University of Pennyslvania president foced to resign
- Thread starter stinkynuts
- Start date
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.
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'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.
BREAKING: Harvard president Claudine Gay responds to the plagiarism scandal by telling the Boston Globe that she "stand
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
I clearly don't pay enough attention to Magill.
What was she in the hot seat for?
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.
I will give some credit to a few people who have railed about "cancel culture" and free speech actually backing Magill and the others here. I didn't expect them to be consistent on the issue and they were.
I don't think most people have a problem with pro-peace or pro-Palestinian rallies.
Neither do I.
But there are absolutely lots of people who do.
There are people who have problems with any rally they disagree with.
Penn has a low threshold for hate speech in their community. Stefanik simply asked Magill if calling for the genocide of Jews violated Penn's rules or code of conduct. Magill tried to coyly steer towards quibbling about context and the meaning of conduct. There was no trap.
The hot seat that Magill was already in was coming from alumni who were demanding that she do something about calls for the genocide of Jews and other anti-semitic pronouncements on campus. The key here is not what is permitted under the First Amendment it's what Penn permits on campus.
There was a trap.
Stefanik is a supporter of the Great Replacement Theory.
Elise Stefanik, proponent of Great Replacement Theory, is no Foe of Racial Bigotry against Jews or Anyone Else
Except that 70% of people polled by a fairly reputable journo, Smerconish said that any encouragement of "genocide" on campus is unacceptable. Which is where I come down as well.
You can't have someone arguing "He said all Jews should be killed, but he was just being rhetorical and he was angry at the time." It's just not acceptable. Especially after 7 October.
The cancel culture comparison as it relates to Magill is interesting, but this is not exactly the Magill situation. The Penn alumni have told her exactly what needs to be done for the last two months. She has resisted complying with the alumni's wishes.
Last edited:
