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 to be 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 leadership????
How are selections of university presidents made?? Trustees? Peers? Who?? In these cases they did a lousy job!
“These persons appeared to be shallow ideologues, poorly prepared and out of their league as distinguished university presidents.”
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Spot on. I suspect these ladies are little more than figureheads to present a facade of diversity, with the real decisions and policy made there by more entrenched bureaucrats.
Any administrator at a college or a business knows about the federal laws and regulations about hostile environments in workplaces and schools. For UPenn's president to pretend she was just thinking about the first amendment and not the law that her entire HR and student relations departments are devoted to is just nonsense.
Every college has a student handbook and orientation classes devoted to harassment, speech policies, etc. None of them have handbooks, training, or courses that say "the first amendment rules, you can say anything you want".
Probably she and her fellow dunces thought admitting that calls for genocide against Jews would weaken their defenses against lawsuits from Jewish students. In reality she just dug a deeper hole.
[How are selections of university presidents made??]
I always thought they were political appointments to reward the well connected.