Meanwhile, at Harvard...
-
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.
-
-
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.
-
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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?
-
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:
@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?
Of course not. Again, Lemoine’s point was rather specific. I even said it was a bit of a nitpick when I posted it.
You’re right that it’s beside the point. But maybe Stefanik could have gotten to the point?
-
@jon-nyc said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:
@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?
Of course not. Again, Lemoine’s point was rather specific. I even said it was a bit of a nitpick when I posted it.
You’re right that it’s beside the point. But maybe Stefanik could have gotten to the point?
If this were another century maybe. I hope against but always expect our legislators to be this incompetent.
-
The editors at National Review:
