The University of Pennsylvania’s president has resigned amid pressure from donors and criticism over testimony at a congressional hearing where she was unable to say under repeated questioning that calls on campus for the genocide of Jews would violate the school’s conduct policy.
It’s literally in the post you are replying to ya know:
Note, this is @Johnny_Bravo summarizing how Jews are expected to act to comply specifically with Left/Liberal Antisemites, not liberals as a whole, although of course, there’s overlap depending on the individual.
So yeah, you can be Jewish, but you generally can’t be too conservative (in the religious sense), too assertive, too independent, assert yourself as an actual minority (or at least, not as an “oppressed” minority, because, well after all you can pass and are presumed to be wealthy), and almost-always have to deny any sympathy to Israel.
I quoted J_B because Joe’s question was really obviously oblivious.
It’s in general a less threatening sort of semi-contempt than the one offered by the right, but it’s still fully othering, and often a demand that to be accepted you have to put (a version) of liberal policy far above any cultural identity.
But again, I’d rather be snubbed than threatened with being dragged off and shot / hung or told that Hitler failed because he didn’t finish the job - which is explicitly what many neo-Nazis/Antisemites supported by the MAGA party have said.
I went to an actual “big liberal college” so comparing Penn to that is a joke. I went to a university that in the early 00s skirted state laws intended to bar gay people from having their partners on their insurance by adding a “+1” to all faculty insurance plans, and went before the Supreme Court to fight for its diversity affirming admissions process, and won. A place of massive diversity that leveraged students from all walks of life and from all over the globe to benefit the education of all of its students, who handled the aftermath of 9/11 beautifully despite having scores of Jewish New Yorker and Muslim students, and who sure as shit would not tolerate anybody calling for the genocide of anybody on their campus. That’s a big liberal university.
I haven’t been there for twenty years so I can’t comment on how it’s changed. All I know is when I cross the campus, there are always bunch of children walking around. I don’t remember us being so young.
I’m late to the thread, but whoever prepped these presidents for their testimony ought to be fired. They gave Stefanik exactly what she was looking for – lawyerly, equivocating answers to a foreseeable, provocative question. It’s unsurprising that these are all presidents of private universities. Public university presidents more routinely have to appear before state legislative committees and would be better prepared not to walk into such a trap.
Indeed. I do take comfort in (1) the knowledge that UPenn is apparently the kind of free-speech-absolutist environment I detest from “liberal” institutions and (2) those who live by the ultra-rich, die by the ultra-rich (here referring to the threatened withdraw of a $100 million donation, which may have contributed to the resignations at UPenn). They are eating themselves.
But it is disquieting to consider how extensively the ultra-rich have weaved themselves into the structures of our society and government. I fear we all, by some extent, live by the leave of the ultra-rich. So what happened to them could happen to just about any of us, deserving or not.
The clear winner here is republicans in congress: they finally got a chance to #ownthelibs.
An interesting poll concerning scholars who study the Middle East:
Scholars Who Study the Middle East are Afraid to Speak Out: Polling Data Indicate Widespread Self-Censorship
…We recently carried out a unique poll among scholars focused on the Middle East who are members of the American Political Science Association, the American Historical Association, and the Middle East Studies Association. We netted 936 respondents. The survey represented the sixth wave of the Middle East Scholar Barometer, a biannual survey that we direct.
The findings were stark: Eighty-two percent of all U.S.-based respondents, including almost all assistant professors (98 percent), said they self-censor when they speak professionally about the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Just over 81 percent of those self-censoring said they primarily held back their criticism of Israel, while 11 percent said they held back from criticizing Palestinians. Only 2 percent said criticizing U.S. policy was the biggest issue.
Do you think assistant professors are the only source of antisemitism at universities? You are also conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism, not unlike these fine students at Yale who seem to think defacing a Channukiah is “political speech”
Basically what we have is that the UPenn leaders realized, that if they did nothing and Stevens did proceed with his withdrawal of the money, now they would be in a position of having willingly “failed” their “duty” which it turns out is not to promote academic excellence or the uplift of society, but just the same vulgar “don’t piss off the investors/donors and don’t lose the company money” mission all corporate leadership in every sector has devolved into.
I had the same thought. Some of this might seem obvious, but that’s how you prep for public discussion in a potentially hostile situation. Our most senior execs were prepped to within an inch of their lives for investor days, government hearings, etc., and I’m sure during prep they covered even the “d’uh!” stuff.
“Remember, we stand in strong opposition to all violence and calls to violence, regardless of its target.”
Seriously, this was such an easy question to answer. But under pressure, things don’t always seem that way. That’s why prep is so comprehensive and might seem to cross the line into “don’t poke your finger in your eye” territory.
The Left Behind series of books, which espouse the Christian Zionist theory that you say is fringe because your grandparents didn’t subscribe to it, sold 63 million copies, and spawned a bad movie and a children’s book series.
And Tim LeHaye, the author of these books, was the founder of the highly influential political conservative evangelical group with the deceptively neutral name Council for National Policy. Ginni Thomas is affiliated with this group, as are other prominent conservatives like Tom Fitton and unindicted co-conspirator Cleta Mitchell.
As an aside, their membership list also includes a guy you’ve probably never heard of named Richard Viguerie. Viguerie singlehanded introduced mail order fraud as the conservative business model.
Evangelicals that believe in Christian Zionism include Ted Cruz. When John Hagee, a megachurch pastor whose church is centered around the idea of Israel fulfilling biblical prophecy, had his annual summit this summer, presidential contenders like DeSantis, Pence and Haley lined up to kiss his ass and suck up to his principles.
Your grampy’s religious experience may be interesting to you, but it has no place as a cite in your flawed attempt to handwave away Christian Zionism. Due to an often stealthy years long effort by evangelicals to elevate people aligned with their beliefs into positions of power, an effort documented in books like Katherine Stewart’s The Power Worshipers, Christian Zionists have an outsized influence in conservative politics.
Apparently, if its a bunch of white guys chanting “Jews will not replace us”, it’s just a free speech issue, because in Sam Stone land free speech is only for people whose views you agree with.
And, maybe I missed it, but has no one yet mentioned that UPenn, which apparently converts everyone that sets foot on its campus into a woke genocidal socialist, is Donald Trump’s alma mater……and also Don Junior’s?
I did not know that but I am not sure it should be held against them (UPenn). They had little idea of the supreme asshole he’d become when he went there when he was 18 (ok…maybe some idea but they could not have really grasped how awful he’d become and daddy had LOTS of money so they’d look the other way).
That said, I am glad Liz Magill was held to account. That wishy-washy bullshit she spewed was unbecoming of someone of her stature. I hope it sends a strong message that having lawyers speak for you is not always the best route (it would not be amiss if a few who coached her lost their jobs too).