Posted on 12/06/2023 7:34:47 AM PST by Rummyfan
Today the presidents of Harvard, Penn and MIT were summoned before a House committee for questioning about anti-semitism on their campuses. I haven’t watched the whole testimony, but this clip is getting a lot of attention. Elise Stefanik asks each president whether calling for genocide of the Jews would violate that school’s code of conduct with regard to bullying or harassment. None of the witnesses had a clear answer to the question....
The presidents said that calling for genocide could be bullying or harassment, depending on the context. The required context was never made clear. There was a suggestion that a call for genocide would be bullying if directed toward a particular student or group of students, but given the universality implied by genocide, application to a particular individual might seem superfluous.
The presidents also said that it would be bullying or harassment if it turned into conduct. Like actually committing genocide? Stefanik asked. I have no idea what the presidents meant by this. Attempted murder? They didn’t say.
The presidents’ effort here was obviously to preserve their faux role as guardians of free speech–it’s OK if someone just says, in the abstract, that all Jews should be killed–while acknowledging that problems could ensue, like when actual Jewish MIT students had to seek refuge from a hostile mob in the library.
But these academic hacks had nothing insightful to say, and were just trying to get out of the hearing as fast as they could, smirking all the while. I would only add that a Harvard student who wrote that all blacks should be murdered–say, in a conservative student paper, if Harvard had one–would not have a future at that institution. There would be no discussion of “context.”
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
It’s the same old “it’s complicated” dodge. They’re weasels.
After they replied no, that it was “free speedh” she shouod have asked if calling for the genocide of ho osexuals, or blacks, or Asians was “protected speech” too, and asked if burning the gay flag or defecating or urinating on it was co cidered protected speech too? I’m betting they wou,d have turned themselves I side out trying to exp,ain’t why those were hate speech and not protected speech
to salvage their reputations, the Ivy League presidents have to expel terrorist sympathizers who chant from the river to the sea at the next protest. Easy to do. Request a cellphone fence, J6 them and expel them all.
They should have asked these radical Leftist activist folks if Trump’s remarks on Jan 6th are protected free speech.
Stefanik's questions were fair but Harvard President’s lack of candor was appalling. A school administrator should not be on the fence about students' explicit or implicit calls for genocide of a race of people being a violation of school policy.
Claudine Gay.
Claudine Gay is unequivocally opposed to genocide. Unless it’s cracker-ass bitches. Then it’s okay.
They have got them one there.
Universities led the way by only hiring professors and administrators that were hard left. After that they began to work on el/hi staffs and now most teachers are all joining those college professors in trying to destroy this Republic and it’s Constitution. And now they want to provide “free” child care for 3 to 5 year olds. I wonder why?
She’s the poster girl for “diversity.”
Have someone call for genocide on trannies and see what happens.
This is what Harvard, etc. are advocating. Watch the videos.
Evil.
Do the presidents of Harvard, Penn and MIT know what a university is?
I watched about an hour of that testimony and was surprised that all of them appeared to be out of their element as university presidents. When you think of people in such positions you picture well experienced, wise, articulate persons, possessing and exhibiting good judgement and prudence.
These persons appeared shallow ideologues, poorly prepared and out of their league as distinguished university presidents. Have we reached the bottom of the pit in both government and education????
The principle they’re following is very simple: genocide is bad when it refers to protected classes; for everyone else it has to be judged “in context”, and Jews aren’t a protected class. That’s what Critical Theory reduces to - special rights for special people, no rights for anyone else.
Among other things, they want to give those young kids killer clotshots, not only ADHD inducers, to let them die young and be forever infertile.
This is the leader of Harvard? Why would you ever allow your child to go there.
What’s with the African lice haircut? Does she live in some lice ridden hut in the jungle?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.