The Presidents of Harvard, MIT, Penn, Columbia, Cornell, Penn should be forced to resign

When the biggest complaint is that protesters are sipping Dunkin' and that is supposed to make everyone outraged at the hypocrisy, then that isn't a good sign for your side.

Seriously, Dunkin'? That is supposed to be Bougie or something?

 

That was the biggest complaint in the Xeet you posted. You keep accusing me of lying, but you can't find one lie.

 

The “double standard” claimed by that tweet was clearly nonsense.

You have cheered on the IDFs killing of Palestinians over and over again over the years. Why couldn’t I say those posts of yours are “literally” you cheering for deaths of Muslims, which means you are saying Muslims need to be killed, which is as morally abhorrent as someone saying “Blacks need to be killed”. It would be ridiculous for me to make those series of leaps. And yet that’s precisely what you are defending here with that tweet. And supposedly I am the one engaging in mental gymnastics? Please.

And people who are so intent on defending Israel against the actions of these protesters that they will go to the lengths of saying these are Jew-hating mobs that make Jews unsafe on campus are, in fact, contributing quite a bit to Jewish anxiety over their safety. The message they could be giving, which would be accurate, is “These protesters are angry with Israel and the university’s involvement in military support for Israel. They have no quarrel with you for being Jewish. You don’t need to feel threatened by them.” But instead they choose to amplify the anxiety of the Jewish student population, because they want to create an impression that anyone who protests against Israel must hate Jews.

Sorry to point out the obvious.

 

There are a lot of people here who like to paint with an extremely broad brush. Anti-Zionist and Anti-Semitic are not the same thing

 

Nice. You've already started your 12 Hours of Hate.

 

The updated rule used to suspend, then later arrest student for tresspassing was made in a unilateral manner which is described as:

a “gross violation” of shared governance, superseding “well established, extensive procedures” for the sanctioning of students’ political speech.​

https://www.insidehighered.com/news...ered-policy-suspending-pro-palestinian-groups

Columbia Altered Protest Policy Before Suspending Pro-Palestinian Groups
Administrators, who cited alleged violations of the policies in acting against the groups, confirm they made the changes unilaterally.


Columbia University administrators updated policies and altered language around student group events and protests in mid-October, shortly after large campus protests by Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace drew media attention, according to reporting from the Columbia Spectator that Inside Higher Ed confirmed independently.

The university later suspended both SJP and JVP on November 10, the day after the groups held a walkout. In announcing the suspensions, which the university said were due to the groups “repeatedly violat[ing] University policies related to campus events,” officials explicitly referenced the newly added language.

A university spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed that while “the special events process is not new,” clarifications were made in October.

“Our campus has been operating in a highly charged atmosphere where safety concerns are real, not theoretical,” the spokesperson wrote in an email. “In the days after October 7, faced with intense emotions on all sides and urgent demands for many events (vigils, protests and more), the University felt an obligation to restate and clarify these policies as clearly as possible to make sure there would be no misunderstanding of them.”

Screenshots of the university’s Student Group Event Policy and Procedure and University Event Policy before the Oct. 12 protests—taken from the WaybackMachine—and after show the specific changes. They include a 10-day advance notice requirement for approval of any “special events,” newly defined as being held outside or in excess of 25 attendees; assertions that the university has the right to “regulate the time, place and manner of certain forms of public expression”; and a clarification that administrators have “sole discretion” over punishment for student groups and their members.

The changes were made by a Special Committee on Campus Safety, which did not include any faculty or student members.

David Lurie, president of the Columbia chapter of the American Association of University Professors, said that university administrators making updates to student group policies on their own was an aberration and a “gross violation” of shared governance, superseding “well established, extensive procedures” for the sanctioning of students’ political speech.

“What they’ve done is taken something that should be running through existing disciplinary channels that involve our right of appeal, that involve advisory boards, that include faculty and student representation, and eliminated all of those,” he told Inside Higher Ed. “In its place they’ve created a kind of star chamber that is able to take these actions unilaterally.”

The Columbia spokesperson said that student group leaders were sent notice of the policy updates—what the spokesperson called “restatements” of policy—ahead of the walkout that ultimately led to the suspension of SJP and JVP.

“[The groups’] compliance with [the procedures] started to slip, and the [groups’] advisers issued numerous warnings that clearly laid out that failure to respect the required processes would have consequences,” the spokesperson wrote.

