Harvard, M.I.T., and Penn Presidents Under Fire After Dodging Questions About Antisemitism
Stephanie Saul and Anemona Hartocollis, reporting for The New York Times:
Support for the presidents of Harvard, the University of
Pennsylvania and M.I.T. eroded quickly on Wednesday, after they
seemed to evade what seemed like a rather simple question during a
contentious congressional hearing: Would they discipline students
calling for the genocide of Jews?
Their lawyerly replies to that question and others during a
four-hour hearing drew incredulous responses. “It’s unbelievable
that this needs to be said: Calls for genocide are monstrous and
antithetical to everything we represent as a country,” said a
White House spokesman, Andrew Bates. […]
Much of the criticism landed heavily on Ms. Magill because of an
extended back-and-forth with Representative Stefanik. Ms. Stefanik
said that in campus protests, students had chanted support for
intifada, an Arabic word that means uprising and that many Jews
hear as a call for violence against them. Ms. Stefanik asked Ms.
Magill, “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s
rules or code of conduct, yes or no?”
Ms. Magill replied, “If the speech turns into conduct, it can be
harassment.”
Ms. Stefanik pressed the issue: “I am asking, specifically:
Calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or
harassment?”
Ms. Magill, a lawyer who joined Penn last year with a pledge to
promote campus free speech, replied, “If it is directed and
severe, pervasive, it is harassment.”
Ms. Stefanik responded: “So the answer is yes.”
Ms. Magill said, “It is a context-dependent decision,
congresswoman.”
Ms. Stefanik exclaimed: “That’s your testimony today? Calling for
the genocide of Jews is depending upon the context?”
The reckoning has come for the bizarro-world political climate that’s taken hold at these universities in the last decade or two. This patently offensive equivocation — when the correct answer was obviously an unambiguous “Yes” — makes sense in the context of the insular far-left worldview where the oppressed are viewed as inherently just, but comes across as absurd to everyone living in the real world. All three of these elite university presidents are obviously utterly tone-deaf and detached from the real world.
You can only pretend to live in a bubble for so long. Then the bill comes due.
★
Stephanie Saul and Anemona Hartocollis, reporting for The New York Times:
Support for the presidents of Harvard, the University of
Pennsylvania and M.I.T. eroded quickly on Wednesday, after they
seemed to evade what seemed like a rather simple question during a
contentious congressional hearing: Would they discipline students
calling for the genocide of Jews?
Their lawyerly replies to that question and others during a
four-hour hearing drew incredulous responses. “It’s unbelievable
that this needs to be said: Calls for genocide are monstrous and
antithetical to everything we represent as a country,” said a
White House spokesman, Andrew Bates. […]
Much of the criticism landed heavily on Ms. Magill because of an
extended back-and-forth with Representative Stefanik. Ms. Stefanik
said that in campus protests, students had chanted support for
intifada, an Arabic word that means uprising and that many Jews
hear as a call for violence against them. Ms. Stefanik asked Ms.
Magill, “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s
rules or code of conduct, yes or no?”
Ms. Magill replied, “If the speech turns into conduct, it can be
harassment.”
Ms. Stefanik pressed the issue: “I am asking, specifically:
Calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or
harassment?”
Ms. Magill, a lawyer who joined Penn last year with a pledge to
promote campus free speech, replied, “If it is directed and
severe, pervasive, it is harassment.”
Ms. Stefanik responded: “So the answer is yes.”
Ms. Magill said, “It is a context-dependent decision,
congresswoman.”
Ms. Stefanik exclaimed: “That’s your testimony today? Calling for
the genocide of Jews is depending upon the context?”
The reckoning has come for the bizarro-world political climate that’s taken hold at these universities in the last decade or two. This patently offensive equivocation — when the correct answer was obviously an unambiguous “Yes” — makes sense in the context of the insular far-left worldview where the oppressed are viewed as inherently just, but comes across as absurd to everyone living in the real world. All three of these elite university presidents are obviously utterly tone-deaf and detached from the real world.
You can only pretend to live in a bubble for so long. Then the bill comes due.