University of Pennyslvania president foced to resign

[basketcase]

Nonsense. No one is calling for the genocide of Jews.
.

She was asked explicitly whether calling for the genocide of Jews would be a violation of the school code of conduct. She said it would depend. The question might have been a leading question but her answer was clear.


But sorry but "from the river to the sea" and "by any means necessary" are used by many people as a call for the elimination of the Jewish presence using violence and many alleged human rights advocates celebrated Hamas for doing exactly that.


And retaliation? That's just dumb. She made her university look horrible which is the precise opposite of what the job entails.

 

[basketcase]

Provide proof that this has ever happened or cement your status as hasbara troll.

So you now think Israel's world control is so extreme that everyone that calls you on your racist shot must be paid by Israel? You're sounding just like a flat earther.

And I know you don't care what Palestinians want but you should at least pay attention when hamas and PIJ speak.

 

[basketcase]

You've previously stated that you think calling for equal rights is calling for genocide.
Your views are too biased to consider.

Wow your claims get more moronic every day.

What your call for a One State peace proves is you don't give a shit that Palestinians only 5% of them want it. Hamas doesn't want any peace with Jews there. PIJ doesn't want any peace with Jews there. 75% of Palestinians don't want any peace with Jews there.

 

[Frankfooter]

She was asked explicitly whether calling for the genocide of Jews would be a violation of the school code of conduct. She said it would depend. The question might have been a leading question but her answer was clear.


But sorry but "from the river to the sea" and "by any means necessary" are used by many people as a call for the elimination of the Jewish presence using violence and many alleged human rights advocates celebrated Hamas for doing exactly that.


And retaliation? That's just dumb. She made her university look horrible which is the precise opposite of what the job entails.

'From the river to the sea' is also the motto of the Likud charter, is that genocidal too then?
Or is it only when Palestinians say it, even if they say it just means freedom, and then only when zionist Jews and not non-zionist Jews here it?
Is it genocidal the way you think 'Free Palestine' or 'equal rights' mean genocide to you?

Or does that depend?

 

[Frankfooter]

Wow your claims get more moronic every day.

What your call for a One State peace proves is you don't give a shit that Palestinians only 5% of them want it. Hamas doesn't want any peace with Jews there. PIJ doesn't want any peace with Jews there. 75% of Palestinians don't want any peace with Jews there.
View attachment 282242

They are living through a genocide by the hands of zionists right now.
Why do you think they would now trust zionists again, if ever?

How are you going to get Palestinians to trust zionists now, are you just going to have to kill them all, now that you've started?

 

[Frankfooter]

So you now think Israel's world control is so extreme that everyone that calls you on your racist shot must be paid by Israel? You're sounding just like a flat earther.

And I know you don't care what Palestinians want but you should at least pay attention when hamas and PIJ speak.

Confirmed, you are trolling and can't defend your claims.
Ever.

There is now no reason for me to answer anything by you or treat your posts seriously.

The world you have helped create has made kids suffer through 5 wars, apartheid rule and the killing of their families.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1733815059539804198

 

[Valcazar]

Leaders expressly saying that calls for the genocide of Jews is not necessarily a violation of student codes of conduct is a huge part of that.

To paraphrase Bill Maher, mis-gendering someone is taken more seriously than saying kill the Jews.

I see Bill Maher is as unaware of reality as always.

 

[Valcazar]

I think Magill's answer was coy. It was intended to not give a wrong answer or rather a response that certain constituencies in her university would find disagreeable.

I don't think it was a profile in courage. It was not the "right" answer.

It was the correct answer legally and factually.
It was not the "right" answer politically.

I think it is totally legit to think that as a University president her job is to navigate political bullshit and she (and the others) played this wrong.
Of course, we don't have the counterfactual where she answered differently and Stefianik attacked her and accused her of antisemitism in a different way, so who knows if this was the best she could hope for. (I don't think so, I think there was probably a response where she still got accused but managed to not have so much pressure she had to step down.)

