I hate it when I agree with Elise Stefanik.

[madaboutharry]

Yesterday, at a hearing of the Education Committee, the presidents of Harvard, University of Pennsylvanian, and The Massachusetts Institute of Technology were questioned on the rise of antisemitism on campus.

During the questioning, Committee Chair Elise Stefanie asked Dr. Claudine Gay if "calling for the genocide of Jews' constitutes bullying and harassment. Dr. Gay responded "It depends on context....."
She was interrupted by Stefanik who said "There is no context. The answer is yes across the board. You need to resign."

Dr. Gay has a Ph.D. She should be in possession of critical thinking skills to understand that there is no context to hate speech and antisemitism. What a disappointment.

From the Washington Post:
STEFANIK: … And Dr. Gay at Harvard? Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment? Yes or no?
GAY: It can be depending on the context.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/12/06/3-elite-college-presidents-answered-questions-antisemitism/

[JohnSJ]

1. It was a disgrace, and presidents of these prestigious universities failed miserably.

Anyone calling for genocide of Jews or any demographic constitutes bullying and harassment, and worse.

That they couldn’t answer this simple question demonstrates just how ignorant, insensitive, and stupid they are.

They have joined the ranks of “there are good people on both sides”.

[CincyDem]

2. I had the exact same reaction.

What I found amazing was the contortions to avoid answering yes. The one that stood out for me was one of them saying there would need to be some kind of action that resulted from the speech.

So…we’re waiting for some guy to shoot up a Hillel before we can decide????

[rzemanfl]

3. Do you attach any significance to her interrupting?

That is a standard MAGAT tactic. If the context was, for example, a student speaking to his wife in their home and she agreed with him, which racist was bullied or harassed? Him or her?

[madaboutharry]

5. No I don't.

The response was ignorant and deserved to be condemned.

[rzemanfl]

10. Thank you for responding.

It would be helpful to have the language of the rule; but I am not going to give WaPo my email address to see the article. Without the rule or a full response from the witness, I am going to remain of the opinion that holding Nazi views in private does not constitute bullying or harassment. If I can imagine a context where the rule wouldn't apply, I am going to suspect the witness, being a Ph.D. would have expressed one as well if not interrupted by the MAGAT questioner.

[claudette]

12. agree

[claudette]

6. That's true.....or

was the statement directed at one or all Jewish students at the school (which she should have condemned) or was it just a horrible, horrible statement made by someone who is anti-semitic? BOTH ARE WRONG, but do college presidents have jurisdiction over all free speech?

[rzemanfl]

16. Your first question was about context. The witness was not allowed to discuss it.

Bullying or harassing requires a victim, it seems to me. Thanks for your comments.

[claudette]

17. You're

wecome.

[lapucelle]

4. They should be deeply ashamed.

I’ve heard chants which can be antisemitic depending on the context when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people.

[moonshinegnomie]

7. she should be fired. immediately

no delay, no apology. kick her ass to the curb

[mgardener]

8. Elise is a hypocrite

Here is what she said in October. On X

https://photos.app.goo.gl/zNDxp93AbVctJJFh8

[Rhiannon12866]

53. That's not a surprise. She routinely votes against legislation that can help the people

But when it passes and is popular, she takes credit for it - here in NY-21.

[moonshinegnomie]

9. it looks like all 3 presidents had trouble calling out anti semitism

its an easy ye sor no question. fire all 3 of them

[claudette]

11. How can the

government fire presidents of universities?

[moonshinegnomie]

14. The university can and should

[claudette]

15. Yes, of course but

They are answering questions in Congress

[moonshinegnomie]

19. That doesn't matter

Congress: is antisemitism wrong
University president: it depends on the context
University: you’re fired

[claudette]

20. Wow

That sounda kinda harsh if they're not allowed to expand on an answer. Antisemitism is wrong. Yes. But an investigation should be complete. Right?

