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.
  • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

    @Horace , I didn’t punt so much as point out it was irrelevant to the conversation about the lemoine post.

    But to the question I would imagine that a general policy drawing the line between 1 and 2 would survive any first amendment challenge, but even that line is context dependent. In the right context all four could be prohibited consistent with the 1st amendment.

    HoraceH Offline
    HoraceH Offline
    Horace
    wrote on last edited by
    #206

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

    I didn’t ignore it so much as point out it was irrelevant to the conversation about the lemoine post.

    But to the question I would imagine that a general policy drawing the line between 1 and 2 would survive any first amendment challenge, but even that line is context dependent. In the right context all four could be prohibited consistent with the 1st amendment.

    You keep going back to the first amendment, when the question is explicitly about university policy. That's exactly what got people giggled at a few months ago, when it so happens that it was the right, rather than the mainstream center left, that was doing it. It's known as a "bad free speech take".

    Education is extremely important.

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

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

      It's not the words, it's the intent. If you can somehow prove to me that the mobs in MIT and Harvard were merely trying to express their opinion, and raise awareness about an important issue, then sure, fine. But they were doing a shitload more than that.

      Right. Congratulations - to the Presidents’ point, you just added context!

      At Harvard, they literally boxed in Jewish students and wouldn't let them leave. It's ridiculous to call this free speech.

      Right, and Stefanik didn’t ask about this and I have little doubt the administrators would have said such actions are clear violations of many policies and perhaps state laws.

      Aqua LetiferA Offline
      Aqua LetiferA Offline
      Aqua Letifer
      wrote on last edited by
      #207

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

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

      It's not the words, it's the intent. If you can somehow prove to me that the mobs in MIT and Harvard were merely trying to express their opinion, and raise awareness about an important issue, then sure, fine. But they were doing a shitload more than that.

      Right. Congratulations - to the Presidents’ point, you just added context!

      No, she said "it depends on the context."
      She did not but should have said, "absolutely not in this particular context."

      Please love yourself.

      1 Reply Last reply
      • jon-nycJ Offline
        jon-nycJ Offline
        jon-nyc
        wrote on last edited by
        #208

        @Aqua-Letifer Yes but the question to her (the viral one anyway) was not about actual campus protests that happened it was a hypothetical.

        Only non-witches get due process.

        • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
        Aqua LetiferA 1 Reply Last reply
        • HoraceH Horace

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

          I didn’t ignore it so much as point out it was irrelevant to the conversation about the lemoine post.

          But to the question I would imagine that a general policy drawing the line between 1 and 2 would survive any first amendment challenge, but even that line is context dependent. In the right context all four could be prohibited consistent with the 1st amendment.

          You keep going back to the first amendment, when the question is explicitly about university policy. That's exactly what got people giggled at a few months ago, when it so happens that it was the right, rather than the mainstream center left, that was doing it. It's known as a "bad free speech take".

          jon-nycJ Offline
          jon-nycJ Offline
          jon-nyc
          wrote on last edited by jon-nyc
          #209

          @Horace said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:

          You keep going back to the first amendment, when the question is explicitly about university policy. That's exactly what got people giggled at a few months ago, when it so happens that it was the right, rather than the mainstream center left, that was doing it. It's known as a "bad free speech take".

          This makes no sense, the university presidents had good free speech takes. Show me someone who said what they did who got giggles.

          Only non-witches get due process.

          • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
          HoraceH 1 Reply Last reply
          • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

            @Aqua-Letifer Yes but the question to her (the viral one anyway) was not about actual campus protests that happened it was a hypothetical.

            Aqua LetiferA Offline
            Aqua LetiferA Offline
            Aqua Letifer
            wrote on last edited by Aqua Letifer
            #210

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

            @Aqua-Letifer Yes but the question to her (the viral one anyway) was not about actual campus protests that happened it was a hypothetical.

            No it wasn't, she was there in that room, answering that hypothetical precisely because of the myriad shit that, in reality, she allowed on her campus.

            Please love yourself.

            1 Reply Last reply
            • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

              @Horace said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:

              You keep going back to the first amendment, when the question is explicitly about university policy. That's exactly what got people giggled at a few months ago, when it so happens that it was the right, rather than the mainstream center left, that was doing it. It's known as a "bad free speech take".

              This makes no sense, the university presidents had good free speech takes. Show me someone who said what they did who got giggles.

              HoraceH Offline
              HoraceH Offline
              Horace
              wrote on last edited by
              #211

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

              @Horace said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:

              You keep going back to the first amendment, when the question is explicitly about university policy. That's exactly what got people giggled at a few months ago, when it so happens that it was the right, rather than the mainstream center left, that was doing it. It's known as a "bad free speech take".

