Harvard student groups issued an anti-Israel statement. CEOs want them blacklisted.

[Sympthsical]

Oh hey, it's the dildo of consequences, on schedule and unlubed.

The CEOs want the students blacklisted. But some of those students have since distanced themselves from the letter.

“One should not be able to hide behind a corporate shield when issuing statements supporting the actions of terrorists,” Ackman said in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter.

If the members support the letter, the names of the signatories “should be made public so their views are publicly known,” Ackman said. The CEO of Pershing Square Capital Management said he wanted to ensure his company and others don’t “inadvertently hire” any students belonging to Harvard groups that signed the letter.

Following a backlash to the statement, some of the student groups have since withdrawn their endorsements.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/11/business/harvard-israel-hamas-ceos-students/index.html

I strongly suspect the people signing that letter are used to being leaders and participants of social media mobs - not the targets of them.

This must be a completely unforeseen turn of events for them.

[Wingus Dingus]

1. Well, they don't want to hurt their earning potential for something

they probably don't deeply believe, or even gave two shits about a couple weeks ago. Young people just jump on trends and then abandon them just as quickly.

[DFW]

5. Not just young people.

Just ask Al Franken about his fellow Democratic Senators six years ago.

[Wingus Dingus]

10. Yes. I wonder if those Senators look back now and

wonder "what was I thinking?"

[brooklynite]

13. I'm guessing "not really"

Franken was replaced with another reliable Democratic Senator.

[Wingus Dingus]

16. Privately, though--not in a political benefit sense.

Privately, they have to be thinking that they saw an emerging trend and ran with it, and six years later it just looks dumb.

[brooklynite]

25. Responding to sexual harassment looks "dumb" today?

[Wingus Dingus]

29. I think railroading Al Franken out of the Senate looks dumb today, yes.

[brooklynite]

32. You're entitled to think that. I'm saying that it's not keeping the Democratic Senators up at night

[Wingus Dingus]

37. Maybe it should though. Maybe jumping on a bandwagon

and using your own political clout to wreck a promising political career, over something that looked tame then and STILL looks tame now, should give you an uneasy conscience sometimes.

[brooklynite]

39. Doesn't keep me up at night either.

[DFW]

70. The personal connection did make a difference to me, no two ways about it.

I make no apologies for that.

[DFW]

69. On that point, I agree totally.

That fact that is that it never did--and that is what bothers me. It was not the time to brush off "collateral damage," and pretend like it never happened.

[DFW]

68. Believing an accusation of sexual hararassment where there was none does inded look dumb

Since it was pretty much announced in advance by Roger Stone, I'd say even more so now. It was a scam, and the wrong people fell for it like a ton of bricks. These are people who, after years in the Senate with him, had to have known Al far better than I do, and they STILL fell for it. Either that, or, worse, they went along with it even though they knew that Al would never have done anything of the sort.

[DFW]

66. Dumb and mean

In terms of sheer eloquence on the Senate floor, Tina Smith may have her heart in the right place, but in oratory, she is no Al Franken. Few are.

[Wingus Dingus]

73. We don't have a ton of rock stars anymore, but he was becoming

one when his career was trashed, and we are a lesser party for that.

[DFW]

77. Of all things, Al was never looking for rock star status

He even made fun of the concept with his ironically titled book "Al Franken, Giant of the Senate," although I doubt that many Republicans got that the title was meant in irony. Republicans like to toot their own horn, and I'm sure that's what they thought this book was about, projecting their own weaknesses onto Al.

[DFW]

64. I'm sure some do

I'm also relatively confident none of them were running for president in the 2020 primary race.

[tritsofme]

2. Good news. This will be a valuable life lesson for these young folks.

Actions have consequences. If you act like scum, you will be treated accordingly.

[inthewind21]

3. Awwwww

CEO wants people blacklisted for supporting something he's not happy with. How's he feel about giving a gazillion dollars to buy politicians anonymously? Oh wait, no that's ok!

[tritsofme]

6. lol, quick look at Ackman on OpenSecrets shows he gives exclusively to Democratic candidates

Awwww, too bad for you and your failed little narrative here!

