The Presidents of Harvard, MIT, Penn, Columbia should be forced to resign

HARVARD: 'you are confused you idiots'

I remember all these dipshits smiling to congress as they gave their horrible answers. Now their donors have called so time to change tune

 

What? Says you.

I could get into this rabbit hole if you first acknowledge the three presidents' responses on the matter of hearing students "calling for genocide of Jews". Extra credit points for wringing out what they mean by "If the speech becomes conduct. It can be harassment, yes."

If you don't want to watch the video in the 1st post of the thread or can't stand Stefanik, here is the transcript:

Congresswoman Stefanik: Dr. Kornbluth, at MIT, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate MIT’s code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment? Yes or no?

President Kornbluth: If targeted at individuals not making public statements.

Congresswoman Stefanik: Yes or no, calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying and harassment?

President Kornbluth: I have not heard calling for the genocide for Jews on our campus.

Congresswoman Stefanik: But you've heard chants for Intifada.

President Kornbluth: I've heard chants which can be antisemitic depending on the context when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people.

Congresswoman Stefanik: So those would not be, according to the MIT's code of conduct or rules.

President Kornbluth: That would be investigated as harassment if pervasive and severe.

Congresswoman Stefanik: Ms. Magill at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's rules or code of conduct? Yes or no?

President Magill: If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment. Yes.

Congresswoman Stefanik: I am asking, specifically calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?

President Magill: If it is directed, and severe, pervasive, it is harassment.

Congresswoman Stefanik: So the answer is yes.

President Magill: It is a context dependent decision, Congresswoman.

Congresswoman Stefanik: It's a context dependent decision. That's your testimony today, calling for the genocide of Jews is depending upon the context, that is not bullying or harassment. This is the easiest question to answer. Yes, Ms. Magill. So is your testimony that you will not answer yes? Yes or no?

President Magill: If the speech becomes conduct. It can be harassment, yes.

Congresswoman Stefanik: Conduct meaning committing the act of genocide. The speech is not harassment. This is unacceptable. Ms. Magill, I'm gonna give you one more opportunity for the world to see your answer. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's Code of Conduct when it comes to bullying and harassment? Yes or no?

President Magill: It can be harassment.

Congresswoman Stefanik: The answer is yes. And Dr. Gay at Harvard? Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment? Yes or no?

President Gay: It can be depending on the context.

Congresswoman Stefanik: What's the context?

President Gay: Targeted at an individual targeted, as at an individual?

Congresswoman Stefanik: It's targeted at Jewish students, Jewish individuals. Do you understand your testimony is dehumanizing them? Do you understand that dehumanization is part of antisemitism? I will ask you one more time. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment? Yes or no?

President Gay: Antisemitic rhetoric when it crosses into conduct, that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation, that is actionable conduct, and we do take action.

Congresswoman Stefanik: So the answer is yes. That calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard Code of Conduct. Correct?

President Gay: Again, it depends on the context.

Congresswoman Stefanik: It does not depend on the context the answer is yes, and this is why you should resign. These are unacceptable answers across the board.​

My definition of a reasonable or measured response would be for them to unequivocally say Yes, then qualify with something in lines with your reasoning, like "A direct call is harassment/intimidation BUT there are polarizing words that are heavily debated as genocidal and has to be judged by accompanying conduct/actions" such as..."Intifada is a charged word and has to be measured by the context" or... "From the river to the sea can be used as shorthand for genocide against the Jews and our response would be to mediate/educate/bloviate among the two groups remove it's common usage in protests as they would be 'triggering' and remove Jewish students of their 'safe spaces'."

 

the community notes:

 

Hey scumbag AroundTheWhore. What do you call it when Palestinian students are ‘actually’ shot and paralyzed for being Palestinian? Is that considered bullying or harassment?

https://www.thecut.com/2023/12/vermont-shooting-palestinian-students-injured.html

https://www.thecut.com/2023/12/vermont-shooting-palestinian-students-injured.html

 

Seems like some people who were upset about "Jews will not replace us" being chanted in Charlottesville were actually mad because they didn't want there to be Jews to replace.

 

They should also resign and get locked up.

 

No

 

Why isnt this dumb lady smiling anymore?

 

Don't understand line ups that have no FVV Sengun or Green.

 

I blame the jews

 

The irony of anti-semtisim is that those who are equivocating being anti Israeli government to being anti-semetic is OG anti-semtisim.

The concept that Jews can't be American, British, German, French etc. They can only a Jew....


That's og anti-semitisim. That's the antisemitism that got you the Holocaust.