UPenn’s Liz Magill voluntarily resigned after she faced widespread criticism for appearing to dodge a question at a congressional hearing about campus antisemitism.
House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y. — who recently went viral for engaging in a contentious exchange with university presidents at a congressional hearing on antisemitism — on Saturday praised the resignation of University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill.
“One down. Two to go,” Stefanik wrote on X. “This is only the very beginning of addressing the pervasive rot of antisemitism that has destroyed the most ‘prestigious’ higher education institutions in America.”
Strange, by my count it’s two down: Santos and McCarthy. Just Stefanik is left to go.
Birds of a feather flock together:
Notice that this stupid fucking cunt has zero issues supporting Donald Trump’s absolute and unequivocal right to free speech regardless how violent or psychopathic his rhetoric may be. This has nothing to do with employing moral consistency in dealing with complex free speech issues because these people have no fucking morals to begin with. All they understand is remaining in power, and saber rattling in order to rile up their base of knuckle-dragging constituents.
The good ol’ “Grill someone until they slip up and say something that can be used as a soundbite.”
Ahh Antisemitism flavored Mccarthyism, on the rocks please!
"In a contention exchange at the House Education and the Workforce Committee hearing on antisemitism on college campuses, Stefanik asked Magill, Claudine Gay of Harvard and Sally Kornbluth of MIT whether “calling for the genocide of Jews” would violate the codes of conduct at their schools. "
Easy answer: Yes, just as calling for any genocide such as genocide of the Palestinian people. Yes, that would violate the codes of conduct at our school.
It was an incredibly stupid showing, but to speak to their perspective, the question they thought they were answering was “Does a call to genocide violate First Amendment protections of free speech, to which universities are somewhat bound in order to receive federal funding?”, and the answer to that question, strictly legally, is indeed no. The government cannot punish someone for calls to genocide. The threshold for criminalizing speech is incredibly high, and anything short of “Go kill these specific Jews!” is generally going to be protected speech. In the context of trying to minimize any possible legal exposure, this was essentially the correct answer.
That said, it’s unconscionably stupid that the presidents did not realize that they were in a Congressional hearing, not a courtroom, and that in that context, they were not speaking to a judge but rather to a glorified hostile PR agent. It would not have been hard to give an unambiguous “yes” response, and then only if pressed wade into some of the nuance of what necessarily counts as a call to genocide, since that it legitimately a complex question.
Exactly.
"I, and the university abhor hate speech and antisemitism. Such things are unwelcome on campus.
That said, I would have to confer with the university legal council, and law enforcement to understand events in a case by case basis to ensure we do what we must to keep students and faculty safe. As president it is my job to understand the concerns of my staff and students, and to follow the guidance of experts in their respective fields. With those elements in hand I provide leadership in challenging times. It would be imprudent for me to take action unilaterally without my team."
“why can’t you just say yes or no?” will be the whine. It’ll be followed up with the “why do you love genocide?”
“adult questions often require more than a yes or no, even if prompted as such. Genocide is abhorrent and hate is not welcome on campus. I have no further reply than that”
Well, then she needs to call Ronnie on the carpet, too:
Anyone have a link to what was actually said? I see lots of articles talking about it, but I’d like a transcript.
She probably failed to fellate Israel, as is expected from everyone in a vulnerable position such as “having a job”.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
“These universities can anticipate a robust and comprehensive Congressional investigation of all facets of their institutions negligent perpetration of antisemitism including administrative, faculty, funding, and overall leadership and governance.”
In a contention exchange at the House Education and the Workforce Committee hearing on antisemitism on college campuses, Stefanik asked Magill, Claudine Gay of Harvard and Sally Kornbluth of MIT whether “calling for the genocide of Jews” would violate the codes of conduct at their schools.
After the hearing, the GOP-led committee launched an investigation into universities’ efforts to combat growing violence and threats against Jews on college campuses.
President Magill had three chances to set the record straight when asked if calling for the genocide of Jews violated UPenn’s code of conduct during our hearing on antisemitism,” she said.
“What’s more shocking is that it took her more than 24 hours to clarify her comments, and even that clarification failed to include an apology to the Jewish students who do not feel safe on campus.