[moonshinegnomie]

23. when it comes to anti semitism i have zero tolerance

ive had swastikas painted on my garage as a kid. my stepdad fled the holocaust. and im jewish in name only .

anti semitism is the one thing that really sets me off. if you cant condem it with a simple yes no answer than as far as im concerned you dont get the benefit of teh doubt

[claudette]

25. Sorry you had

to endure that. Some people can be mean.

[TheKentuckian]

67. It is way past mean. This garbage spreads like wildfire

and turns to rabid oppression or worse and is ever at least simmering.

It has happened too many times over too many centuries and millennia in too many places to grant any quarter.

The making light to hand waiving to jumping on the bandwagon is reflexive in an appreciable percentage of humans and seems to generally operate on continuum that too many are apt to swing through.

It is just too easy to go from one stop to the next for folks so disposed.

I'm not even able to be confident it isn't a nature rather than nurture thing either. It often seems very much like an instinct.

[Hekate]

32. I saw the film clip on MSNBC. You can avail yourself of it as well. The Board of Regents...

… is the entity that hires college presidents, and can fire them as well. There is always an investigation — they don’t just wave their hands and bid people to go willy-nilly. It’s a very expensive process, so it’s not done casually.

US Senators do not fire college presidents. But I am sure you knew that.

[Kennah]

49. The specific question was on supporting genocide

I can understand how people will disagree over whether something is antisemitic. That disagreement happens here on DU. Is action X inherently antisemitic? Some say yes, others say no.

[Ms. Toad]

47. The question wasn't "is antisemitism wrong." It is.

The question was whether a call for genocide of Jews volated Code of Conduct as to bullying and harassment.

A code of Conduct is a very specific set of rules, each of which has elements which must each be satisfied before the code is violated. I have not yet seen the Code of Conduct for any of these universities. Without that, while a call for genocide is certainly antisemitism, there is no way to tell if it also violates the specific prohibitions on bullying and harassment.

[redqueen]

13. This is reminiscent of red scare tactics.

The fact is that the 'river to the sea' chant is considered by some to be antisemitic and by others it is not.

[Hekate]

33. "From the river to the sea" has a clearly defined meaning & Hamas has made it clear that their goal...

… is to ethnically cleanse Israel and Palestine of all Jews. In other words, to finish what Hitler started.

People who are ignorant may chant certain phrases, but when it comes to murder, ignorance is no excuse.

[redqueen]

34. Neither I, nor anyone else pushing back against this WITH US OR AGAINST US bullshit is ignorant about the phrase.

Educate yourself

[Sympthsical]

18. "If the KKK showed up on campus and advocated the slaughter of non-whites . . ."

How many people think the responses here would've been, "Depends on the context . . ."

Show of hands? Anyone at all?

Jews are always the special exception.

Mysterious.

[tritsofme]

24. Jews don't count, a message made very clear by these "leaders"

[redqueen]

35. Who is advocating the slaughter of whom on these campuses? nt

[Sympthsical]

37. From the River to the Sea and calling for an Intifada are very antisemitic

I know people are trying to squish it - because apparently they think everyone's dumb and blind or will maybe just give up on it if they're worn out by endless argument and obfuscation that very obvious things are not at all obvious.

And that harassment of the Jewish businesses started and ended on a campus.

If this were any other minority, people would not be scrambling for the context of it all. This is a foundational ideological failure.

I don't think it's recoverable if this is what the result of oppression ideology has been - systemic calls for tolerance of antisemitism and harassment of American Jews.

Imagine if people were saying this stuff about women and organizing mobs to harass their businesses. I don't think some people would be so cavalier about splitting the difference and trying to confound the issue with empty gestures towards context.

It's a shitty tactic. Already tired of it. People are saying what they're clearly saying. People who defend it aren't much better.

[redqueen]

38. Huge effort to demonize those words and all who utter them.

I'll just share this, from a labor party member in the UK:

“These words should not be construed in any other way than they were intended, namely as a heart felt plea for an end to killings in Israel, Gaza, and the occupied West Bank, and for all peoples in the region to live in freedom without the threat of violence.”

