It certainly is.
I pushed the button to watch it. I could hardly believe what I saw. The two presidents balked at saying that calling for genocide of Jews is harassment. Not is a crime, not is against the law, not is murderous, not is violent, just is harassment. I don’t normally find myself on Team Stefanik, but I don’t normally expect presidents of high-status universities to smile blandly at calls for genociding the Jews, either.
Top university presidents defended their responses to antisemitism on their campuses in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war before Congress on Tuesday as they faced a grilling from lawmakers.
Claudine Gay, the president of Harvard, acknowledged an “alarming” rise in antisemitism at the university amid the tensions that have roiled campuses across the country since the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas and Israel’s military response in Gaza.
Gay testified alongside the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania and MIT at a House education committee hearing amid bipartisan concerns that many top higher education leaders haven’t done enough to stop hate on their campuses.
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), the chair of the panel, told the presidents that “institutional antisemitism and hate are among the poisoned fruits of your institutions’ cultures.” Foxx and a slew of other Republicans sought to tie rising campus antisemitism to their longstanding complaints that higher education is too progressive and intolerant to conservative views.
Wait wait wait. Since when is antisemitism “progressive”? Since when is opposition to antisemitism “conservative”?
Gay and Harvard were the focus for many Republicans on the panel, including Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y), who has called for her resignation.
In several testy exchanges, Stefanik, a Harvard alum, pressed Gay over whether Harvard would punish students or applicants who advocate for the murder of Jews.
…
Stefanik later pressed all three university leaders on whether calling for the genocide of Jews violated their campus codes of conduct. Each university president responded that it would depend on the context of the antisemitic statement, such as whether it was targeted at an individual or amounted to harassment.
Wait, god damn it. Stop. Think about what you’re saying. Calling for genocide of the Jews isn’t merely “antisemitic.” Calling for genocide isn’t merely anti. Calling for genocide is a whole other level and should not be handwaved as mere “hate speech” and the like.
Get a god damn grip.
Comments
25 responses to “Smilingly”
The president positions appear to be largely political at Penn and Harvard judging by the non-answers. That’s some next level mealy mouthing.
I recall when the ACLU defended those Nazis in Illinois who wanted to hold a demonstration, and won in court. Should they have lost instead?
@Opheila:
Ever since Jews were labelled “white”.
Why are Jews now labelled “white”? Because, in general, they are successful and adopt all of the attitudes that lead to success (valuing education, doing well at school, taking responsibility for their life trajectory, having a low crime rate, etc; Asian-Americans are “white” for the same reason).
Today’s “progressives” deplore all of these “white” traits and instead laud victim status and traits that perpetuate lack of success.
The Nazis in Skokie were asking to march in public, they were not students on a private university campus. That’s a red herring.
The Nazis in Skokie were demanding to march in public in a Jewish neighborhood. I’ve never been a fan of the ACLU position on that one.
@ 4 – About the private university aspect, they certainly could enforce banning protests during class for being disruptive. It wouldn’t stop them though and the process would also be a punishment not only for the protestors but for the university as well. So for now, they’re willing to put up with them. But point taken.
I think I side with the college presidents on this one. The question is too broad and indefinite. It’s a matter of context and interpretation.
First off, does “calling for the genocide of Jews” actually mean literally calling for the genocide of Jews, or is this a category where we connect the dots? Is it supposed to encompass the desire to eliminate Israel or the view that Israelis settler-colonialist aggressors are the bad guys in a just war? Is “I stand with Palestine” a deliberate call for genocide? What about “I stand with Hamas?” As disgusting and reprehensible and ignorant as I believe these views are, I also believe they fall on the side of protected expression instead of actionable misconduct. It’s technically political speech, “ advocating in general terms for violence elsewhere at an unspecified time against a broadly defined target.”
As for harassment , according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
That’s a strict standard. While finding out that their fellow students support Hamas is certainly distressing and even heartbreaking, it doesn’t prevent Jewish students from attending class. Adding “Jews” then to the laundry list of Diversity Equity and Inclusion victims who can shut down debate or even expression isn’t in my opinion a good option.