[nycbos]

12. How dare you.

A leftist wants to go on a righteous rant about oppression. How dare you bring facts into the conversation?

[emulatorloo]

21. Oops!

[JohnSJ]

4. When you make an unequivocal statement that this is all Israel's fault, which tacitly gives a green

light to the actions of Hamas, it should not surprise anyone that businesses would want to exclude those participants from employment in their companies.

That being said, Ackman's view that the names of the signatories should be made public, is of the Joe McCarthy era, and should be frowned upon, especially since it is likely that a good number of those who signed that statement were unaware of what they were signing in light of the extent of the Hamas civillian killing.

[marybourg]

11. Wait. They signed their names to a statement. That means they publicly

endorsed it. If they didn’t want to be publicly associated with the statement they wouldn’t have signed it.

[Ace Rothstein]

19. At least one of them backtracked and said they didn't read it before signing.

That's a lesson learned.

[petronius]

61. An article I saw was a student reporting that the statement had been issued by group leaders

without/before consulting the full membership.

Student groups can be pretty loose, it wouldn't surprise me at all if there are semi-active or barely active members who had no idea this was going to happen. So, it seems unfair to immediately doxx all the members without their specific names being on the statement of their own volition.

Still, really good time to quit those organizations (or take over the leadership roles) for those who object...

[Igel]

78. That in itself is something that should be known.

"Here's somebody who supports things without having a clue what they say."

I know I want that person on my side. "Go, side! ... What are we for, exactly?"

[JohnSJ]

20. During the McCarthy period, people in colleges signed papers aligning them with the communist party,

not entirely aware of what they were doing, and a good number of those people lives were ruined.

I remember the protests during the Viet Nam War, and the blackballing that was associated with that.

[marybourg]

23. Well, we haven't started having hearings yet, so any of these guys

who didn’t fully understand what they were putting their names to have a chance to publicly disavow the statement. That’s the remedy, not secrecy.

[JohnSJ]

34. Do you think an prospective employer should ask the applicant if they are registered Democrats or

republican? What about straight or gay? Religious affiliation? etc.

It is a very slippery slope.

[marybourg]

44. No, certainly not. But I also don't support secret manifestos.

When I put my name on a statement or a petition I know I’m saying publicly “I support this”. I don’t want it made a secret. I’m proud, not ashamed, of what I sign.

They are saying the same thing. If they change their mind, or realize they were duped, they can publicly disavow at any time. And explain that to anyone concerned. But for the public to impose secrecy on them because they *might* have been duped is coddling to a degree that is patronizing and offensive.

[JohnSJ]

52. The question is does it effect their qualifications or how they do the job? Also, people sign

petitions all the time, especially when they are young

Things aren't as simple as someone publicly disavowing something they signed years ago.

As Shakespeare said:

"The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interrèd with their bones"

Memory of positive actions fades easily, negative actions persist. That is human nature.

[marybourg]

59. That may be your question.

It’s not mine. But I know your ❤️ ‘s in a good place.

[JohnSJ]

60. Of course, and I feel the same way toward you.

[cloudbase]

56. Long ago I received the following advice:

Be careful where you put your signature, and be careful where you put your dick. Both can get you in deep trouble.

Still true decades later.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

72. Sorry, but no

If they signed it for public release, they should be proud to have their names out there.

[redqueen]

7. This is ridiculous

I hope the cheerleaders here will be as happy when this is done by other CEOs

[Sympthsical]

9. People are frequently happy about firings due to opinion

I don't see why this should be any different.

"Free speech doesn't mean free from consequences!" Isn't that the oft refrain? Consequence culture?

Honestly, I'm just enjoying the petard of it all. I normally dislike this sort of thing, but I think I'll draw the line at apologizing for terrorism.

[yardwork]

33. Seriously. Every random "bike-grabbing, bird-watcher-abusing, student-taunting Karen"

[Sympthsical]

45. The sound of the inevitable tide arriving upon shore

I've long warned of social media mobs, "This may feel good now, to go after people for what they say and think that you don't like. However, one day that will inevitably come around right back to you."

People are so certain that they will never say or do anything that could result in the same treatment they would have for others.

I suspect many of these people are learning an important life lesson. Or not. There's no guarantee. Some people never learn. Some will see it as an example of personal oppression and just dig in deeper.

But one always hopes for the kernel of common sense.

[yardwork]

55. I'm struck by the difference in emotionalism.

CEO of small company indicating that he's ticked off at a handful of unnamed Harvard students for signing a tone-deaf foolish document and feels disinclined to hire them....equals McCarthyism.

Actual torture and murder of Israeli civilians... never mind that right now....

Contribution to thoughtful discussion of the totally fucked up situation in the Middle East.... negative digits, low even for DU standards.

[Sympthsical]

62. I am also very struck

By how so many of the "Everything's Nazis!" brigade are suddenly all, "You have to understand . . ." when actual decapitated babies are part of the conversation.

Like, what?

I get that a lot of conversations and arguments we have in social media tend to be ridiculous hyperbole that washes away at even cursory scrutiny. The realm of social media just isn't a very serious place. Given.

But that dime-turn, when actual atrocities are in motion, and suddenly moral condemnation can't be mustered and what is true is highly situational.

It feels like inconsequential ideological play has been given more significance than real world productivity.

[yardwork]

67. There's some ideological pressure at play I think.

There really does seem to be a coordinated "what about" effort on this.

[MichMan]

14. Do you feel the same way about people who make racist, homophobic, or misogynic statements ?

[tritsofme]

15. What is ridiculous about it? I certainly wouldn't want to employ such people.

[Marius25]

18. Not ridiculous at all. People who support Islamic terrorism should never be able to find a job

[JohnSJ]

22. This remind me of things that happened during the McCarthy era

[tritsofme]

31. It seems little different than someone facing consequences for signing a pro-KKK letter

Not anything like McCarthyism.

[JohnSJ]

36. It is a slippery slope, especially in this political climate. I can see it easily leading to

political party affiliation, religion, sexual preference, etc.

This country has been there before.

[BannonsLiver]

30. It's just basic FAFO

🤷‍♂️

[Jedi Guy]

74. Nah, I'm good with it.

They signed their names to a letter that expressed explicit support for terrorism and the murder of innocents, including babies. If they discover after graduating that they're radioactive and no one wants to hire them despite their very expensive piece of paper, it's not going to keep me up at night.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[ripcord]

79. CEOs are allowed to have opinions just like college students

His opinion is that people who blame this conflict solely on Israel have nothing to contribute to his company. Funny how opinions work isn't it?

[DFW]

8. I think a prospective employer has every right to know if an applicant supported the attack

Give them the chance to say they think they fucked up, if, indeed, they feel that way.

But also give any other applicant the chance to say, hell, no, I wasn't involved in anything like that.

When Senators send me solicitations for contributions, I deserve the right to see if they urged Al Franken to resign in 2017, and, if so, to know if they have apologized to Al since. It sure as hell DOES make a difference when I get out my checkbook.

[JohnSJ]

27. Should those employer's also know if they were or ever have been a member of the communist party?

Should they know what groups they belong to, if they are Democrats or republicans?

Should they know if they are straight or gay, etc.

That is right out of the book of Joe McCarthy

[yardwork]

41. Im not seeing the parallel, actually.

Is there a House UnAmerican Activities Committee being convened to force the signatories to testify? Are their names being added to lists of people who must be fired from universities? Will they never work in Hollywood again? All because they might have signed it, with no proof that they did?

Or, is this company saying they are disinclined to hire someone foolish enough to have signed such a thoughtless, tone deaf document? I mean, read the room.

In the age of the internet, employers do google people's social media histories. I can still be fired for being gay in North Carolina. My employer has an equal rights statement that says they won't do that, but if they did, North Carolina wouldn't care. It's still legal to fire or evict people for saying they are gay here.

[JohnSJ]

46. You just gave rebutted your own argument by pointing out that in some places it is legal to

fire people for being gay.

I don't understand why you don't see the slippery slope here.

[yardwork]

49. I think it's quite hypocritical to drag out the "McCarthy!!!" comparisons now.

Very few DUers care at all that I can be fired and evicted for being gay, so spare me the sudden emotionalism over real world consequences to foolish actions.