‘From the river to the sea': Why these 6 words spark fury and passion over the Israel-Hamas war

[Sympthsical]

39. How do you feel about people who say the Confederate Flag is "Just about heritage!"

And that it should be tolerated and accepted in communal spaces? What is your reply, totally fine? Depends on context? Completely innocent expression with no subtext or historical meaning whatsoever?

And even if you thought that, would you, knowing what the Black community thinks and how it feels about that symbol, insist that the symbol be freely flown in their faces, and anyone reading anything negative within that should just get over it?

Because that's what this sounds like. That's the mantle you're taking up.

I think it's wild to find this on the Left. This is against my own beliefs as a liberal and progressive across the board.

So the next and obvious question is - how come the Jews?

Because I do not imagine this defense of obvious problematic chants and behaviors very likely when it comes to any other group.

Furthermore, I do not think you'd tolerate it against other groups. So I find this credulous willingness to defend calls for the destruction of Israel real curious.

[redqueen]

40. The Confederate flag is a battle flag clown against the US in a bloody civil war

There is no other use. I don't agree with people flying it but I also do not consider it a cause to damn anyone who uses it, as some may not see it the way I do.

I consider porn to be hate speech against women, and given the pandemic levels of domestic violence, rape, and femicide, I could run around demanding people fall in line with my way of seeing it and branding them with charges of hate speech of they disagree, but what would that accomplish?

This smacks to me of a right-wing effort. Reminiscent of the red scare. It doesn't sit well with me.

"So I find this credulous willingness to defend calls for the destruction of Israel real curious."

Do you now.

[Sympthsical]

41. "From the River to the Sea" has long been a call to destroy Israel

You're making the attempt Confederate Flag defenders have. I have no idea why.

But I'm not buying it, and I think it's a shame.

[redqueen]

42. It is not analogous to the Confederate flag.

That is only one one of many bad analogies being floated around this issue.

[Dorian Gray]

73. So I have a question for you

You do not consider it analogous to the confederate flag. I'll take that at face value.

But, now you're aware that Israelis consider it to be so. Now you're aware that when Jewish people hear that chant, they equate it with a call for the elimination of Israel as a state.

Does that affect your willingness to accept that the chant is okay?

Bc if someone told me that something I said in innocence actually was deeply hurtful and harmful to them, I'd stop saying it.

[LeftInTX]

58. Congressional hearings are not held about confederate flags on campuses

It's not unusual for yahoos to parade them here and there.

[Ms. Toad]

48. Have you seen the Code of Conduct, and the specific rules prohibiting bullying and harassment?

As an attorney, my answer would be that I can't tell you whether it violates those provisions without looking at the provisions. Any violation of a code of conduct - like any violation of the law - requires matching the conduct (even if only verbal) to each element of the rule.

If you ask me my opinion about the conduct (is it wrong, is it hateful, etc.?) I would have no problem giving a yes/no answer. But if you ask me if it violates a specific provision of the Code of Conduct - I can't do that without first the code, and second the details of the conduct.

[Sympthsical]

62. They are university presidents - not summer interns

It should be a basic function of their job to understand the policies of their school and be prepared to answer questions about them.

They're getting wrecked over their responses - including from the White House - and well they should be.

We have seen multiple instances at these universities where speech has been interpreted as threatening - and many of those instances didn't come close to rising to the level of advocating genocide. Here are a few examples of Harvard getting its policy on: https://www.thefire.org/news/harvard-gets-worst-score-ever-fires-college-free-speech-rankings

They tried to wriggle out from under giving a statement that would be controversial to a cohort of students and faculty with . . . less than great views about Jews, and they ended up walking into the rake laying in the other direction.

D'aw. Poor presidents.

[LeftInTX]

66. Where were the GOP hearings after Charlottesville? Crickets...They held the House then.

[Sympthsical]

69. Whataboutism minimizes just how bad what these university presidents said was

Not protesters, btw. Presidents of prestigious universities.

I think we can focus on that horribleness all by itself for a moment without trying to deflect to other awful people.

