Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

The New Coffee Room

  1. TNCR
  2. General Discussion
  3. Meanwhile, at Harvard...

Meanwhile, at Harvard...

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
237 Posts 16 Posters 7.4k Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • JollyJ Offline
    JollyJ Offline
    Jolly
    wrote on last edited by
    #93

    You get what you teach.

    “Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”

    Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton

    1 Reply Last reply
    • CopperC Offline
      CopperC Offline
      Copper
      wrote on last edited by
      #94

      And I get the impression that they don't get it at all.

      1 Reply Last reply
      • George KG Offline
        George KG Offline
        George K
        wrote on last edited by
        #95

        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.”

        "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

        The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

        1 Reply Last reply
        • George KG Offline
          George KG Offline
          George K
          wrote on last edited by
          #96

          "Exclusionary is ok if it's self-imposed."

          "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

          The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

          1 Reply Last reply
          • George KG Offline
            George KG Offline
            George K
            wrote on last edited by
            #97

            Is this "seizing" or "pouncing?"

            image.jpeg

            "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

            The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

            1 Reply Last reply
            • jon-nycJ Online
              jon-nycJ Online
              jon-nyc
              wrote on last edited by jon-nyc
              #98

              Interesting take. A bit of a nitpick but probably correct.

              You were warned.

              1 Reply Last reply
              • HoraceH Online
                HoraceH Online
                Horace
                wrote on last edited by
                #99

                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.

                jon-nycJ 1 Reply Last reply
                • Aqua LetiferA Offline
                  Aqua LetiferA Offline
                  Aqua Letifer
                  wrote on last edited by Aqua Letifer
                  #100

                  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.

                  jon-nycJ 1 Reply Last reply
                  • HoraceH Online
                    HoraceH Online
                    Horace
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #101

                    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.

                    jon-nycJ 1 Reply Last reply
                    • HoraceH Horace

                      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.

                      jon-nycJ Online
                      jon-nycJ Online
                      jon-nyc
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #102

                      @Horace

                      His point is that harassment and bullying predicate interpersonal interactions.

                      It’s definitional. It’s not some fine distinction.

                      You were warned.

                      HoraceH 1 Reply Last reply
                      • HoraceH Horace

                        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.

                        jon-nycJ Online
                        jon-nycJ Online
                        jon-nyc
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #103

                        @Horace

                        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.

                        You were warned.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

                          @Horace

                          His point is that harassment and bullying predicate interpersonal interactions.

                          It’s definitional. It’s not some fine distinction.

                          HoraceH Online
                          HoraceH Online
                          Horace
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #104

                          @jon-nyc said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:

                          @Horace

                          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?

                          Education is extremely important.

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          • jon-nycJ Online
                            jon-nycJ Online
                            jon-nyc
                            wrote on last edited by jon-nyc
                            #105

                            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.

                            You were warned.

                            HoraceH 1 Reply Last reply
                            • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

                              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.

                              HoraceH Online
                              HoraceH Online
                              Horace
                              wrote on last edited by jon-nyc
                              #106

                              @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.

                              Education is extremely important.

                              HoraceH 1 Reply Last reply
                              • jon-nycJ Online
                                jon-nycJ Online
                                jon-nyc
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #107

                                FIRE President Greg Lukianoff with a principled take as you would expect.

                                You were warned.

                                HoraceH George KG 2 Replies Last reply
                                • Aqua LetiferA Aqua Letifer

                                  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.

                                  jon-nycJ Online
                                  jon-nycJ Online
                                  jon-nyc
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #108

                                  @Aqua-Letifer said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:

                                  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.

                                  Seems like Representative Stefancik missed the point.

                                  You were warned.

                                  Aqua LetiferA 1 Reply Last reply
                                  • jon-nycJ Online
                                    jon-nycJ Online
                                    jon-nyc
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #109

                                    Horace - forgive me I accidentally edited your post above instead of replying to it. Fat fingers, small phone.

                                    I can’t undo it or I would. I’ll make a note in the post itself

                                    You were warned.

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    • HoraceH Horace

                                      @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.

                                      HoraceH Online
                                      HoraceH Online
                                      Horace
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #110

                                      @jon-nyc said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:

                                      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.

                                      My four scenarios about Joe the Jew are coherent as either allowed or disallowed within any policy you'd care to name.

                                      Education is extremely important.

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

                                        FIRE President Greg Lukianoff with a principled take as you would expect.

                                        HoraceH Online
                                        HoraceH Online
                                        Horace
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #111

                                        @jon-nyc said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:

                                        FIRE President Greg Lukianoff with a principled take as you would expect.

                                        From the from the comments:

                                        Best line: "As FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff has written, censorship doesn’t change a person’s mind — it only prevents us from knowing what’s in their mind."

                                        This is actually not quite accurate. Ideas which people cannot talk about, do die, or are at least damaged. It's poetic to think that somehow, karmically, the ideas remain, and emerge stronger when finally freed, but really, as programmable meat robots, if you deprive humans of the programming, which is to say the messaging and conversation around it, those ideas do go away.

                                        Education is extremely important.

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

                                          @Aqua-Letifer said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:

                                          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.

                                          Seems like Representative Stefancik missed the point.

                                          Aqua LetiferA Offline
                                          Aqua LetiferA Offline
                                          Aqua Letifer
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #112

                                          @jon-nyc said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:

                                          @Aqua-Letifer said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:

                                          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.

                                          Seems like Representative Stefancik missed the point.

                                          Are you of the opinion that anti-semitism isn't a concern at these universities, and that university policy is what we should be focusing on?

                                          Please love yourself.

                                          jon-nycJ 1 Reply Last reply
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups