Typo. It is a statement in the definitive.
You made a comment about Hamas being on campus. This is not a joke. Hamas is a terrorist group. If you don’t believe this, I am done engaging.
…you bought up Hamas. You made a comment about Hamas. I responded to your comment.
Not that its relevant to this thread, but I’ve called Hamas a terrorist group in thread-after-thread, I’ve condemned the actions taken by Hamas in thread-after-thread, I’ve said that what Hamas did on October the seventh was a war crime, they should be taken down, and that Israel were within their rights to respond.
But none of that is relevant to the questions I’ve asked here. Claudine Gay got caught in a rhetorical trap. She responded poorly. And they got their sound-byte that, along with the plagiarism allegations, managed to take-down-their-target.
I do. It is call to genocide. The rest of the phrase is, “Palestine will be free [of Jews]”.
…if thats the rest of the phrase, then why is in brackets?
Because if they said that part out loud they would have to acknowledge the genocidal nature of it.
Indeed. This would be something that would be an academic scandal under whatever circumstance but moved from something that would be strictly up to Harvard and reflective of Academia in general, to become something before the Court Of Public Opinion, by the aftermath of her flubbing of the political confrontation.
I do find myself agreeing the real driver behind this denouement is that other issue. I mean, the House of Representatives made a requirement for documents and called for Committee Hearings about the plagiarism claims. Since when is that the U.S. Congress’ bailiwick? It was rather obvious it had in fact stopped being about whether the students felt safe, and become a case that the House GOP had taken a position that they were going to keep after her.
However, yes, Academia again left their flank and half their backside uncovered in a hostile environment, as said earlier…
And may I observe that even here, the thread about the plagiarism issue is being taken over by the “it’s genocide”/“no it isn’t” debate and the relitigating of the Stefanik/Gay exchange.
…was not intending to take this thread off topic. Just wanted to point out the context that was missing here. The thre examples given of Jewish Students being attacked on campus from Elise Stefanik were: “from the river to the sea or intifada advocating for the murder of Jews.” One of those is explicitly a threat. Intifada means “uprising” and from a Palestinian context originally meant “aggressive no-nviolent resistance.” And “from the river to the sea” has been used by many Jewish campaigners against the war, and the meaning of that phrase has been widely debated.
It seems clear to me that her bad answer was in response to these three examples. One was most certainly against the code of conduct. The other two? It would depend on context.
Yeah, but… whatever anyone’s feelings about her testimony, Harvard made a choice to stand by her, until all the plagiarism stuff came out. So I don’t think she would have been canned if it weren’t for getting caught plagiarizing.
…or more simply, most aren’t advocating for genocide at all.
Oh for sure. Because at least that is a clear violation of expected conduct for anyone in the academic community.
But we know there will be plentiful political hay made of “Harvard cares more about citing papers nobody cares about than protecting students”.
Do we have a sense of how students on campus feel about all this? Do students feel unprotected? Do they feel outraged about the plagierism?
None of that is related to how serious president Gay’s plagiarism was.
And honestly, students supporting ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel is not an active threat to American Jews on Harvard’s campus. Or really, to anyone on Harvard’s campus. That’s why President Gay said that they were hateful comments that she rejected, but might not be a violation of Harvard’s code of conduct, depending on context.
Yeah, she shouldn’t have said that. Because it sounds really bad to say, “a call for genocide… yadda yadda … context.”
And there have been some campus incidents that are direct threats to students. (Just as there have been some off-campus incidents, like the bomb threat at my synagogue.) Those are unambiguously a violation. I think she was trying to thread that needle.
I am truly, sincerely sorry to hear that. It’s terrible.
I haven’t asked any Harvard students, but I have talked with MIT students. And they think MIT is over-reacting to the protests at MIT. They assure me the protests have been non-violent and haven’t threatened anyone.
Thanks.
There’s a bunch of antisemitism blossoming right now. I’d course assume of it is expressed on universities. There are rapes and suicides and drug abuse on college campuses, too. As best as i can tell, Harvard is taking actual threats to Harvard students seriously. That doesn’t mean there have been zero on campus, though, because campuses reflect the rest of the world.
Got it, so some people chanting for genocide is ok as long as it’s not all of them.
Hang on a sec while I make a note in my day timer.
AITA for thinking that it’s quite likely that the only reason Ms. Gay got the job in the first place was because she was a black woman? (People definitely have said that about Carole Moseley-Braun.)
A Black woman with a PhD from Harvard who had taught there for 8 years is not some schmo off the street.
I don’t know. Did you do any sort of check at all as to her background before making such a crude statement?
Moderating:
This is misinterpreting the post you quoted in a very offensive way. BB clearly was saying that those who aren’t advising for genocide are okay.
Please be more careful in quoting others in the thread.