Why try to run that kind of interference? What's the game there?

[LeftInTX]

70. The University of Pennsylvania contacted the FBI. Magill (who was grilled yesterday) herself signed the letter on Nov 6

Dear Members of the Penn Community,

Today I learned that a small number of Penn staff members received vile, disturbing antisemitic emails that threatened violence against members of our Jewish community, specifically naming Penn Hillel and Lauder College House. These messages also included hateful language, targeting the personal identities of the recipients. Penn’s Division of Public Safety was immediately notified and responded. Penn Police also notified the FBI of this potential hate crime, and a joint investigation is underway.

Based on these emails, Penn’s Division of Public Safety conducted thorough safety sweeps of Penn Hillel and Lauder College House and found no credible threat at this time. Penn Police will remain on site until further notice and has increased security presence throughout our campus.

At a time when campuses across the country are being targeted with these types of threats, my first and highest priority is the safety and security of our community. Threats of violence are not tolerated at Penn and will be met with swift and forceful action. Penn Public Safety is working urgently with the FBI to identify the individual or individuals who are responsible for these hateful, threatening emails and to ensure they are apprehended and punished to the fullest extent of the law. As I shared last week, Penn Police and Allied security continue to provide increased security to Penn Hillel, the Katz Center, Lubavitch House, and other religious and cultural spaces, as well as at all rallies, protests, vigils, and other campus gatherings.

The perniciousness of antisemitic acts on our campus is causing deep hurt and fear for our Jewish students, faculty, and staff and shaking their sense of safety and belonging at Penn. This is intolerable. I condemn personally these vicious and hateful antisemitic acts and words.

https://penntoday.upenn.edu/announcements/responding-antisemitic-threat-our-campus

[Sympthsical]

71. And she still said what she said

Reporting specific and targeted threats of violence is the bare minimum required in the incident you're highlighting. She is legally required to do it.

It doesn't diminish what she managed at that hearing. Not in the slightest.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

21. Then don't .

Reflect on it. But don’t.

[madaboutharry]

22. I most certainly will agree with her.

I will always recognize when someone is right, even if I disagree with them the other 23 hours in the day.

[tritsofme]

26. The Biden White House strongly condemned what happened at the hearing as well

The White House weighs in on the disastrous Hill hearing for university presidents, who were unable to say it's harassment to call for the genocide of Jewish people.

From Biden spox
@AndrewJBates46
:

"It’s unbelievable that this needs to be said: calls for genocide are monstrous and antithetical to everything we represent as a country.

Any statements that advocate for the systematic murder of Jews are dangerous and revolting – and we should all stand firmly against them, on the side of human dignity and the most basic values that unite us as Americans."

Link to tweet

?s=20

[Jilly_in_VA]

27. Ugh. Me too.

BUT there ain't no context. No context when calling for elimination of Palestinians either!

[Mz Pip]

28. In what context

would it be okay?

For. College President this should be a no brainer. “Depends on the context .” Not an acceptable answer.

[The Magistrate]

29. Think Of It As The Wretch Agreeing With You, Sir...

You can cite in explanation blind chicken v. corn, or suggest perhaps for the nonce she broke the surface of her degenerate, emptied mind.

[harumph]

30. Is anyone literally calling for genocide of Jews?

Obviously some have done so at one time or another - but I'm asking in the context of this particular school.....

(sincere question) are students using phrases that are disputed as to the meaning? Literally calling for genocide is absolutely
bullying and harassment - but I think unless there is universal agreement that some phrase is the equivalent, the issue gets muddy.

[redqueen]

36. You've hit the crux of the issue. Certain parties want to define that phrase, which predates hamas

as meaning what they perceive it to mean.

And sadly the WH seems to be in line with that piss-poor excuse for reasoning.

[Redleg]

61. Shades of grey

Some folks here can't deal with these subleties. Context and intent do matter. Far be it for me to defend presidents of elite universities but they should have done a better job preparing for this hearing.