I agree with Sastra here. I would add that woman from Harvard tried to clarify what “harassment” means, and she was not able to complete her statement without being cut off. The issue is not how bad it is to call for genocide, but what specific acts constitute bullying or harassment. Both women said that it has to be directed at an individual, and that was met with “Yes, Jewish individuals”, which I think missed the point. It’s one thing to say, perhaps in a paper or blog post or conversation with a friend, “Jews should be exterminated”, and another thing to walk up to a Jewish person or group and say “You Jews should be exterminated”. The latter is directed at an individual, the former is not.
The condescending smiles from that first woman really didn’t help the situation.
Right after I read this, I saw Kevin Drum’s take on the incident.
Gaaaa…where to begin?
Stefanik seems genuinely aggrieved and offended, but it’s hard to know whether she is acting in good faith or grandstanding. Wikipedia shows an ‘R’ next to her name, so I’m going to assume grandstanding.
The next problem is that she’s asking the wrong question. She wants the harassment policy to suppress speech, and it doesn’t. That’s not what it’s for. The harassment policy suppresses harassment, not speech. The university–the academy–is in fact strongly committed to never suppressing speech: even bad or abhorrent speech.
Whether a particular speech act constitutes harassment is fact-specific: you have to look at the facts of a specific case and make a decision about sanctioning or expelling a specific member of the academy. The primary function of the harassment policy is to provide a principled basis for such decisions.
It is tempting to declare that genocide is simply beyond the pale, and that calling for genocide is a per-se violation of university policy. The problem is that this is absolutely a slippery slope. You know–you KNOW–that if you do this then next week the trans activists will be lined up outside the administration building howling that deadnaming is genocide and demanding that all the TERFs be expelled for wrong-think. And the end-point is lese majeste laws (Thailand), blasphemy laws (Pakistan) and witch-hunts–the real ones, where they kill the women (sub-Saharan Africa).
And, yes, the witnesses come across as a bunch of mealy-mouthed apparatchiks. The phrase “context-dependent” is especially unfortunate, because it suggests that genocide is sometimes OK and sometimes not. Sigh…
I don’t know, maybe I’m being too literal about it, but I can’t help thinking that if enough people go around “calling for genocide” then the result is genocide. It’s not as if genocides don’t happen. They didn’t screech to a stop in 1945; there have been quite a few of them since then. The Partition of India; Cambodia; Rwanda; Bosnia; the Rohingya; Uighurs to name just a few.
[That’s not a reply to your comment, Steven, I hadn’t seen it when I pushed the publish button.]
One huge problem here is the glaring double standards.
Students can march around campus chanting “Intifada revolution” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free”. The DEI apparatchiks keep schtum.
But if a student should email his class mates saying: “This Friday at 7:30, we will be christening our very own (soon to be) world-renowned NALSA Trap House by throwing a Constitution Day Bash in collaboration with FedSoc” then all hell breaks loose.
Personally I’d err on the side of free speech (so the above two chants are ok, just, not being literal calls for the death of Jews, whereas literal calls for genocide would not be), but the same rules should apply to all regardless of whether their “identity” is one of the favoured ones.
A lot of universities have been suppressing women’s speech. I don’t know how pervasive it is in the US, but we’ve seen several cases in the UK.
I was witness to a university event where they permitted a pro-life rally (in spite of the fact that the rally was nearly last minute, not meeting the requirements for how far in advance you must apply for the permit). The pro-choice side requested a similar permit, but was told they had applied after the date passed for requesting the permit, in spite of the fact that they had just issued a permit to the pro-life side.
When the pro-choice students showed up at the rally and asked questions, one of the pro-life speakers pulled a gun. Yes, he was arrested (even in Texas, some things – used to be – beyond acceptable). Meanwhile, the pro-choicers never got their permit. Why? Because of the gun and the threat of violence; it was too dangerous.
Yeah, universities suppress speech all the time. A university removes the art work of one of their art students from the exhibit because local Christian leaders are offended. A college refuses to allow atheist speakers or events, even though there have been many Christian events.
In the end, most universities and colleges decide which speech to suppress. Academic freedom must give way to social standards, at least according to the institution where I used to teach. “We value academic freedom, and it is absolutely supported on our campuses” turns to “you can’t teach that!” when someone complains. I know this – I encountered it personally.
