Meanwhile, at Harvard...
-
Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick:
-
They weren't for free speech, until they were.
-
Education is extremely important.
-
You get what you teach.
-
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.”
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
His point is that harassment and bullying predicate interpersonal interactions.
It’s definitional. It’s not some fine distinction.
-
He 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.
-
@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?
-
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.
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
@jon-nyc said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:
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.
Thanks. I guess I was thinking about it all wrong. I had been thinking that the subject was, what was or was not allowed as campus speech.
***************-
note from Jon. I tried to reply to this but hit edit accidentally. I cut off the rest of his paragraph. The text below here is my “reply”
***************-The entirety of Lemoine’s point was about Stefanik asking about whether this constituted ‘harassment and bullying’.
Perhaps the universities have ‘hate speech’ codes that this could have violated, in which case surely the Representative could have nailed them on that.
