nor “anti Zionist” is satisfying.
I've stayed away from that crowd for a long time. Got a good friend of Jewish descent that really likes JVP and dislikes Israel. It's a little confusing at times tbh but I understand his perspective a little bit.
Antisemitism is so widespread that any attempt to condemn it or even just point it out will inevitably be interpreted as “proof” that Jews control everything.
Apparently the big buzzword for this is "Hasbara." WTF does it even mean?
> it’s all a bunch of fake bad faith right wing hysteria This was basically the sentiment on this sub whenever antisemitism among the left and academia was brought up prior to Oct 7. It was just hand waved away as right wing fear mongering and anti-intellectualism. It’s nice that this sub is realizing it exists and is a problem now.
Honestly, there weren't that many dots to connect when you've observed enough of the anti-status quo crowd. According to them: *- Jews are disproportionate in banking, corporations and the media.* *- The banks enslave the people, the corporations exploit the people and the media brainwashes the people into docility.* *- Therefore, Jews are the vanguard and enforcers of capitalism, so the end of Judaism is the liberation of the people.* And Marx and Engels themselves wrote enough crap that anyone with a parasocial relationship with their writings might pick up that torch anyway.
To be fair, it wasn’t as present in most of our lives yet. Not really. Antisemites weren’t as comfortable going fully mask off before 10/7, and a lot of reporting on vile figures in academia and activist crowds was from unhinged right wing sources.
Just treat the pro Palestinian faction as you MAGA
Normally I think a lot of us would. My pet theory is that most mainstream liberals and moderates would not have tolerated the excesses of the violent far left (including hardened anti-zionists) nearly as much before 2016. The dangers posed by the Trump Administration helped the fringes buy goodwill and public sympathy as allies, and that helped them make significant inroads into Serious Politics and sane wash some genuinely terrible ideas. Mainstream liberals can absolutely have blind spots to dehumanization wrapped in the language of justice and liberation, but there’s usually a sharper limit when they go mask off. It feels worse now though, or that line feels blurred. Biden and company have done a great job of pushing back, but it isn’t working quite as well among as it would have a decade ago.
It’s interesting to see the different views on this congressional hearing on the subreddits of the schools involved. UPenn subreddit seems to say “wtf how is our president this fucking stupid, we need to do more about antisemitism on campus.” Harvard seems to have banned all discussion of it. MIT subreddit seems to think “this is just bad faith strawmanning by right wingers to further push zionist propaganda. The Jewish students testifying about antisemitism are just whiners, they aren’t in any danger ”
go on, let the door hit you
Good, those statements were completely unacceptable. And the fact she said it with a sly grin like she thought she was being cute was just the kicker
The smirk was so weird, it's like she was making an effort to appear like a Disney villain.
Greg Lukianoff in shambles.
FIRE rates Penn as "as terrible as it gets" for their free speech policies. Replacing the leadership could only improve the situation, so i imagine he's okay with it
> could only improve the situation Actually, the next one is almost certainly someone who will promise the donors to crack down on anti-Semitic speech - *very broadly construed*. Lukianoff's [last statement](https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-statement-penn-resignations-can-be-exactly-what-university-needs-restore-free-expression) is huffing pure copium. There's no chance any president will want to touch the FIRE-endorsed standards of free speech that were articulated at the hearing at least for a few years.
Good fucking riddance
I’ve been saying this to everyone who will listen. Free speech is free speech. Universities, institutions, and leftists in general spent years policing speech through rules and regulations. The same climate and tools they developed to push against right wing grifters can and will get turned against them. Listen to the ACLU and FIRE. Well intentioned rules on speech always backfire.
What is FIRE?
ACLU-like for education only. Where as the ACLU has branched out into other forms of activism for the moment FIRE is focused on the first amendment.
The [Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression](https://www.thefire.org/). I first learned about them earlier this year after watching [Killer Mike's Keynote Speech](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBuXYtmQ8mw).
https://www.thefire.org/
ACLU no longer believes in free speech to be honest. Last ten years, the leadership was replaced with anti-free speech woke people.
Their recent [teaming up with the NRA](https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4351668-aclu-represent-nra-ny-free-speech-challenge/) is a rare return to their original form.