              This makes no sense, the university presidents had good free speech takes. Show me someone who said what they did who got giggles.

              They were not asked about the first amendment. They were asked about their policies.

              People on the right often referenced constitutional free speech when complaining about Twitter policies. You giggled at those takes. You wanted to start a thread to keep track of them, they were so hilarious. And now here you are referencing constitutional free speech when trying to justify Harvard's policies.

              This conversation is about Harvard's (and MIT's etc) policies and the incoherence of the authorities who apply it.

              Education is extremely important.

              1 Reply Last reply
              • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

                @George-K said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:

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

                Some say that about people who say trans women are not women.

                And some will say that burning a cross on your front lawn is protected speech.

                So, yeah, where's the line?

                The ‘on your front lawn’ part makes it with the intent to intimidate. “Death to Jews” on a sign in front of the synagogue will cross well established first amendment lines.

                George KG Offline
                George KG Offline
                George K
                wrote on last edited by George K
                #212

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

                The ‘on your front lawn’ part makes it with the intent to intimidate.

                I was unclear. If I burn a cross on MY front lawn, does it cross the line?

                "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.

                RenaudaR 1 Reply Last reply
                • George KG George K

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

                  The ‘on your front lawn’ part makes it with the intent to intimidate.

                  I was unclear. If I burn a cross on MY front lawn, does it cross the line?

                  RenaudaR Offline
                  RenaudaR Offline
                  Renauda
                  wrote on last edited by Renauda
                  #213

                  @George-K

                  If I burn a cross on MY front lawn, does it cross the line?

                  It may cross municipal open fire regulations and bylaws. Even worse being that your front law is in the USA, it may not comply with HOA rules regarding lawn ornaments and accessories.

                  One thing for sure is that it would generate a lot of local gossip that could be totally out of context with your intentions to burn the cross in the first place.

                  Elbows up!

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

                    @Horace said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:

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

                    If it were that I’d chime in. See Philip Lemoine’s comments which we discussed.

                    At the end of the day, the university presidents communicated the view that is consistent with the first amendment. Speech is not per se harassment or bullying. It does in fact depend on context.

                    They weren't asked about the first amendment, they were asked about university policy.

                    They were asked about “harassment and bullying” policies in the viral clip.

                    CopperC Offline
                    CopperC Offline
                    Copper
                    wrote on last edited by Copper
                    #214

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

                    They were asked about “harassment and bullying” policies in the viral clip.

                    That's right.

                    Are either of those illegal?

                    Or was it simply a question about the schools' policy and whether it was evenly applied?

                    I'm not sure if the Congresswoman ever got a straight answer to her question so I couldn't tell exactly where she was going.

                    LuFins DadL 1 Reply Last reply
                    • CopperC Copper

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

                      They were asked about “harassment and bullying” policies in the viral clip.

                      That's right.

                      Are either of those illegal?

                      Or was it simply a question about the schools' policy and whether it was evenly applied?

                      I'm not sure if the Congresswoman ever got a straight answer to her question so I couldn't tell exactly where she was going.

                      LuFins DadL Offline
                      LuFins DadL Offline
                      LuFins Dad
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #215

                      @Copper said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:

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

                      They were asked about “harassment and bullying” policies in the viral clip.

                      That's right.

                      Are either of those illegal?

                      Yes. If charged as a misdemeanor, it would be 6-12 months in jail. If charged as a class 6 felony, it would be 1-5 years.

                      The Brad

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      • George KG Offline
                        George KG Offline
                        George K
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #216

                        https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/opinion/antisemitism-university-presidents.html?smid=url-share

                        What the University Presidents Got Right and Wrong About Antisemitic Speech

                        I had a singular thought: Censorship helped put these presidents in their predicament, and censorship will not help them escape.

                        I’m a former litigator who spent much of my legal career battling censorship on college campuses, and the thing that struck me about the presidents’ answers wasn’t their legal insufficiency but rather their stunning hypocrisy. And it’s that hypocrisy, not the presidents’ understanding of the law, that has created a campus crisis.

                        First, let’s deal with the law. Harvard, Penn and M.I.T. are private universities. Unlike public schools, they’re not bound by the First Amendment, and they therefore possess enormous freedom to fashion their own custom speech policies. But while they are not bound by law to protect free speech, they are required, as educational institutions that receive federal funds, to protect students against discriminatory harassment, including — in some instances — student-on-student peer harassment.

                        Supreme Court has held that in the absence of an actual, immediate threat — such as an incitement to violence — the government cannot punish a person who advocates violence.

