Meanwhile, at Harvard...
-
wrote on 9 Nov 2023, 16:02 last edited by
-
wrote on 17 Nov 2023, 17:43 last edited by
Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick:
-
wrote on 17 Nov 2023, 18:18 last edited by
They weren't for free speech, until they were.
-
wrote on 17 Nov 2023, 20:33 last edited by
All those harvard employees hate Jews.
It has been widely exposed over a few weeks now, but I continue to be surprised by this.
-
wrote on 5 Dec 2023, 23:18 last edited by
-
wrote on 5 Dec 2023, 23:31 last edited by
The institutions that gave us microaggressions and safe spaces now equivocate about open calls for genocide.
-
The institutions that gave us microaggressions and safe spaces now equivocate about open calls for genocide.
wrote on 6 Dec 2023, 00:25 last edited by@Horace said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:
The institutions that gave us microaggressions and safe spaces now equivocate about open calls for genocide.
Truly remarkable, isn't it?
-
wrote on 6 Dec 2023, 00:27 last edited by
You get what you teach.
-
wrote on 6 Dec 2023, 01:47 last edited by
And I get the impression that they don't get it at all.
-
wrote on 6 Dec 2023, 12:45 last edited by
From the RWEC:
What is striking to me is how unintelligently these three academics answered Stefanik’s questions. There are actually some interesting issues here, which a smart and principled administrator could have spoken about in a compelling way. But these academic hacks had nothing insightful to say, and were just trying to get out of the hearing as fast as they could, smirking all the while. I would only add that a Harvard student who wrote that all blacks should be murdered–say, in a conservative student paper, if Harvard had one–would not have a future at that institution. There would be no discussion of “context.”
-
wrote on 6 Dec 2023, 13:34 last edited by
-
wrote on 6 Dec 2023, 13:46 last edited by
Is this "seizing" or "pouncing?"
-
wrote on 6 Dec 2023, 21:40 last edited by jon-nyc 12 Jun 2023, 21:56
-
wrote on 6 Dec 2023, 21:56 last edited by
It would not have occurred to me that a policy against bullying and harassment would allow for calls for genocide against a certain group, while prohibiting calls for killing individual members of that group. Their premise is that that distinction is totally reasonable.
Education is extremely important.
-
wrote on 6 Dec 2023, 21:59 last edited by Aqua Letifer 12 Jun 2023, 21:59
I also think the tweet misses the point entirely. Yeah sure okay, that's what the hearings are about, but the problem on the table right now, the one we are and should be focusing on, isn't adherence to university harassment policies.
Please love yourself.
-
wrote on 6 Dec 2023, 22:01 last edited by
It's barely even worth making the hackneyed point that a call for the extermination of black people would not be tolerated. It's like we're ignoring the elephant in the room about double standards, and trying to make sense of this anti-semitic speech in isolation, and failing even to do that.
Education is extremely important.
-
It would not have occurred to me that a policy against bullying and harassment would allow for calls for genocide against a certain group, while prohibiting calls for killing individual members of that group. Their premise is that that distinction is totally reasonable.
-
It's barely even worth making the hackneyed point that a call for the extermination of black people would not be tolerated. It's like we're ignoring the elephant in the room about double standards, and trying to make sense of this anti-semitic speech in isolation, and failing even to do that.
wrote on 6 Dec 2023, 22:22 last edited byHe goes on to make the point that an hypocrisy charge is totally appropriate.
To be clear, since many people are making this point, I completely agree with @DeadLiftCapital that the university presidents can be charged with hypocrisy, but that is not the point that Stefanik or Ackman are making and is irrelevant to my argument.
-
His point is that harassment and bullying predicate interpersonal interactions.
It’s definitional. It’s not some fine distinction.
wrote on 6 Dec 2023, 22:32 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:
His point is that harassment and bullying predicate interpersonal interactions.
It’s definitional. It’s not some fine distinction.
It remains unsatisfying to believe there is a reasonable distinction to be made between "Kill Jews", "Kill all the Jews on campus", "Kill the members of the Jewish Zionist Student Organization", "Kill Joe the Jew". Based on your idea of the clear definitions, which of those aren't allowed, and which are?
-
wrote on 6 Dec 2023, 22:34 last edited by jon-nyc 12 Jun 2023, 22:37
It isn’t a question of what’s allowed. It’s a question of what constitutes harassment.
If I post a general comment here about (say) gender differences, should an employee at my foundation be able to report it to HR as harassment?
Of course not.
What if I post it and then send them the link? That’s different.