This from a tweet by Moti Gorin on this matter is pretty good:
Popehat has an excellent sub stack essay about this (see Punishment Envy).
I’m absolutely with you on this, Ophelia. Let’s be clear: calls for ‘genocide’ are calls for the extermination of an entire class of people, based solely on their ethnicity. This horrifies me.
It is literally a call for mass murder and surely must fall within the cognisance of the law, even in the USA, famed for its commitment to freedom of speech.
NightCrow, you’re right that calls for genocide are horrifying. More horrifying than many other expressions and calls for hatred and harm. As I understand it though, in the USA for even a call for genocide to be actionable, it would have to meet the test applied in Brandenburg vs Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969), which requires that the speech concerned result in imminent lawless action. So, as I understand it from listening to/reading legal types, the requirement isn’t just that the called for act is illegal, or even that the called for act occurs, but that it occurs ‘imminently.” That doesn’t mean at some unspecified point in the future. It certainly feels like a legal test that isn’t suited for the internet age, or for the concept of stochastic terrorism. There may be Federal or State level hate crime statutes that could apply, I don’t know.
Rob @ 16, thanks for the suggestion of Popehat’s essay on Punishment Envy. It’s quite good, and he admits he doesn’t have any clear answers on the topic, either.
I wish Stefanik had asked for specific clarification, like
“In what context would a statement like ” not be considered harassment?’
Still, the position of the presidents could possibly be defended on the grounds of “free speech” if it weren’t for the double standard. I am sure that a demonstration where people chant “transwomen are men!” would be considered harassment under all circumstances in the current climate because it “makes trans people feel unsafe”.
So how can “it makes people feel unsafe” be a criterion to forbid one statement but not the other? How can “it makes people feel unsafe” be the basis of removing literature from seminars (as it currently seems to happen in academia), but statements calling for the murder of Jews are still “free speech” if not directed at specific individuals?
In the end, it all boils down to identity politics: If you are a member of a group that is considered to be marginalized (trans people, muslims, people of color), making you feel unsafe cannot be tolerated, if you are not a member of one of these groups, the ideology seems to imply that you cannot actually feel unsafe (and if you do, you are overreacting) because you are privileged. And, due to the ranking that is implied in current identity politics, a group that was considered marginalised before (women, jews) is not if you can find a group that is more marginalised on the same axis (like transwomen) or is marginalised along two axes (like palestinians where the axes can be claiimed to be racial and islamophobic).
@Sonderval:
Indeed so, hence the dismissive “white woman’s tears”.
Hence why a lone woman in Central Park, with no-one else around, cannot actually have felt “unsafe” when approached by a larger man who said “you’re not going to like what I’m going to do”. She must have been putting it on for effect.
She should’ve kept her dog on a fucking leash, so no, fuck her (though the birder was also an asshole).
The essay by Ken White is good and I think his parting thought about how universities, law firms, etc. should comport themselves regarding taking public positions on issues is sensible. When it comes to social justice though, which has adopted the stance dating back to the 1960s that basically says: “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem”, you can see how this pressures universities into taking sides on controversial issues. Take diversity for example, which universities have been pursuing to the point of practically dismissing merit as a qualification for admission as well as the hiring of faculty. Is diversity that desirable as an end unto itself, or is it something universities do to avoid being criticized for not helping those from oppressed groups? Probably it’s more peer pressure as no university now wants to be seen as not being supportive of Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity. Of course in practice this has meant supporting charlatans like Kendi, whose “whiteness” schtick has become a joke academically, but HR departments everywhere are still marinating in it. Oh well.
Update: The Harvard and UPenn presidents have now clarified that they condemn calls for genocide. (Still waiting to see if there is a followup from MIT’s (Jewish) pres.)
https://forward.com/fast-forward/572554/under-fire-harvard-and-upenn-presidents-condemn-calling-for-genocide-of-jews/
Sorry to keep quoting Popehat, but he does tend to have on-point things to say about some of the topics we talk about. Here’s his latest sub stack dealing specifically with the Stefanik circus (because that’s what it was. -political circus). Again, no answers to the big questions, but a bluntly stated view on process and thinking.
https://open.substack.com/pub/popehat/p/stop-demanding-dumb-answers-to-hard