[Hekate]

31. Good God. People at DU are deeply, deeply confused about hate speech. Some people anyway.

This is a repost from another thread. Some people keep having it explained to them — and pop up right again with what-about, but-but, and both-sides.

No. There are no both sides in hate speech. There is no forgiveness by context. If I call a poster here the N-word or the C-word my post will be removed pronto, and if I persist I can be banned. Read the TOS — is your right to free speech being trampled by DU?

I used to work in the Personnel/Human Resources/AA area at the County & at a public University

Saying hateful things to others and about others and in the presence of others creates a hostile work environment. Does someone need me to enumerate and say the offensive words?

Women have experienced this — the LGBTQ+ community has — the disabled — Blacks, Asians — certainly Jews do.

It was against the policy of every workplace, backed up by laws. Indeed, many lawsuits for workplace harassment were filed and won.

Knuckledraggers always felt put upon, whether they wore overalls or a suit and tie. They still feel put upon. They couldn’t put up a noose on someone’s desk as a har-de-har joke. They couldn’t tell gay jokes and swish their wrists.

I’m with Elise Stefanik. WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO US? This shit is not some subtle “microaggression” — it is as in-your-face as a noose left in your workplace or a cross burned on your lawn.

Calls for genocide are NOT “protected speech.”

[tenderfoot]

43. The person that's endorsing the guy who had dinner with Nick Fuentes?

Have at it.

[madaboutharry]

44. I think it's fair to say we all agree Stefanik is a terrible person.

She called out these also terrible university presidents. Broken clocks are sometimes right. Does this make me think any better of her? No.
In my opinion she said the right things yesterday. I’m willing to acknowledge it.

I usually pass on responding to a post like yours, but I think my point is important.

[tenderfoot]

45. I'm sure she's totally sincere...

[Dorian Gray]

74. Stefanik is awful

I try to imagine myself up there, on the stand, with her questioning me. I could imagine me not trusting her and hedging my bets... trying not to give her a gotcha moment. Is this what happened with these university presidents? Possibly.

Having said that.... the calls for genocide being harassment according to their codes of conduct?

That seems like a simple answer. "Of course calls for genocide are against our codes of conduct." "Of course calls for genocide are bad."

[Cha]

46. ".. depends on the Context".. WTF.

Dr. Claudine Gay brought the Stupid with her.

[madaboutharry]

50. How about this for a lame walk back from Liz Magill...

Penn president says she was ‘not focused’ during Congress hearing on campus antisemitism.

From The Times Of Israel:

“In that moment, I was focused on our university’s longstanding policies aligned with the US Constitution, which say that speech alone is not punishable,” she says in a video posted tonight (Wednesday). “I was not focused on, but I should have been, the irrefutable fact that a call for genocide of Jewish people is a call for some of the most terrible violence human beings can perpetrate. It’s evil — plain and simple.”

I almost feel bad for them in their moment of public humiliation.

[Cha]

54. It's a hard lesson to learn to Always

stay Focused.

".. context.."

[Redleg]

63. At least she made an attempt to clarify her remarks

She wasn't permitted to during the hearing and the question wasn't about her personal views on the issue but rather on the policy of the university regarding speech. I don't see it as a walk-back as much as an explanation for her lousy response. Universities are expected to be places that permit some degree of freedom of expression. Clearly, outright anti-semitism or advocacy of genocide crosses the line and these presidents should be clear about that.

[pwb]

51. Stefanik is a product of those schools. She is a hater.

So there's that.

[madaboutharry]

52. Al Franken also went to Harvard.

Not a hater.

I won’t blame Harvard for making Elise Stefanik drunk with power or for her awfulness.

[madaboutharry]

60. I'm going to offer you some advice.

Insulting members of this forum is not the way to win friends and influence people.
You should give that some thought.

[czarjak]

55. Contex is in the mind of the beholder.

Elise just got lucky on this one. Now tell us all about Russia and that Putin crush.