“She has done excellent work in leading our community, including in addressing antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of hate, all of which we reject utterly at MIT.
The original article contains 614 words, the summary contains 192 words. Saved 69%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
More than two if your looking to get rid of people in leadership positions who give antisemites a pass. Maybe she should get her hypocritical ass on those who support Nick Fuentes.
she literally repeats that this is a yes or no question and they without hesitation try to blurt out policy. How did they make it to the president of schools if they categorically are unable to comprehend a 2 answer single syllable question.
absolutely buckled under the minimum of pressure. these presidents are really running high end designer universities
and are unable to say Yes, No
Did you watch it in context or just see the soundbites? I mean, yes: they should have been more prepared for the stupidity of a congressional hearing but they weren’t as bad as that one 10s clip implies.
The yes or no question was if it would violate campus policy to say “death to all jews”
Like I’m not a fan of soundbite bait questions but Jesus Christ that is the softest of soft ball questions.
That’s not one of those “try to slip zionist propaganda into a decrial of antisemitism” gotchas, that’s like the main thing anti-zionists make a point that they aren’t saying when accused of anti-semitism.
It’s not a softball question though when it’s presented in a hearing about free speech. If they’re a school that takes federal funding, then they have to protect students’ rights to free speech even if that speech seems abhorrent. They can’t take action on that speech unless, as they stated in their responses, it moves to being targeted or indicative of an action.
It’s the same question as “is it wrong to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre?”. It’s purposefully ambiguous so as to elicit both sides of the argument - free speech vs. safety. It’s a gotcha even if its not the gotcha you’re thinking it is.
I mean nah, breaking the treaty of tolerance isn’t free speech it’s intentional fostering of a hostile environment.
The notion that free speech should protect hate speech is only something that people who don’t know what hate speech really represents can argue.
You don’t say something like “burn the f*gs” unless you have a specific intent to move the overton window in that direction, and that alone is IMO grounds to stop looking at the free speech bubble and start looking at the harassment and intimidation bubble.
I think you’re being disingenuous. What’s if it’s not as overt as “burn the f*gs”? Then what? Who decides if it’s tolerant or not? What if it’s “love the sinner, hate the sin”? Is that hate speech, then? What if someone who is gay knows that quote and is offended by it?
The entire point is that speech needs to be allowed, even if it doesn’t have to be tolerated, in order for truth to prevail. You don’t have to allow people saying things that foster hostility to give speeches and give them a platform but you also can’t tell them they can’t say those things in public.
You also don’t have to keep providing them an education when they’re obviously calling for the execution of your students based on heritage.
Also, the hate the sin line is absolutely hate speech it directly states that queer existence is sinful in the eyes of the speaker.
And guess what, playing hate speech whackamole is proven to work, cracking down on it makes it go away because over time you get rid of more and more of the bad actors.
No toleration of intolerance is the most effective way to protect freedom of expression, because by adopting the policy you protect everyone else’s freedom to be themselves without fear of persecution in exchange for shutting out a bunch of people who clearly came out of the oven underbaked.
You’re missing the point. Who decides what constitutes “hate speech”? If a conservative, religious person was the head then any pro-LGBTQ speech might be considered “hate speech”. Your response could also qualify.
The last part of what you said is completely false. Nothing of the sort has been “proven”. There’s a reason a paradox of intolerance exists at the same time as a contract of tolerance does.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
That’s not a “yes or no answer”. Are you refusing to answer my question because you feel your answer might serve to incriminate you?
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Wisdom comes from the understanding that there is nuance to everything. Only those who lack the maturity to understand this concept, or benefit from those who do, attempt to paint the world in black and white.
No, you do not rile me up. You do not trigger me. I was illuminating the issue with your argument so other people who stop in here may gain some insight. In other words, I am using your ignorance as an example so those with more intellectual honesty might benefit.
im glad we agree on one thing. how many people are clapping for you right now? did you win any awards?
i think the pendulum swings in two directions. what do you imagine people think of you, if you weren’t riled up. why did you reply?
strange.