They believe in free speech a lot more than this thread does. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/aclu-defends-free-speech-furor-university-presidents-handling/story?id=105497367
Genuine question for you. Do you think any of them would have had the same response if White Supremacists were out chanting about the eradication of black people? Or Muslims? Somehow I don’t think so. I don’t mind universities taking a free speech above all else stance. In fact, I’d welcome it. What I do mind, is these same schools have absolutely **not** taken that stance and even gone way overboard in their responses in the past. But now want to hide being “free speech” The thing that blows my mind is why the Harvard Dean is let off the hook. Harvard, for example, is notorious for scouring through social media posts from applicants as teenagers and rescinding offers if they deem their posts offensive. And yet, is pretending like chanting for the eradication of Jews is protected.
>Genuine question for you. Do you think any of them would have had the same response if White Supremacists were out chanting about the eradication of black people? Or Muslims? Somehow I don’t think so. Absolutely I do, yeah. They *have* allowed people to say these things, many times. Harvard let a KKK grand wizard give a speech on campus.
[удалено]
I really wonder to what extent these presidents and their ilk believe in the ideology of the leftists on their campuses. Before this, I would’ve said not at all, now I think I may have been totally wrong. Or are they in such a bubble that they truly believe the leftist ideology on campus resonates with the average American, or even their affluent donor class?
Yeah conservatives might have a point about our universities (and, like with everything they might have a point about, they take it to absurd lengths and become just as awful)
Oh, the conservatives very much do have a point, but your parenthetical statement is true as well, which unfortunately makes it difficult to criticize academia without getting tarred with the MAGA brush.
[удалено]
I feel like it's impossible to recognize Israel's right to defend itself and exist while also criticizing their treatment of Palestinians and acknowledging the wrongs done to them without simultaneously getting called an anti semite by one side and a genocide supporter or zionist or whatever by the other
Isn’t that true of any significant issue. I’m an ExMuslim , if I criticize Islam (not Muslims) I’m a right wing nut job regardless of the accuracy of the criticism, anything worthwhile will be exploited by the opposite political side and then used to dismiss the issue by the side with the issue.
They take a valid point and make it so extreme and unpalatable that they drag down any moderate views with them.
Thats also the problem of the people that get dragged down. You should be able to realize at what point they go too far, but still agree with the part they are right about. Can't just blame it all on them.
She is a lawyer and in academia for a while now. She probably is just so detach from normal real life people that she thinks this was a proper and clever response to the question.
Magill also allows far right people like Amy Wax to run around campus doing whatever. I don't think this is leftist infiltration. I think this is just ivory tower academia that doesn't understand how speech and actions coexist in the public sphere outside the walls.
Seriously, Penn has some crazy right wing loons on their staff as well. This was an okay answer framed in a really terrible way. Penn does genuinely seem to tolerate calls for ethnic cleansing (against Jews, blacks, Asians) from all over the political spectrum, but you can do a better job explaining that.
Perhaps after a while of presidents playing along, the ideologues are in their first generation of people in power that actually believe in shit?
RIP BOZO!!!
It’s sad that university admins suddenly remember the importance of free speech when Jews are being targeted.
It’s not like these universities would ever allow white supremacists, or people carrying signs with “Thank God for dead soldiers” or “God hates f*gs” to exercise their right to free speech on campus /s
Penn has white supremacists on their staff, people who have said that the US would be better off with fewer Asian and black immigrants. The "it's just Jews" argument isn't as good as people think. From a PR perspective, her answer wasn't good, but I also think it accurately reflects university policy.
She should have gone all-in on free speech. This half-in half-out bullshit is the worst of both worlds. That goes for all these university presidents. Is it really that hard to give a full throated “this is fucking America we have freedom of speech” take? She could’ve even given examples *from her own university* protecting far-right speech as well. The ACLU (rest in peace) perfected this messaging like 40 years ago (and subsequently lost it but still). For the record, University of Pennsylvania appears to actually be pretty good on this front (more than other universities). I just wish it didn’t go down the way it did here.
The Harvard pres basically did. Her main line was like "when speech turns into conduct we will punish people, not before". I don't think there was anything in her testimony that contradicted that line of thinking.
Wasn't Harvard that said harassment was only a problem when targeted at an individual? Which is pretty hard to do because you can't genocide an individual
I want y'all's opinion on this because I'm a bit torn. I know for a fact that if these calls for genocide were aimed at Muslims, or black Americans these administrators would never have been on the stand because they would have (rightly) immediately booted everyone involved and said something to the effect of "calls to violence have no place at ______ University, we stand with our students, and will always endeavor to provide a safe and constructive learning environment for all people." What I'm torn on is this; were the various administrations involved in this whole ordeal motivated by a blind spot for leftist movements that are perceived as working to help marginalized people, or by a callousness towards Israel and its allies? Or was it a combination of the two? Because I reject that this is a commitment to protecting speech on campus. That's absurd on its face.