[JohnSJ]

54. You want to get personal and call me a hypocrite, and accuse me of emotionalism, as far as I am

concerned, our discussion is finished.

[DFW]

71. The communist party didn't celebrate for joy when massacres of unarmed concert goers took place.

One is a political stance. The other is an expression of human empathy.

Maybe you don't see a difference. I do.

I don't need to express where your Joe McCarthy comparison belongs, by the way.

[Marius25]

17. Good. I hope every company is taking notice and bans them all from being employed

[Oneironaut]

24. GFY You Corporate Tools

I don’t even agree with the letter and think it’s ridiculous. It smacks of McCarthyism.

Free speech for me and not for thee.

[brooklynite]

28. No objection to free speech; no objection to revealing who's making the speech.

[Oneironaut]

35. I absolutely disagree - especially if it's for a hot button issue.

These CEOs show exactly why. For merely having the wrong opinion, your name can be irreparably dragged through the mud and blacklisted. Politicized “Do Not Hire” lists can bring this country down a dark path reminiscent of the McCarthy era.

Futhermore, there is such a power imbalance in this situation that it’s absolutely shameful.

[yardwork]

48. I think it's the poor judgment being shown that is the issue.

Activism 101: don't rub salt in your adversaries' wounds. Lots of people have strong dislike for Israel's policies, but we know better than to jump out in public days after Israeli people were massacred and tortured in a terrorist attack and blame it "100% on Israel."

I mean that's just foolishness. What possible good would a statement like that do right now?

[JohnSJ]

40. Do you have a problem if the prospective employer asks for you political party affiliation,

your political views, religious or sexual preference, "are you or have you ever been a member of the communist party.

That is what this is about, and this country has been there before, and a lot of lives were ruined.

[brooklynite]

47. No, I don't.

Add to which, my (and your) Party affiliation is a matter of public record if you're in a State with Party registration.

[emulatorloo]

38. As you know, the 1st amendment only only applies to the government supressing speech.

Ackman isn’t in the government.

[Oneironaut]

42. Definitely. However, it becomes questionable if it's a collaboration of CEOs of major companies

Boycotting you because of your speech. I find that disturbing. Say, for example, Amazon formed a “Do Not Hire” list and distributed it to thousands of CEOs, all because you criticized their company, for example. It may not be a violation of the first amendment, but, it reeks of Fascism at the same time.

[emulatorloo]

51. Sorry, I don't see the analogy. How is being a Hamas apologist the same as criticizing Amazon?

Justifying genocide is a lot different than criticizing Amazon.

[JohnSJ]

43. It is Joe McCarthy by any other name

[emulatorloo]

57. Ackman is of Ashkenazi Jewish descent. Does not surprise me he doesn't want to hire Hamas

apologists.

I don't see any connection to Joe McCarthy (part of the US government) and first amendment violations (only applies to the government).

Of course ymmv.

[JohnSJ]

58. I am Jewish, and a supporter of Israel, and I see directly see the connection between McCarthy and

what happened on college campuses in that period

[emulatorloo]

63. We disagree but as always

[JohnSJ]

65. ......................

[Sympthsical]

50. "Consequence culture"

Or was that supposed to only be for the people we don't like?

Oh. That's a shame.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

75. This isn't a free speech issue n/t

[mathematic]

76. If McCarthy had been rooting out antisemites from industry, he'd be a hero.

Oh now suddenly it's free speech. Where's "not freedom from the consequences of your speech"?

I think being an antisemite should get your fired from every single private employer in the country. It's both Constitutional and just.

[yardwork]

26. This will turn out to be -5 students who put these organizations' names on this letter.

It looks like it's a set of Muslim student advocacy groups, the Harvard chapter of Amnesty International, and some other small student groups. I'll bet nothing was discussed with the groups' membership before a handful of students took it in themselves to "sign" their organizations to this statement.

[Sympthsical]

53. What happened at UC Berkeley might be illustrative

This is a podcast transcript. It's interesting reading. I was watching this story at the time, and I know BehindtheAegis and I discussed it in a thread or two, but it didn't get much traction here.

https://www.ajc.org/news/podcast/campus-antisemitism-whats-happening-at-uc-berkeley