 

[Valcazar]

Universities still getting this wrong. It's not simply about whether you "hate" (everyone hates someone or something, and is entitled to speak about who they hate and what they hate), it's about whether you incite mass hatred and violence against others.

Which was her point.
Stefanik and company wanted the university presidents to say that actual incitement wasn't necessary - just saying "the wrong words".
They argued for your position instead, and are paying the price for that nuance.

 

[WyattEarp]

It was the correct answer legally and factually.
It was not the "right" answer politically.

I think it is totally legit to think that as a University president her job is to navigate political bullshit and she (and the others) played this wrong.

Interesting you said this because I about to say a major University President should have much more political acumen.

I can only attribute this to poor advisors and poor coaching. It reminds me of primary candidates from either party who seem to have been coached to deliver a certain response. The response then seems tone-deaf and not even being close to being organic and sincere.

Would have it killed her to say the University is condemning and not tolerating speech that calls for overrunning and annihilating the Jews in Israel?

I wouldn't cry for Magill. She is very highly-compensated and likely given a generous package to take the rap for such a controversy. In the end, you fire the leader who doesn't have the acumen to listen to the right people and say the right thing even if she is just representing the University's actual position.

 

[WyattEarp]

Which was her point.
Stefanik and company wanted the university presidents to say that actual incitement wasn't necessary - just saying "the wrong words".
They argued for your position instead, and are paying the price for that nuance.

I think you give Stefanik too much credit. The backlash towards universities from their alumni and the public is spontaneous.

Magill was not handling the situation well even before her speaking to Congress.

 

[Frankfooter]

It was the correct answer legally and factually.
It was not the "right" answer politically.

I think it is totally legit to think that as a University president her job is to navigate political bullshit and she (and the others) played this wrong.
Of course, we don't have the counterfactual where she answered differently and Stefianik attacked her and accused her of antisemitism in a different way, so who knows if this was the best she could hope for. (I don't think so, I think there was probably a response where she still got accused but managed to not have so much pressure she had to step down.)

It was the Salem Witch trials, really.

There was no way to answer where she wouldn't be accused of antisemitism, unless she declared that any mention of Palestine is antisemitic at this point. Stefianiak's accuser sees antisemitism everywhere, so free speech becomes antisemitic if it allows 'free Palestine' or 'from the river to the sea'.
Her attacker went so far as to try to get Stefianiak to confirm that 'intifada' means 'genocide'.

Universities have enough other crap going on these days without this.

 

[Valcazar]

She was asked explicitly whether calling for the genocide of Jews would be a violation of the school code of conduct. She said it would depend. The question might have been a leading question but her answer was clear.

And correct.

And retaliation? That's just dumb. She made her university look horrible which is the precise opposite of what the job entails.

This is the legitimate part of the argument.
Part of a University President's job is to handle bullshit like what happened here, and since the University is still getting shit, an argument for her not being good at her job is legitimate.

 

[Valcazar]

Interesting you said this because I about to say a major University President should have much more political acumen.

I think that's a legitimate position.
A big part of their job is fundraising and advocacy so expecting them to be better politically isn't unreasonable.

I can only attribute this to poor advisors and poor coaching. It reminds me of primary candidates from either party who seem to have been coached to deliver a certain response. The response then seems tone-deaf and not even being close to being organic and sincere.

Would have it killed her to say the University is condemning and not tolerating speech that calls for overrunning and annihilating the Jews in Israel?

Given that it was bullshit questioning, I think the presidents were trying to just avoid setting anything off.
They understood the yes/no questions were going to be traps.
Magill kept pointing out that if the speech became conduct it was harassment.

Stefanik wanted "if you say the magic words, it is a violation" basically.

Magill was right and nuanced.
But politically, she should have known better that being factual and correct isn't going to do her any favors in the current environment.

I wouldn't cry for Magill. She is very highly-compensated and likely given a generous package to take the rap for such a controversy. In the end, you fire the leader who doesn't have the acumen to listen to the right people and say the right thing even if she is just representing the University's actual position.