[JohnSJ]

56. Amazing at some in this thread twisting themselves to defend these presidents at

prestigious universities

The answer is so simple and obvious, the call for genocide against one group against another group at the the universities is harassment and bullying.

It isn’t rocket science, but some here can’t seem to grasp that.

[madaboutharry]

57. It makes me think that some may have said these things themselves

and need to defend it. Who knows what is in someone’s mind. All I know is that I was taught when people say something is hurtful, offensive, or tells you your actions and words are bullying them, then you take what they say at face value and stop.

[LeftInTX]

68. I think Stefanik's agenda is anti-higher education.

She's playing "gotcha". This will come back as a GOP campaign, "Liberal states such as MA and PA support genocide"..

I guarantee this is campaign fodder and this is the only reason why these hearings were held.

It's for the same reason that the House was instructed to vote "Present" on Tuesday's anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism" resolution. Anyone voting Yes or No, knew it would could work against them electorally. https://newrepublic.com/post/177308/republicans-dangerous-new-bill-try-muzzle-criticism-israel
Republicans’ Dangerous New Bill Would Try to Muzzle All Criticism of Israel
The resolution would equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism.

So, therefore if you voted, "No", you would be guilty of antisemitism
If you voted "Yea", you would not support being critical of Israel.
Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. So, they voted "Present".
_____

These university presidents weren't as politically savvy as Jamie Raskin.

The University of Pennsylvania contacted the FBI

https://penntoday.upenn.edu/announcements/responding-antisemitic-threat-our-campus
Dear Members of the Penn Community,

Today I learned that a small number of Penn staff members received vile, disturbing antisemitic emails that threatened violence against members of our Jewish community, specifically naming Penn Hillel and Lauder College House. These messages also included hateful language, targeting the personal identities of the recipients. Penn’s Division of Public Safety was immediately notified and responded. Penn Police also notified the FBI of this potential hate crime, and a joint investigation is underway.

Based on these emails, Penn’s Division of Public Safety conducted thorough safety sweeps of Penn Hillel and Lauder College House and found no credible threat at this time. Penn Police will remain on site until further notice and has increased security presence throughout our campus.

At a time when campuses across the country are being targeted with these types of threats, my first and highest priority is the safety and security of our community. Threats of violence are not tolerated at Penn and will be met with swift and forceful action. Penn Public Safety is working urgently with the FBI to identify the individual or individuals who are responsible for these hateful, threatening emails and to ensure they are apprehended and punished to the fullest extent of the law. As I shared last week, Penn

[madaboutharry]

72. I can agree the House bill was unnecessary and exploitative of Jewish pain.

However, I think many do not have an understanding of exactly what Zionism is. It is really simple. Zionism is the right of the Jewish people to have a homeland in what is now known as Israel. It is the right of Israel to exist.
Anti-Zionism means Israel has no right to exist. To me that is antisemitic. To claim otherwise is gaslighting.

[Ohioboy]

64. The way these college presidents answered reminded me of Trump's Charlotesville answer

I don't like it when anyone reminds me of Trump.

They should have condemned any form of antisemitism, context or not. Period.

Since all three had basically the same noncommittal response, I wonder how much their answers may have been influenced by lawyers. They were probably trying to be very careful in their answers since half the time they are being accused of discriminating against right- wing wack jobs for not welcoming them to appear on campuses to promote all sorts of crazy ideas.

[LeftInTX]

65. Why doesn't she grill the Texas Republican Party?

Texas GOP executive committee rejects proposed ban on associating with Nazi sympathizers and Holocaust deniers

Two months after a prominent conservative activist and fundraiser was caught hosting white supremacist Nick Fuentes, leaders of the Republican Party of Texas have voted against barring the party from associating with known Nazi sympathizers and Holocaust deniers.

In a 32-29 vote on Saturday, members of the Texas GOP’s executive committee stripped a pro-Israel resolution of a clause that would have included the ban. In a separate move that stunned some members, roughly half of the board also tried to prevent a record of their vote from being kept.

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/12/02/texas-gop-antisemitism-resolution/