Student emails obtained by the Spectator confirm that the university asked representatives in the office of Undergraduate Student Life to send out notices of the changes to student groups on Oct. 25 and Nov. 7—the latter, two days before the walkout, specifically citing the 10-day approval requirement for events.

Lurie said that while he looks forward to further clarification from the university, he believes Columbia “created this new events policy in order to use it exactly as they did,” by suspending SJP and JVP.

At a plenary meeting of the University Senate Friday afternoon, shortly after the Spectator published its reporting, Columbia’s senior vice president Gerald M. Rosberg, who chairs the Special Committee on Campus Safety, confirmed the policy changes were made unilaterally by university leaders, including president Minouche Shafik, and took on an apologetic tone.

“I know I am going to be living with this for a long time to come,” Rosberg said, adding that the university was looking into “reexamining” the policy.

Lurie, who attended the plenary as an observer, confirmed Rosberg’s comments.

“My suspicion is there’s things [university administrators] did that they regret, and that they were looking for a way to walk back right now,” he said. “And I really hope they will, because this portends very poorly for the future of the university.”

The Columbia spokesperson did not respond to follow-up questions about the timing of the policy changes or Rosberg’s comments on Friday in time for publication.

 

Atw is a Muslim hater only those that support idf blindy would cheer for them to keep killing innocent Muslims.

That's basically atw stance for anyone cheering for palestine. Those folks are a jew hater.

What a ridiculous stance to take. Anyone even criticizing the war crimes Israel is inflicting onto innocent Muslims is antisemitic

 

There is also mass generalization. The encampments and protests consist of anti-Zionist Jewish students and Jewish for Peace students. Folks like ATW easily generalize all Palestinians as Hamas sympathizers, and he is doing the same with pro-Palestinian/Anti-Zionist/pro-Peace protesters, generalizing them as Hamas sympathizers and Jewish haters. That generalization is grossly factually and morally wrong, and it also stops conversation, demonizing others and doesn't help; in fact, it contributes to extremism on both sides.

 

While I don't agree with everything, especially when the speech targets a group of students with threats, a few bad apples (who also include outsiders and not students) aren't a reason to crack down on protesters.

There were already ongoing campus protests without much media coverage. It was after the latest Congressional hearing, which was nothing but political and used the power of these hearings to exert pressure on the Campus President to bend to their will, that it stirred up the pot and caused more issues. The Columbia President, from her testimony at the hearing, abandoned free speech, the principle of academic freedom, and even the very basic idea of 'investigate then take action'. She completely yielded to the pressure from Congress and took action to crack down on the protest. This action by the Columbia President seems to have caused the protest to grow larger from the initial group and now spread to other campuses as well. This is not an unexpected outcome of student protests - when you suppress them through means that they see as illegitimate, they will gain more support from others who may not care about their original cause but do see wrongs in the suppression. In my view, the politics of this is what is making it worse - the pressure from Congress and the President's inability to hold firm is the spark that caused this recent outbreak of larger protests. I personally didn't care one single bit about these protests as long as they remained peaceful. I still don't care much, but I think Congress not only didn't help but made it worse for both sides. This is one of those cases where Congress doing nothing would have been better.

P.S. It's interesting that compared to Harvard and other universities, where the Presidents stood their ground, based on principle, but done in a stupid way, the protests on those campuses didn't grow but died down. The outcome at those campus was better when the Presidents stood ground based on principle, even if they later have to resign.

 

Characterizing anti-Zionist Jews as anti-Semitic exemplifies why any criticism of Israel is so readily dismissed as anti-Semitic rhetoric. Such indiscriminate labeling cheapens and weakens the very concept of anti-Semitism, which represents a serious form of hatred and prejudice that should not be rendered impotent through overuse or misapplication.

 

It’s funny to me how you angrily you recoil at your own warped, idiotic logic being used against you, and how blind you are to this.

If you want to argue protesters demanding the Palestinians fight back against the “entity” that is dropping bombs on them and killing thousands of their civilians is them “literally” saying “kill the Jews”, then you cheering on the IDF fighting back against the “entity” that is attacking the Israeli people must mean you are literally are saying “kill the Muslims”.

Now, I suggest you stop this foolishness.

 

This isn't about me. You clearly (and wrongly) believe anti-Zionism is the same as anti-Semitism. I've already made my point on how silly and damaging that viewpoint is to the meaning of anti-Semitism. Go tackle the point, not me.