I'm annoyed that this is happening because it was just bullshit.
I have no tears for Magill (or the other two).
Big university presidents aren't exactly someone I am going to be broken up about.

I can still find the way this all went down bullshit.

 

[WyattEarp]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1734437497118089484

The funny thing is Israeli couscous is not actually couscous. It's actually a toasted pasta created in Israel. So by taking Israeli off of the name, it's just misidentified.

 

[Valcazar]

I think you give Stefanik too much credit. The backlash towards universities from their alumni and the public is spontaneous.

Magill was not handling the situation well even before her speaking to Congress.

Being the president of an elite university she was already on the public's bad side and with good reason in many ways.
But this being the thing that provoked the calls for her head is just stupid.

 

[WyattEarp]

Given that it was bullshit questioning, I think the presidents were trying to just avoid setting anything off.
They understood the yes/no questions were going to be traps.
Magill kept pointing out that if the speech became conduct it was harassment.

Stefanik wanted "if you say the magic words, it is a violation" basically.

Magill was right and nuanced.
But politically, she should have known better that being factual and correct isn't going to do her any favors in the current environment.

I didn't see any subterfuge in the questioning. You know what they were going to be throwing at you. That's not a trap unless the trap is your own doing.

As I noted, Magill's been in the hot seat long before speaking to Congress. We might agree she was an easy target for Congresswoman Stefanik, but disagree whether Magill deserved to be in the hot seat.

I'm annoyed that this is happening because it was just bullshit.
I have no tears for Magill (or the other two).
Big university presidents aren't exactly someone I am going to be broken up about.

I can still find the way this all went down bullshit.

I seem to recall on MERB that you might have insinuated that you are in or were in academia. That could make one very sensitive to criticisms of university environments. My opinion is if the influential alumni wanted Magill to stay she would have stayed. Looks like the Harvard trustees are going to resist.

 

[WyattEarp]

Being the president of an elite university she was already on the public's bad side and with good reason in many ways.
But this being the thing that provoked the calls for her head is just stupid.

I think she was already going down. There's a lot of confusion over what speech is condoned and not condoned in universities. Magill could not dig herself out of the hole. Watching the clip, makes you wonder if she even had any idea she was in trouble.

 

[Valcazar]

It was the Salem Witch trials, really.

There was no way to answer where she wouldn't be accused of antisemitism, unless she declared that any mention of Palestine is antisemitic at this point. Stefianiak's accuser sees antisemitism everywhere, so free speech becomes antisemitic if it allows 'free Palestine' or 'from the river to the sea'.
Her attacker went so far as to try to get Stefianiak to confirm that 'intifada' means 'genocide'.

Universities have enough other crap going on these days without this.

Once they let Stefanik equate any slogans with being a call for genocide they were fucked.

My personal view is that if she had said "Yes, it is a violation" then Stefanik would have accused her of antisemitism for not already expelling everyone who participated in any protest that had any kind of pro-peace or pro-palestenian slant.

 

[Valcazar]

I didn't see any subterfuge in the questioning. You know what they were going to be throwing at you. That's not a trap unless the trap is your own doing.

Pretending speech is the same as conduct is a trap.
If Magill says yes, then Stefanik demands the expulsion of everyone who ever chanted a slogan or said they thought Israel should stop bombing or should adopt the one state solution or calls for an end to the occupation.

Their answer was correct.
Stefanik didn't ask "is it wrong" - she asked if it was a violation of the code of conduct and constituted bullying and harassment.

As I noted, Magill's been in the hot seat long before speaking to Congress. We might agree she was an easy target for Congresswoman Stefanik, but disagree whether Magill deserved to be in the hot seat.

I clearly don't pay enough attention to Magill.
What was she in the hot seat for?

I seem to recall on MERB that you might have insinuated that you are in or were in academia. That could make one very sensitive to criticisms of university environments. My opinion is if the influential alumni wanted Magill to stay she would have stayed. Looks like the Harvard trustees are going to resist.

Harvard is a lot more full of itself than Penn.
It is going to take a lot more to get them to do anything they don't want to do.