Meanwhile, at Harvard...
-
wrote on 6 Dec 2023, 23:50 last edited by
The university presidents screwed up.
They should have given the simple yes or no - 1 word.
Why not? I think either way is legal and the fact that democrats now hate Jews is well known.
They acted like a bunch of guilty teenagers.
-
@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?
wrote on 6 Dec 2023, 23:59 last edited by@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?
-
@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?
wrote on 7 Dec 2023, 00:02 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 7 Dec 2023, 00:15 last edited by
The editors at National Review:
-
@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?
wrote on 7 Dec 2023, 00:45 last edited by@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?
I don't know why the senator was so specific about the policy, but even a harassment / bullying policy could be violated by a call for the murder of a group of people one is part of.
-
wrote on 7 Dec 2023, 04:14 last edited by
-
wrote on 7 Dec 2023, 04:38 last edited by
I would've kept it simple and said there is free speech on these campuses, as hateful as the speech might be, and that the university only intervenes once it seems like the speech is converting to a sticks and stones phases, as opposed to just words and air.
-
The university presidents screwed up.
They should have given the simple yes or no - 1 word.
Why not? I think either way is legal and the fact that democrats now hate Jews is well known.
They acted like a bunch of guilty teenagers.
wrote on 7 Dec 2023, 06:09 last edited by bachophile 12 Jul 2023, 06:10@Copper said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:
The university presidents screwed up.
They should have given the simple yes or no - 1 word.
Why not? I think either way is legal and the fact that democrats now hate Jews is well known.
They acted like a bunch of guilty teenagers.
well, it was a bit of a trick question, if you say yes, the next question is why wasnt anyone disciplined or expelled, if you say no, you sound like a fascist, so they tried to lawyer their way through by saying yes,but...(context blah blah blah)
and only after the fact do you see how simply assinine that sounds. but it was a lose lose situation, because the fact stands that no one was disciplined, or certainly expelled, so that has to be defended as defending free speech.
i really wonder if these presidents will keep their jobs, i understand there are lots of very angry board members at each school saying they humiliated themselves and the institutions they represent in front of the US Congress. not a pretty site.
-
wrote on 7 Dec 2023, 06:20 last edited by
-
wrote on 7 Dec 2023, 13:32 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:
FIRE President Greg Lukianoff with a principled take as you would expect.
More from FIRE. A little less nuanced.
-
wrote on 7 Dec 2023, 13:37 last edited by jon-nyc 12 Jul 2023, 13:37
I fear yesterday will become known as the day the right effectively signed off on hate-speech laws.
-
wrote on 7 Dec 2023, 14:05 last edited by
Sorry, but this is all a result of decades worth of accepting and even promoting criminal harassment, intimidation, and extortion and calling it free speech, while punishing and belittling those that peacefully assemble and express themselves.
Harassment and intimidation is not a policy issue for Presidents and Chancellors to debate, it’s a policing issue.
-
I fear yesterday will become known as the day the right effectively signed off on hate-speech laws.
wrote on 7 Dec 2023, 14:05 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:
I fear yesterday will become known as the day the right effectively signed off on hate-speech laws.
Imagine all those both sides are equal posts whenever anybody on the right complains about free speech. Terrifying indeed.
-
wrote on 7 Dec 2023, 14:07 last edited by
Is burning a cross "free speech?"
-
wrote on 7 Dec 2023, 14:12 last edited by
I'm a bit extreme, but sure...burn the cross. Tell someone you support genocide. Free speech laws are meant to protect the stuff that makes you uncomfortable, not the easy stuff. I tell my kids whenever a sibling tells another one "You're a booty butt!" (a very common insult when the 5 year old tries to get the 3 year old to cry). I tell them they are just words. Air and sound. They don't hurt and to ignore it. "Sticks and stones will break my bones but words cannot hurt me...
-
@jon-nyc said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:
FIRE President Greg Lukianoff with a principled take as you would expect.
More from FIRE. A little less nuanced.
wrote on 7 Dec 2023, 14:12 last edited by@George-K said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:
@jon-nyc said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:
FIRE President Greg Lukianoff with a principled take as you would expect.
More from FIRE. A little less nuanced.
It's certainly true that whatever speech and thought policing power is accumulated due to this, will be abused by the problem glass wearing middle aged progressive females in charge of the institutions. Maybe it's been 4D chess all along. Introduce an authoritarian idea blatantly biased against one political tribe, then watch them embrace the weapon when they see a chance to turn it on the other side. It's completely rational. What would any of us choose, between an unprincipled weapon used against our side exclusively, or an unprincipled weapon applied to everybody? Look to the chimp fairness experiment, there's your answer.
-
wrote on 7 Dec 2023, 14:13 last edited by
BTW the Penn statement was a good one, although she could've gone the "all lives matter" route and said the call for genocide of ANY group is wrong. I wonder if they were scared in congress to agree as they'd risk Muslim protests at their school?
-
I'm a bit extreme, but sure...burn the cross. Tell someone you support genocide. Free speech laws are meant to protect the stuff that makes you uncomfortable, not the easy stuff. I tell my kids whenever a sibling tells another one "You're a booty butt!" (a very common insult when the 5 year old tries to get the 3 year old to cry). I tell them they are just words. Air and sound. They don't hurt and to ignore it. "Sticks and stones will break my bones but words cannot hurt me...
wrote on 7 Dec 2023, 14:14 last edited by@89th said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:
I'm a bit extreme, but sure...burn the cross. Tell someone you support genocide. Free speech laws are meant to protect the stuff that makes you uncomfortable, not the easy stuff. I tell my kids whenever a sibling tells another one "You're a booty butt!" (a very common insult when the 5 year old tries to get the 3 year old to cry). I tell them they are just words. Air and sound. They don't hurt and to ignore it. "Sticks and stones will break my bones but words cannot hurt me...
I'm totally down with free speech absolutism, but as a practical matter, I like to consider what is possible, and the least bad options among them.
-
BTW the Penn statement was a good one, although she could've gone the "all lives matter" route and said the call for genocide of ANY group is wrong. I wonder if they were scared in congress to agree as they'd risk Muslim protests at their school?
wrote on 7 Dec 2023, 14:15 last edited by@89th said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:
BTW the Penn statement was a good one, although she could've gone the "all lives matter" route and said the call for genocide of ANY group is wrong. I wonder if they were scared in congress to agree as they'd risk Muslim protests at their school?
There may have been a followup question loaded up regarding the lack of sanctions handed out thus far.
-
wrote on 7 Dec 2023, 14:18 last edited by
@George-K said in Meanwhile, at Harvard...:
Is burning a cross "free speech?"
Scotus ruled blanket bans are unconstitutional but can be banned if the intent to intimidate is shown.