this is going to be locked for a variety of reasons:
this is essentially propaganda/an extremely biased opinion piece
it uncritically adopts the framing of Elise Stefanik when she is neither a good faith actor generally, nor asking questions about “calling for the genocide of the Jews” in good faith. it’s very clear she just means “pro-Palestinian demonstrators” when she talks about people “calling for genocide” and that’s stupid.
it’s just not a good article, generally. there are plenty of other, better articles that can be used as a vessel to talk about Israel-Palestine (including ones that have a pro-Israeli voice)
So in other words they understood that they were being called on to condemn antisemitism in order to help reinforce the narrative that these college rallies were antisemitic protests, when in fact they were pro-Palestinian ones.
Good on them for choosing to side with their students rather than give the anti-Palestinian camp their manufactured “professors condemn antisemitic student rallies” soundbites.
Refuse to engage with their genocide-backing rhetoric that tries to tie being pro-Palestinian to being antisemitic.
I feel like there’s some weird context here. Why does Stefanik want to get that “yes” and why are they reluctant to say it? Would it be a declaration of some university policy that would lead to suppressing the demonstrations or what?
What a garbage article, like, start to finish manipulative attempt to build a stupid narrative. Like, antisemitism is a real thing but this kind of nonsense discredits real attempts to call it out.
The chanting, I think, calling for intifada, global revolution, [is] very disturbing,” Magill said during questioning. “I believe at minimum that is hateful speech that has been and should be condemned.
Intifada means “resistance.” Every occupied people has a right to resist. Except, apparently, Palestinians.
… grilled Gay on Harvard’s Middle East Studies courses, which she claimed included “false accusations that Israel is a racist, settler colonialist, apartheid state
Well, it is. No amount of trying to conflate support for human rights with antisemitism is going to change that.
If this is what they mean by “hate” nobody should be surprised that lots of people aren’t buying it.
As the university presidents were trying to explain to Clown Shoes, sorry, I mean Elise Stefanik: Harassment is conduct that is severe or pervasive enough to create an environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive. A one-time generalized statement calling for genocide not targeted at a specific individual would not usually rise to the level of harassment per se, but can certainly be part of a pattern of harassment. Similarly, actual bullying is a pattern of abusive behavior and cannot be defined by any single act as it is often used colloquially.
That's the game Stefanik is playing: She knows these universities' policies are bound by the actual, legal definitions of "harassment" and "bullying" but she's counting on her ignorant audience not knowing those definitions and instead thinking the words are defined as what they use them for in their own lives: someone being mean.
I read this more as “Heads of 3 top US colleges refuse to trap themselves in what was likely to be a performative thread of anti-Palestinian questions from one of Congress’s most shameless clown-people (Elise Stefanik).”
To be clear, from the article itself:
The university leaders all personally criticized anti-Israel activism.
On second thought, it may not have even been anti-Palestinian per se, but rather more careless exploitation in pursuit of CRT-adjacent nonsense.
Some Republicans sought to paint campus antisemitism as a product of universities embracing “the race-based ideology of the radical left,”
Add comment