When we were all about a decade younger, and I was first dating my now wife, her mother hillariously misused the term “MILF”.
This is not what she said. And I disagree that she said anything in that hearing proudly, but I guess that’s a matter of opinion.
She definitely did not say that calling for genocide is OK.
Here’s the exchange…
Stefanik: I am asking specifically calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment.
Magill: If it if directed and severe or pervasive it is harassment.
Stefanik: So the answer is, “Yes”?
Magill: It is a context dependent decision.
There’s an awful lot of focus on Magill’s second statement, but it is pretty clear from her first statement that she thinks such statements are not OK and she is definitely not proudly saying that she encourages such statements. That’s absurd.
While I am definitely for free speech, I am definitely against the destructive hypocrisy these foolish and short sighted so-called leaders engage in. It’s unfortunate said hypocrisy and intellectual dishonest is so endemic but when ideology trumps all principles it’s no surprise. So, as much as I’d like to find some sympathy for these clowns and the backlash they are facing, I’m struggling to.
This article is a good read, imo, about this situation. Opinion | The Right and Wrong Ways to Deal with Campus Antisemitism - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
Damn, who could have possibly imagined that those two words have definitions in law and the policies of colleges/universities that depend entirely on context?
Good point. That reads rather as if instead of understanding the question as meaning ‘is that wrong?’ the question was understood to mean ‘does this meet the legal and/or university definition of either of those terms, and if so which?’
Which isn’t at all the same question.
I’m so fucking pissed at people pretending the policies at these schools have anything to do with liberal ideology. There’s no “owning the libs” happening here. There is no hypocrisy. These are not fucking liberals! This is the world conservatives want, the kind of campus environment that conservatives have constantly been advocating for, and they are now pretending that conservative ideologies espoused by conservative schools have anything to do with what goes on at a liberal campus.
It’s such bullshit.
Thinking of Florida and slavery one might wonder what kind of policies conservatives would espouse if they were German?
"When Europe sends it’s people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing blood matzer. They’re bringing usury. They’re Christ killers. And some, I assume, are good people.”
You have far too high an opinion of liberalism. Don’t mistake progressivism or leftism for liberalism: it ain’t the same.
That’s what I mean about being poorly prepped for her testimony. She tried in good faith to answer the question that she was asked. That’s a terrible approach. Public Relations 101 is to answer the question that you wanted to be asked. You just ignore Stefanik when she demands a yes or no answer to her questions and stick to your bullet points. Because her questions weren’t offered in good faith.
I don’t think I do have too high an opinion of liberalism. I’m not overjoyed by some of the things playing out on liberal campuses these days.
I attended Penn for grad school. Do you know how conservative a school has to be to hire a Republican as the Dean of the Social Work department? I had a class on child welfare policy taught by him and another Republican legislator. And of course the building is right next to Wharton, so the trust fund babies can rub all their paid internships and wardrobe stipends in our faces. 
@flurb 100% agree.
ETA: oh, fuck, he died in June 2020. I wonder if it was COVID. He was a total asshole and a fantastic teacher.
The question was an absolute softball (and I have no illusions about Stefanik’s intentions). It was absolutely answerable in the form it was asked, and she did not answer it in good faith. That is, unless Penn’s code of conduct permits calls for genocide in certain contexts.
Stefanik was for sure looking for a gotcha. This question should not have provided it. If the president wasn’t feeling chatty, “yes” without any qualifications would have gotten the job done.
Bolding mine.
This.
It was a deliberate trap and she foolishly stepped right into it.
Whether that goof should be on her or on her briefers is harder for me to say.
I am confounded by the multiple assertions that the question was some kind of trap, some form of a “do you still beat your wife?” unwinnable dilemma.
I am sure that Stefanik was uninterested in honest debate. I am equally certain that an answer along the lines of “calling for genocide of the Jews is bullying, harassment and violative of our university’s standards” would have done the trick and offended no one.
I suspect the real issue is they were tied up with the demands of donors who had conflicting interests.
My take is, she was going down either way. When you’re in a no-win situation the best thing you can do is go out on principle, rather than look like a mealy-mouthed coward. She should have either said, “No, we protect free speech at all costs,” or “Yes, we absolutely do not accept calls for genocide,” or “Calls for genocide are an incitement to violence and therefore will result in expulsion” or some other plain speech version of what the school’s actual values are, and let the chips fall where they may.
Cowards, the lot of them.
She clarified in her clean-up video that this would violate their standards. I simply don’t understand why she couldn’t say that in her original testimony.
Thank you for bringing this documentary to my attention. I am planning to watch it tomorrow night with my husband (a former Catholic) and a very good friend of mine who is a Presbyterian minister. I’m looking forward to the ensuing discussion.
Yeah, for those that don’t get it, calling for genocide of the Jews could be violative of the university’s standards but still not meet any definition of bullying or harassment.
On the contrary, I think all three of them were overly prepped by their lawyers. Those were very ‘lawerly’ responses that might be appropriate in court, but were miserable in the court of public opinion. They all went way out of their way to say as little as possible, to commit to as little as possible, and be as vague as possible.
Magill had been law school faculty and administration at UVA and Stanford from her whole career from 1997 until she took the Penn president job in 2022.
A lawyer gave a lawyerly response. That’s it. No need to make up other motivations.