The problem is that these schools all receive federal funding and cracking down on speech almost always runs afoul of the First Amendment.
I only read her wiki profile, which states she backed Trump (bad) and something about Santos. She very well could be an antisemite, but it is not apparent from wiki.
I read an article a few days ago, which argued that the perspective in academia these days is that everyone falls into two categories- the oppressed and the oppressors. In this worldview, the oppressed are justified in whatever they do to fight against their oppressors, and the oppressors don't have any real right to defend themselves. So, if someone subscribes to that worldview, a two-tier approach to who is allowed to protest on campus, and what they're allowed to say, is perfectly acceptable. I agree with your second point. University presidents are finding themselves in a tough spot- on the one side, they have radicalized students trying to get their way through near-riots, bullying and intimidation. On the other side, you have the big-money donors (and Governors and state legislatures, in the case of public universities) appalled by the situation on campus, and starting to question why they should keep giving money to academics that seem determined to radicalize America's children. I admit that I'm enjoying watching these college presidents squirm, as the monster they've created comes to eat them.
Maybe I'm not as up to speed on modern us politics as I don't follow what you're saying here, but if I get the gist of it, why then all these heads have faced backlash from so many Democrats?
Who wrote that article? I know lots of people who work in higher education--I'm married to one of them--and this heavily ideological and rigidly binary narrative does not reflect the reality of life for most people on most campuses nationwide.
I'm not mocking these Presidents, I'm mocking the faux-neutrality of the post. The whole notion that "merit" and "diversity" are incompatible goals is core tenet of the right-wing attack on pluralistic democracy.
I'm not asking them to crack down; there has been a documented trend among college and university administration to proactively validate the ideological politics of left-leaning students, which I think was a mistake and which is the kernel of truth in these disingenuous attacks from right-wing members of Congress who don't actually care about antisemitism at all. They handed their opponents a cudgel of their own making.
Well, I meant NOT just whether she's an antisemite, tbh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elise_Stefanik In May 2022, Stefanik linked Democratic lawmakers to unnamed "pedo grifters" (i.e. pedophiles) in a tweet, adopting an attack strategy commonly associated with the QAnon conspiracy movement.[163] She wrote: "The White House, House Dems, & usual pedo grifters are so out of touch with the American people". QAnon conspiracists posit, without evidence, that Democratic Party leaders maintain an international child sex trafficking ring.[163] In December 2020, one month after the 2020 US presidential election, Stefanik, in an interview with Newsmax, appeared to support Newsmax's baseless claim that Dominion Voting Systems had helped Joe Biden "steal" the election from Donald Trump. Newsmax had been promoting the theory but later issued a retraction after reaching a legal settlement with Dominion. Stefanik continued to make unsubstantiated claims about election fraud in public statements.[164] In December 2020, Stefanik joined over 100 GOP House members in an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the 2020 election.[165] She backed Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, objecting to Pennsylvania's electoral votes after Trump supporters were involved in the 2021 United States Capitol attack. As the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack began to investigate, Stefanik said that Speaker Nancy Pelosi was responsible. Stefanik claimed without evidence that Pelosi was "aware of potential security threats to the Capitol and she failed to act".[166] There's also other stuff there about her support for the white nationalist 'Great replacement theory'. I don't know how you'd do as an American Jew if her hero, donald trump, gets back in again but it seems unwise to tie yourself to someone like that, tbh. Like I say, a lying sack of shit.
A reminder of how these people are quite happy to eradicate minorities from even being mentioned in education Haley: DeSantis’ Don’t Say Gay bill didn’t go far enough pic.twitter.com/GJUzLNJzqJ— Kamala HQ (@KamalaHQ) December 7, 2023
Where, may I ask, would one be able to find such a fine journalistic endeavour? The one america news website, perhaps? Stormfront, maybe?
So to recap, it sounds like a politician in the Trump camp got something right. I suggest that we all celebrate our society's tremendous dedication to allowing multiple and heterodoxic ideas to compete and trusting that this chaotic process works much better than gatekeeping. This is ironically something said politician might not support herself so I suggest fully supporting this triumph of free speech.
Ken White and others have some good discussion on Blue Sky @kenwhite.bsky.social Demanding a yes or no answer to an incomplete hypothetical on a complex issue is pro-ignorance, pro-dishonesty, pro-civic-illiteracy. https://bsky.app/profile/kenwhite.bsky.social/post/3kfvupt72vg22
Not sure about the 'proactively validating' stuff but the rest I agree with. It was a dumb mistake to make which, I'm guessing, just came down to being bloody minded and not wanting to give here what they saw as a 'win'. If they'd just said yes such talk was unacceptable, (for various reasons), she'd have just looked like the complete arse she is.
Are you skeptical that Harvard president Claudine Gay, who is paid over $1 million per year, was not chosen based on merit, but rather on her race and gender? pic.twitter.com/MYG4jhxYRz— National Conservative (@NatCon2022) December 6, 2023 The most predictable line of attack in the world. Almost like clockwork. I kind of feel like not all of her critics are truly anti-bigotry champions. [/QUOTE] Woman/Black/Immigrant, if she was LGBTQ she would have checked all the boxes for the bigots of all persuasion.
Three thoughts here: 1. I feel personally attacked by the targeting of incomplete hypotheticals on complex issues. That's my livelihood 2. Ken White hasn't exactly been great on this issue and has frequently attacked Muslims and advocates of Palestinian rights. 3. I need a Bluesky invite.
Honestly, I think you should go back and read some of your posts....They really give the impression that you could not care less...It is basically "they had it coming"....and it is all on Hamas.
If Ilhan Omar tweeted this it would be a days-long news cycle. https://t.co/Spyvedm6Wp— bryan metzger (@metzgov) December 5, 2023 It's precisely this hypocrisy and double standard that people in this topic have been objecting to. There is a broad permission for vague and not so vague antisemitism on the right, the equivalent of which would get any progressive instantly in trouble. This is not how it should work, it should not matter who the messenger is if the message itself is problematic.
The main "merit" of any university president is how well they fundraise for their university. Everything else is just window-dressing. Which is why you're seeing them start to panic, as donors start to pull funds over what's been happening on campuses.