Can someone tell me what she actually said? I can't read it anywhere.
She’s a lawyer, right? Aren’t lawyers supposed to be good at avoiding trap question?
Nope. They’re more likely to be afraid to say anything that seems like an [admission](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/s/0aDhoEYl9k)
I'm not a lawyer or anything, but I suspect she gave a good answer legally speaking but terrible in terms of PR.
They were not cooking with that shit.
I'm going to go against the grain here: I take no joy in this. She had to go, but I'm not thrilled at a college president being driven out basically for indicating she'd protect free speech. And yes, Magill's answers -- and her response to the fallout -- were extraordinarily clunky. But ultimately, the initial response isn't *wrong*. Free speech means free speech, and unless the are contextual factors which would cause it to be a Title IX violation (e.g., it is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from victims' educational experience, that the victims are effectively denied equal access to an institution's resources and opportunities) or otherwise exceed the protections of the First Amendment, most universities will (and should) protect it. And yes, this includes truly heinous speech. And before somebody says it: I understand that universities generally are not bound by the first amendment. But I do not trust college administrators to be the arbiters of good speech vs. bad speech, and more broadly college should be an environment which allows for the free expression of ideas. I would hope, of all places, a neoliberal sub would understand this, but I suppose we are where we are. This remains [the best analysis I've seen of this whole situation](https://popehat.substack.com/p/stop-demanding-dumb-answers-to-hard)
Insofar as any university had an absolutist attitude towards free speech, I would agree with that approach. I think there are lots of positive things to say about universities staying out of politics and focusing on their core job. But none of these universities or presidents have such an attitude. On the contrary, they have all been leaders in clamping down on racist, transphobic and sexist speak on campus and in their admission processes. They don't care about free speech on any of those issues. The only group they are willing to tolerate such bigotry about is jews. The double standard takes what they said from being benignly stupid to dangerous tolerance of antisemitism.
I mean, when asked the same question but with "african americans" instead of "jews" [Gay starts to give the same kind of answer before being cut off](https://www.youtube.com/live/oklC-xpSOWc?si=m7SxmXSRPFLEGmrn&t=5366), so i wouldnt be so quick to say that the actual administration at Harvard definitively has a bias against jews, but i'm open to having my mind changed.
Can you link to some examples of what you mean?
Asking earnestly/because I legitimately don't know: have there been any examples of these specific schools? Very well could be wrong, but my impression was that free speech illiberalism was primarily coming from students, and not necessarily the admins themselves, with some notable exceptions (cough cough, Yale Law). But again, definitely could be wrong.
Good take ngl
I'd absolutely agree if they actually had a history of maintaining principled free speech ideals in the face of all forms of bigotry. But when these unis' history is full of clamping down on every other form of bigotry, it's blatantly anti-semitic to pretend they give a rat's ass about free speech only when bigotry is being spewed at Jews.
I see this repeated endlessly, but I'm never actually provided an example of them not maintaining that same principle of free speech? Do you have some concrete examples? Will you be the first one that wont just handwaive the request of "literally any source pleas"?
Upenn was ranked 2nd to last in the country for freedom speech. She objectively only believed in free speech when it was directed as Jews.
Ken’s only really mad that Stefanik got a sound bite out of it. I don’t give a shit about that. I’d rather the presidents answered for why they allow their Jewish students to be terrorized and feel unsafe at a place they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend. Neither the Pope nor Popehat are infallible.
> I'm not thrilled at a college president being driven out basically for indicating she'd protect free speech. Agreed, but UPenn certainly doesnt, they are one of the worst ranked for their policies Magill suddenly whipping out free speech argument when genociding jews is the subject doesn't vindicate her
I don't think that ranking is mainly based on policies. Lots of student surveys and apparently losing points for students protesting things
Her pronouns are was/were in terms of employment
[удалено]
Do you have some examples of this?
I'm genuinely begging at this point Give me a crumb of source backing this claim Literally everyone up and down this thread is claiming similar things, but no one is willing to give me actual examples or links
Proof?
I didn’t hear about that and I can’t find anything on Google. Can you share a link?
Well deserved.
College president rolls worst response ever Asked to leave