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

Yes, universities should be held to a higher standard (the point I've been repeating since the beginning) because whatever social theories they promote and advocate ("anti-racist", trans-ideology, the oppressor/oppressed distinction, etc) tends to filter down into intellectual and social media circles.

It's tantamount to the Church saying that life begins at conception and the embryo with the state following suit to the best of their capabilities. Libs freely **** on the religious right for this exact reason. The lack of self awareness in this juxtaposition enables further rot in our institutions that ostensibly promote free thinking and liberal ideals.

My point before is that it should not have gotten this far in unis to give those who want to cripple speech an opportunity to weaken them.

If colleges wanted to protect the safety and mental well being of their students by selectively silencing divisive or riot-inducing speech, then it shouldn't just be based upon arbitrary whims among those who have been historically oppressed (Hamas--->Palestinians--->descendants of colonialized Arabs) and who, in their shifting goal posts, are the oppressor (IDF--->Israel--->Jewish Students). The NYT article above did a good job portraying both areas of that debate.

That House Republicans and their media orgs are the Shrill Messengers does not dilute this point, but the message is definitely easy to conflate.

 

The flip-flops on this one have been insane.

 

I've historically given colleges the benefit of the doubt with whatever they want to try, but if they want to do it, then do it equally.

Hell I'm even open to the concept of equity, but when you plot it's limits, there's a point where it runs head on against equality.

I have no answer for that rn, though maybe my hope for colleges who free think as a living to provide a path for that intersection has been misplaced?

 

This PDF makes it clearer what is covered as discrimination under Title VI


It's because enforcement on campus has become porous (perhaps similar to calling for Genocide of Jews as posed in the OP's video?) that the government is investigating those universities for discrimination based upon "Speech Complaints" similar to the examples above.

 

Sure I can agree with that and have called out the hypocrisy of colleges to seemingly limit free speech in some regards whole not in others. This situation though is exactly what some critics of universities are doing. Calling for free speech in regards to speech that they agree with and/or speakers they agree with while saying speech they find offensive to be banned.

Just recently a poster was defending the absolute right of Rudy Giuliani to make threatening and misleading statements while another poster who has raised the most concern about antisemitic speech on campus has previously warned of the dangers of branding speech as hateful or disinformation.

It is the Republican shrills who have diluted the issue and will continue to dilute the issue.

 

From that PDF it appears that it matches what the University Presidents were saying. That generalized speech that is widely considered offensive is allowed but not targeted speech like following someone and accusing them
Of being a terrorist or sticking Swastikas in their back packs.

 

While the presidents did a very poor job explaining it they did specifically say that such speech targeting individuals was against university policies. They didn’t say anything goes when it came to speech targeting Jews or whites.

 

Yeah, I think they’re focused on ensuring these policies are enforced. However, these don’t apply to private schools and universities with no federal funding.

 

I’ve called out their hypocrisy several times, in fact on this very page, and do agree that they have not explained themselves well and have not enforced their standards consistently. That is fair criticism.

What I’m pointing out is what they did say in their testimony which pretty much matches what the PDF of the “new” speech rules are. Also noting that many who have criticized the concept of safe zones to protect students from speech they find offensive and threatening are basically calling for safe zones from antisemitic speech.

 

Yes and this a wrinkle in regard to fair speech as to what right does Harvard, Penn and MIT have regarding first amendment rights. It’s been argued that since they do get federal money through things like Pell grants and grants for research first Amendment rights should apply. That might be a complicated given that many institutions get federal money from contracts but the first Amendment wouldn’t apply to Lockheed.

 

I think those federal grants can be at risk if the gov decides to heavily weigh in on restricting the 1A at these "private" universities. Some administrations can get very aggressive and try to go after them... overall, I think they should (with some concern for abuse).

 

I think we need to be very careful about this and as we’ve seen with a lot of other debates on speech where do we draw the line. I think we can all agree that specifically targeting an individual with speech such as following a Jewish student while chanting “from the River to the Sea” is probably harassment and should be stopped. A protest thought in Harvard yard chanting in general “from the River to the Sea” should be allowed. I would even go so far as to say that the Proud Boys should be allowed to chant “Jews will not replace us!”

Even as private institutions this is a matter of what they view their principles and academic mission to be. If they view it as allowing a free and open exchange of views then that would mean views that many will find offensive.

If it’s about protecting students from anything they find they find offensive and threatening that could lead to not just safe zones but things
Like removing books and changing curricula as we’ve seen in some states.

 

Agree. I think drawing the line at discrimination is mostly okay. I also believe that harassment to the point where a certain group of students, based on race, gender, etc., cannot study is also crossing the line. What concerns me is what the administration chooses to enforce and not enforce. For years, attacks on minorities (eg LGBT+) have been well tolerated by the right, but now they cannot tolerate attacks on Jews. Inconsistency and hypocrisy on display. I want to see all these groups protected. What I don't want to see is an administration shutting down "political" speech on campuses, claiming it makes some groups of students uncomfortable. But I think Title IV is written in a way that likely won't allow that (not entirely sure, though).

 

I will agree with some of our right leaning posters that universities have been slow to address things like the Hecklers’ Veto when it has come to conservative speakers.

“Protecting students” is a very loaded term and has been used by both the Left and the Right. The right has been using it to justify taking out library books with LGBT content and revising history curriculums to protect the sensitivities of white students who might feel guilty about the US history of slavery and racism.

History and many subjects are uncomfortable. Where are society is at is uncomfortable no matter which side of the political spectrum you’re on.