                        So if the university presidents were largely (though clumsily) correct about the legal balance, why the outrage? To quote the presidents back to themselves, context matters. For decades now, we’ve watched as campus administrators from coast to coast have constructed a comprehensive web of policies and practices intended to suppress so-called hate speech and to support students who find themselves distressed by speech they find offensive.

                        The result has been a network of speech codes, bias response teams, safe spaces and glossaries of microaggressions that are all designed to protect students from alleged emotional harm. But not all students. When, as a student at Harvard Law School, I was booed and hissed and told to “go die” for articulating pro-life or other conservative views, exactly zero administrators cared about my feelings. Nor did it cross my mind to ask them for help. I was an adult. I could handle my classmates’ anger.

                        But reform can’t be confined to policies. It also has to apply to cultures. As Pinker notes, that means disempowering a diversity, equity and inclusion apparatus that is itself all too often an engine of censorship and extreme political bias. Most important, universities need to take affirmative steps to embrace greater viewpoint diversity. Ideological monocultures breed groupthink, intolerance and oppression.

                        Universities must absorb the fundamental truth that the best answer to bad speech is better speech, not censorship. Recently I watched and listened to a video of a Jewish student’s

                        with pro-Palestinian demonstrators at Columbia University. Her voice shakes, and there’s no doubt that it was hard for her to speak. I’d urge you to listen to the entire thing. She seeks a “genuine and real conversation” but also tells her audience exactly what it means to her when she hears terms like “Zionist dogs.”

                        "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
                        • JollyJ Offline
                          JollyJ Offline
                          Jolly
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #217

                          Hiding behind their virtue masks...

                          “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
                          • 89th8 Offline
                            89th8 Offline
                            89th
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #218

                            People getting really worked up over words. Sticks and stones are real... but not at these silly college campuses right now.

                            ANYWAY....... curious if @Ivorythumper 's tree neighbor (lawyer at Penn?) is involved? 🙂

                            George KG 1 Reply Last reply
                            • 89th8 89th

                              People getting really worked up over words. Sticks and stones are real... but not at these silly college campuses right now.

                              ANYWAY....... curious if @Ivorythumper 's tree neighbor (lawyer at Penn?) is involved? 🙂

                              George KG Offline
                              George KG Offline
                              George K
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #219

                              @89th said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:

                              People getting really worked up over words.

                              That's sort of the point. When "misgendering" someone gets you hauled before a panel at the university, there's a problem.

                              "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
                                #220

                                "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 Offline
                                  jon-nycJ Offline
                                  jon-nyc
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #221

                                  Whites and Jews the only groups? That’s nonsense. I don’t a Mormon affinity celebration, or a Buddhist affinity celebration, or….

                                  Only non-witches get due process.

                                  • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  • George KG Offline
                                    George KG Offline
                                    George K
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #222

                                    No Lithuanians either.

                                    Though, one could make the case that Buddhists, Mormons and Lithuanians are not a "race."

                                    "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.

                                    jon-nycJ 1 Reply Last reply
                                    • HoraceH Offline
                                      HoraceH Offline
                                      Horace
                                      wrote on last edited by
                                      #223

                                      I went to a college graduation a few months ago where the black students got a special sash that said "Black Excellence". Nobody else got sashes. I wondered whether they would get pats on the head as they received their diplomas, but sadly, none were offered. Racist.

                                      I'm nonplussed that any of this is surprising. These are dead center mainstream popular culture antics at colleges.

                                      Education is extremely important.

                                      1 Reply Last reply
                                      • George KG George K

                                        No Lithuanians either.

                                        Though, one could make the case that Buddhists, Mormons and Lithuanians are not a "race."

                                        jon-nycJ Offline
                                        jon-nycJ Offline
                                        jon-nyc
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #224

                                        @George-K said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:

                                        No Lithuanians either.

                                        Though, one could make the case that Buddhists, Mormons and Lithuanians are not a "race."

                                        Neither are LGBTQwxyz

                                        Only non-witches get due process.

                                        • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                                        LuFins DadL George KG 2 Replies Last reply
                                        • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

                                          @George-K said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:

                                          No Lithuanians either.

                                          Though, one could make the case that Buddhists, Mormons and Lithuanians are not a "race."

                                          Neither are LGBTQwxyz

                                          LuFins DadL Offline
                                          LuFins DadL Offline
                                          LuFins Dad
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #225

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

                                          @George-K said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:

                                          No Lithuanians either.

                                          Though, one could make the case that Buddhists, Mormons and Lithuanians are not a "race."

                                          Neither are LGBTQwxyz

                                          Simple math. The Human Race has 2 genders. Many of these individuals don’t fit within those 2 genders. Therefore they must be some other type of race…

                                          The Brad

                                          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