Was: Israel is at War; Now: Scoopers diagnose your anti-Semitism

[MU82]

I hope these schools politicians, such as the 91-felony Criminal Defendant, who accept and solicit support from antisemites get hit very hard with donors withholdin' money and with voters choosing other candidates.

FIFY

Thanks for finally seeing the light and really wanting to do something about antisemitism in America and beyond!

[Pakuni]

I hope these schools get hit very hard with donors withholdin' money. Those in charge of advancement can pound sand tryin' to get donations from their international alums. Harvard and Penn will not be just fine, aina?

Harvard's endowment sits at nearly $51 billion.
Penn's is a mere $20.7 billion.
They'll be just fine.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The 1st amendment protects hate speech but a University President or a employer or company can discipline someone who engages in these acts any way they choose.

Private employer yes.  Private company yes. Public employer no.  University president no.

The first amendment prevents government entities from punishing anyone for engaging in protected speech.  So that covers all public universities.  The vast majority of private universities have a policy that guarentees that they will honor the first amendment rights of students and employees.  This is a binding contract that goes into effect the moment a student enrolls or an employee signs their offer letter. The courts have unanimously held that private universities with these policies (which again is the vast majority and 100%of the Ivies) are unable to punish students or employees for engaging in protected speech.  If universities violate this,  the courts will ensure that any punishment is reversed and the university must pay damages, usually in the hundreds of thousands.

Muggsy, a sizeable chunk of my job is evaluating whether allegations of hate speech are protected speech or not.  I promise you,  I have a very intimate understanding of the first amendment and how it intersects with universities.

[MU82]

You know how it is, TAMU ... protect my right to freedom of speech but don't protect his or hers, because only I speak the truth about vermin like them.

[forgetful]

What is abundantly clear, is that many scoopers, particularly the dentist crowd and like-minded individuals, do not understand the difference between protecting 1st amendment rights, and disagreeing with and condemning ones statements/beliefs.

As TAMU has correctly pointed out, most private institutions have policies that 100% protect 1st amendment rights, which the courts then hold them to in lawsuits.

That prohibits the Universities from infringing on 1st amendment rights, by punishing individuals for their protected speech, without legal consequences.

That does not prohibit anyone associated with the University, from criticizing the content of ones protected speech. That criticism is also protected speech.

I don't envy TAMU's position of trying to determine when hate speech is protected or not, it is one of the most challenging legal questions, which is why people get up in arms about it (usually they don't understand the legal issues with protected speech). That means, sometimes, universities must allow abhorrent and reprehensible speech, because legally it is protected.

If you don't like it, the way you deal with abhorrent protected speech, is to speak up against it. Banning it is antithetical to our nations principles and the 1st amendment, as our founding fathers recognized that a centralized "moral authority" that dictates what is correct stymies progress, and threatens the expression of free thought, as today you might agree with the "moral authority," but tomorrow they might come for your protected speech and silence you.

[Heisenberg]

I read your five articles (did not read Haight's book). Unsurprisingly, they contain 0 examples of a university punishing someone for a microaggression. In fact, they contain few examples of anyone being punished (and the few examples were not in response to microagressions). One of the articles even focuses on a professor who was accused of wrongdoing and was cleared by the university.

What these articles detail is various examples of mostly students and a few employees using their free speech to denounce, protest, and call for punishment (which the university ignores) for employees whose speech they disagree with. This isn't punishment, this is more free speech. You can argue that some of these students and employees are being hypocritical "free speech for me but not for thee", but again, that's not the university punishing someone for a microaggression.

How do you define microaggression?  Why is not creating a double standard about free speech?  Some things are acceptable to say, and others are not (because they are microaggressions)?

The links contain many examples of punishment, professors being fired, speakers being denied because students can claim a microaggression, and a speech double standard was created.

[Heisenberg]

What is abundantly clear, is that many scoopers, particularly the dentist crowd and like-minded individuals, do not understand the difference between protecting 1st amendment rights, and disagreeing with and condemning ones statements/beliefs.

As TAMU has correctly pointed out, most private institutions have policies that 100% protect 1st amendment rights, which the courts then hold them to in lawsuits.

That prohibits the Universities from infringing on 1st amendment rights, by punishing individuals for their protected speech, without legal consequences.

That does not prohibit anyone associated with the University, from criticizing the content of ones protected speech. That criticism is also protected speech.

I don't envy TAMU's position of trying to determine when hate speech is protected or not, it is one of the most challenging legal questions, which is why people get up in arms about it (usually they don't understand the legal issues with protected speech). That means, sometimes, universities must allow abhorrent and reprehensible speech, because legally it is protected.

If you don't like it, the way you deal with abhorrent protected speech, is to speak up against it. Banning it is antithetical to our nations principles and the 1st amendment, as our founding fathers recognized that a centralized "moral authority" that dictates what is correct stymies progress, and threatens the expression of free thought, as today you might agree with the "moral authority," but tomorrow they might come for your protected speech and silence you.

Universities have a code of conduct. And the University presidents were unable to say why the calls for genocide against the Jews violated that code.

If they consistently applied their code of conduct then:

Holding a Palestinian flag, wearing a keffiyeh, and calling for Indafida (which is a violent uprising against Jews) = Holding a confederate flag, wearing a KKK hood, and calling for lynching blacks

And both would be allowed, or both would not be allowed. Not one versus the other.

Charlottesville revealed the double standard.

[Uncle Rico]

Universities have a code of conduct. And the University presidents were unable to say why the calls for genocide against the Jews violated that code.

If they consistently applied their code of conduct then:

Holding a Palestinian flag, wearing a keffiyeh, and calling for Indafida (which is a violent uprising against Jews) = Holding a confederate flag, wearing a KKK hood, and calling for lynching blacks

And both would be allowed, or both would not be allowed. Not one versus the other.

Charlottesville revealed the double standard.

Charlottesville where someone died? 

[Pakuni]

Charlottesville revealed the double standard.

Wut?

[The Sultan]

How do you define microaggression?  Why is not creating a double standard about free speech?  Some things are acceptable to say, and others are not (because they are microaggressions)?

The links contain many examples of punishment, professors being fired, speakers being denied because students can claim a microaggression, and a speech double standard was created.

Again, you made an assertion. You failed to provide evidence. So you moved the goalposts.  Again.

Not a serious person.

[MU82]

Charlottesville revealed the double standard.

What?

There was a march there filled with racists and antisemites. They had the freedom of speech to rally on behalf of Confederate statues that the vast majority of Black Americans find offensive; and they had the freedom of speech to carry torches and chant, "Jews will not replace us!"

Heck, the sitting president advocated for keeping all Confederate statues in place and said those racists and antisemites were "very fine people."

Freedom!

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

How do you define microaggression?  Why is not creating a double standard about free speech?  Some things are acceptable to say, and others are not (because they are microaggressions)?

The links contain many examples of punishment, professors being fired, speakers being denied because students can claim a microaggression, and a speech double standard was created.

You may need to spell some of these out for me because I only found one example of a professor being fired and he was fired for having an inappropriate relationship with a student (which he doesn't deny). That professor claims that this was a convenient excuse to fire him for protected speech but again, he doesn't deny that he had an inappropriate relationship with a student which is usually grounds for termination.

I think you are asking for the wrong definition. Speakers being denied is not a punishment. A punishment involves putting a student or employee on review or probation or separating them from the university. Uninviting a speaker is not a punishment. "A speech double standard being created" is also not a punishment. It's also not true. Universities have remained very consistent on not punishing students or employees for protected speech.

What are you labeling as "punishment" is again mostly students and a few employees using their free speech to denounce, protest, and demand punishment for (which is ignored by universities) individuals who engage in free speech that they disagree with. The difference is, college students as a whole are much more socially progressive than the average population (which has always been the case). So the majority of protected speech that occurs on college campuses is socially progressive. This volume gives the impression that socially progressive speech is more favored, when in reality, they are treated the same in terms of punishment. Neither side gets punished for protected speech.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Universities have a code of conduct. And the University presidents were unable to say why the calls for genocide against the Jews violated that code.

University codes of conduct are not allowed to infringe on first amendment rights. This has been covered. The university presidents were able to say why the calls for genocide against the Jews may or may not violate their codes. The correct answer is whether or not the speech was protected or whether it crossed the line into a form of unprotected speech. Reality is, most of if not all of what has been reported falls under protected speech. Same would be true no matter what protected classes were involved.

If they consistently applied their code of conduct then:

Holding a Palestinian flag, wearing a keffiyeh, and calling for Indafida (which is a violent uprising against Jews) = Holding a confederate flag, wearing a KKK hood, and calling for lynching blacks

Provide one example of a university punishing a  student or employee for holding a confederate flag, wearing a KKK hood, or calling for lynching blacks (and nothing else).

Charlottesville revealed the double standard.

The hell? What students or employees were punished by the University of Virginia for participating in the Unite the Right Rally? They were allowed to march through campus the night before. The main protest didn't take place on campus.

[Not all scoop users are created equal apparently]

Wut?

Character revealed

[jesmu84]

TAMU,

Much respect to you. And sincerely appreciate your expertise.

But Heisy ain't here for good faith discussion.

[21Jumpstreet]

Really confused by his post. Seems like he is ok with absurd abuse... because it's only war.

Maybe he was ok with the US raping women, and children, and sodomizing children (sometimes with their mothers forced to watch) at Abu Ghraib, because it was war.

Repeat after me:

War does not justify horrific atrocities. Hamas' actions were horrific and wrong.

Historical atrocities in war does not justify future atrocities.

Sexual violence against anyone is never justified.

It fascinates me how we all claim to fight for freedom, human rights, fair treatment, life and then throw it all away in the name of war, religion, politics. This war is an absolute travesty, the last effects of how we treat each other or how we solidify our biases might end up being even worse.

[21Jumpstreet]

Religion was a mistake.

Caused more senseless death than anything that ever was, is, or will be.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

TAMU,

Much respect to you. And sincerely appreciate your expertise.

But Heisy ain't here for good faith discussion.

I'm aware.  It's honestly not for him. There is a lot of misinformation about the first amendment and other people who read this discussion may honestly not realize the misinformation being shared here. I'm not close to an expert on Israel/Palestine so I prefer to listen. On the first amendment I know a thing or two and enjoy adding to the discussion.

[forgetful]

I'm aware.  It's honestly not for him. There is a lot of misinformation about the first amendment and other people who read this discussion may honestly not realize the misinformation being shared here. I'm not close to an expert on Israel/Palestine so I prefer to listen. On the first amendment I know a thing or two and enjoy adding to the discussion.

I also appreciate you chiming in here. This is your ballpark, and appreciate your knowledge and contributions.

[Heisenberg]

Charlottesville where someone died?

Becuase counter-protestors got violent. (I'm suggesting this was a failure of law enforcement to keep the two groups apart ... something we have seen all too often in the last two months).

And why were the counter protestors so big and aggressive, because they so vehemently opposed to their message. 

And, to be clear, I agree with this, but not the aggressive nature that lead to violence.

[Heisenberg]

I cannot see how these three University Presidents survive much longer (Penn, Harvard and MIT).

A big part of their job is fund raising and they have now made this environment toxic.  As noted here before, big donations to elite Universities are vanity projects. Not when this is happening.

Anyone that now gives has to answer for the President's words. They will not get the praise and adulation these seek with these donations, instead they will be peppered with uncomfortable questions, especially if they are Jewish.

And winter graduation is coming. The University President presides over it and these ceremonies should be expected to be a complete circus with protestors and disruptions, most likely from both sides.

And who wants to accept an honorary degree, or be the commencement speaker, from these Presidents, instead of the praise and adulation they also seek, they will get the same barrage of uncomfortable questions.

——-

Penn loses $100 million donation over antisemitism hearing
https://www.axios.com/2023/12/07/upenn-antisemitism-magill-100-million-donation

The big picture: The final straw for Ross Stevens, founder and CEO of Stone Ridge Asset Management, was Tuesday's widely criticized congressional testimony by Penn president Liz Magill.

Details: The gift from Stevens, a Penn undergrad alum, was given in December 2017 to help establish a center for innovation in finance.

[Uncle Rico]

I cannot see how these three University Presidents survive much longer (Penn, Harvard and MIT).

A big part of their job is fund raising and they have now made this environment toxic.  As noted here before, big donations to elite Universities are vanity projects. Not when this is happening.

Anyone that now gives has to answer for the President's words. They will not get the praise and adulation these seek with these donations, instead they will be peppered with uncomfortable questions, especially if they are Jewish.

And winter graduation is coming. The University President presides over it and these ceremonies should be expected to be a complete circus with protestors and disruptions, most likely from both sides.

And who wants to accept an honorary degree, or be the commencement speaker, from these Presidents, instead of the praise and adulation they also seek, they will get the same barrage of uncomfortable questions.

——-

Penn loses $100 million donation over antisemitism hearing
https://www.axios.com/2023/12/07/upenn-antisemitism-magill-100-million-donation

The big picture: The final straw for Ross Stevens, founder and CEO of Stone Ridge Asset Management, was Tuesday's widely criticized congressional testimony by Penn president Liz Magill.

Details: The gift from Stevens, a Penn undergrad alum, was given in December 2017 to help establish a center for innovation in finance.

This will definitely make a difference for Israel

[Skatastrophy]

Man you are super deep into this weird culture war political bs. You should take a break from the internet and cable news man.

[Uncle Rico]

Man you are super deep into this weird culture war political bs. You should take a break from the internet and cable news man.

Can't stop now.  The battle lines are reforming over the War on XMas

[Heisenberg]

University codes of conduct are not allowed to infringe on first amendment rights. This has been covered. The university presidents were able to say why the calls for genocide against the Jews may or may not violate their codes. The correct answer is whether or not the speech was protected or whether it crossed the line into a form of unprotected speech. Reality is, most of if not all of what has been reported falls under protected speech. Same would be true no matter what protected classes were involved.

Provide one example of a university punishing a  student or employee for holding a confederate flag, wearing a KKK hood, or calling for lynching blacks (and nothing else).

The hell? What students or employees were punished by the University of Virginia for participating in the Unite the Right Rally? They were allowed to march through campus the night before. The main protest didn't take place on campus.

Let's cut to the chase.


Is it your contention that Universities have been applying their code of conduct and the application of the First Amendment consistently across all protests?

That they treat priests against LBGT, gender, pro-life, and even uncomfortable protests from white kids in favor of their race (in previous years past), or defense of the confederate flag/statues, the same as they are currently treating the anti-Israel/Anti-Semitic protests?

I believe like many they have not. They came down harsh on the protests they did not like (like those listed above) and not have "suddenly" have become first amendment warriors when it comes to the anti-Semitic protests happening now (and again last night at many universities).

Do you think Universities would apply their code of conduct, and First Amendment obligations consistently here?

Holding a Palestinian flag, wearing a keffiyeh, and calling for Intafida (which is a violent uprising against Jews)
=
Holding a confederate flag, wearing a KKK hood, and calling for lynchings.