This is probably a cop-out. But while everyone was freaking out about wokeness killing free speech in the back of my mind I was always like "The problem..... is ... free will ... employyyyment!" I was .... 25 yrs old when I huddled with another female employee at the "progressive" journalism outlet that had a "crying room" for women when another woman was like, "CA has free will employment. This creep we work for can fire us at any time for any reason."
It is long past time we stop referring to Harvard/Yale/Stanford/etc as "elite" universities. They have no claim to the title, unless you're one who is obsessed with money and power.
"From the River to the Sea, all Palestine will be free" was, if memory serves, the slogan of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine back in the 70s and 80s. The PFLP was a socialist Palestinian resistance movement that wanted a secular state in Palestine with freedom of religion, from the river to the sea.
There never was any implication in the slogan that all Jews in Palestine be exterminated. The only thing the people who are saying it's a call for genocide do is to project what they themselves support--the ethnic murder of Arabs in Israel/Palestine with the goal of driving all the survivors elsewhere.
"No— but can we agree that getting doxed, blasted on right-wing media, and having your NYU scholarship pulled is enough punishment for an 18-year-old for tearing down a poster?"
Well, no.
This is what I struggle with. For all the chat about First Amendment and free speech, this isn't the government punishing anyone. People have freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences.
" But is it more likely that college sophomores were drawn to the slogan because they want to wipe Israelis off the face of the earth? "
Does it really matter? All students have the right, according to Penn and Harvard, to feel safe on campus.
In one of the linked trainings, Harvard presents scenarios that involve potential Title IX violations and explains how students should react to them.
In one scenario, "Andre" keeps "messing up Logan’s pronouns" and commenting on Logan’s "outfits, hair, and nail polish," causing Logan to feel "drained and frustrated with again being in a situation to educate his peers on gender identity."
Andre’s remarks "contribute to a climate of disrespect and may also violate Harvard’s policies," the training says. "It may be helpful to reassure [Logan] he is not being oversensitive and the impact he is experiencing is valid."
It flatly doesn't matter to Harvard (and Penn's very similarly worded policy) what the actual meaning of 'to the river and the sea' means as long as everyone understands that the impact echoes other genocidal claims.
I struggle with that because the questions posed at the Congressional two-minute hate (which for the record I think was ridiculous) had a really easy answer according to accepted policy. Do students have the right to call for genocide? A: No. It disturbs the learning environment, it causes harm, and in the balance any educational benefit is pretty small. Same as if someone went around calling for the genocide of people on the basis of gender or sex.
I guess I don't understand why it's hard to turn that around and consider how Arab and Muslim students feel about mass slaughter of children and how it feels for these institutions — as well as the US government and most media — to say over and over again in a thousand different ways that their lives and their emotions and ideas matter less than the lives and emotions of Jewish students. This posture helps no one—remember the Grazyzone before it went off the rails of Max's ego? The concept is supposed to be about tactics used by Islamic extremist groups to make Muslims feel unwelcome in Western societies thereby whipping up radicalism. Who wore it better, ISIS or the US govt?
They absolutely can create organizations to petition the Israeli government, or the U.S. government, or the United Nations.
The issue is the questions were specifically around condemning some real easy softballs like quote unquote 'calling for genocide.'
Obviously, no Jewish students should be able (or, I submit, are able) to call for "genocide"
Harvard does not let "ironic" rightwing trolls "jokingly" talk about putting brown people in camps. So where is the breakdown in how there's suddenly required context when people sincerely ask for genocide?
The line of questioning would have been relevant if there were evidence of students running around chanting "we're calling for genocide." There's no proof of this. Why ask such a fraught hypothetical? Oh because bad faith virality is our cultural and political currency.
Well, see I have to confess I'm confused, because rightwingers have spent the last ten years moaning that colleges and universities are suppressing free speech, specifically because they were acting against *hate speech* like calls for genocide. An atmosphere like that is pretty much designed in a lab to create university admins who are going to say "it depends" when asked that question. You cannot have it both ways: do you want colleges to be free speech centers where all kinds of speech are allowed, or do you want them to kick people who call for genocide off campus?
Also, there's zero evidence anyone has sincerely asked for genocide.
Then I'm confused because surely if rightwingers have been wrong all this time, then there's really no context needed -- right? It's just 'We do not live in Donald Trump's wet dream where we debate whether Sandy Hook actually happened. Students do not have a free floating right to harm other students in the name of freedom. Thank you Congresswoman, next question.'
It's not so much that they're wrong (they typically are) but that they're fucking hypocrites. They want *their* right to hate speech but they want to suppress anyone else's . . . or in this case, what they are claiming is hate speech but they actually have no evidence for, in what is actually an attempt to get pro-Palestinian liberation groups and protests banned from campuses, and maybe take the atmosphere they've created and use it to blow up the careers of a few college presidents.
Republicans are trying to blow it all up: the government, academia, the welfare net (such as it is in this pathetic country), etc. Everything they do is about getting more power. They're not serious people and I'm not prepared to take anything they say seriously, except insofar as they are dangerous.
The admins did a shitty job (and I think I've explained why, so I don't understand why you are confused), but Elise Stefanik is not doing this to protect Jewish students, or any students. I notice the hearing did not include any discussion of a concomitant rise in anti-Muslim sentiment and violence.
I wouldn't want the job of Ivy president and I blog for a "living!" Personally I'm a free speech absolutist. But, also, many "free speech absolutists" are such annoying edgelord trolls that I can see why it's a turnoff for young people. Meanwhile can I just add the utter insanity of arguing about this while kids die?
We are all utterly fucked. This will radicalize a generation. And all the fucking boomers doing all this will be dead by the time our kids go through another 9/11.
Sure, and 'All Lives Matter' doesn't mean black people should be shot by cops. And yet it is weird that it comes up only when black people are killed.
To be clear, the question posed assumed that the speech was for genocide specifically. If you look at the transcript, it wasn't about any specific wordage.
Either way, I guess my point is that Harvard and Penn's stated policy is fairly straightforward and I just still struggle with how people are simply choosing to ignore how obviously there's two levels of scrutiny they apply to alleged violations of campus safety.
Explain the two. I mean, you CAN admit that actual antisemitic GOP pols are using this moment to attack higher education, yes? Or are you fond of their motives, I can’t tell.
To be clear, the question posed assumed that the speech was for genocide specifically. If you look at the transcript, it wasn't about any specific wordage.
I really don't think it's useful to get sidetracked by the historical context of "from the river to the sea."
The phrase only has baggage because Zionists choose to interpret it as genocidal because they want to eliminate all things Palestinian. How is that not obvious?
"People have freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences."
I first started hearing this on the liberal side about 10 years ago, and now after so many left-wing cancellations the right has realized it's a useful rhetorical framework. But it was a moronic thing to say then and it's just as moronic now. Freedom of speech means precisely freedom from consequences, otherwise it doesn't mean anything at all.
Interesting take, but then you must also admit, if societal free speech is exactly like 1A free speech, in that there can be no consequences from it, it must also be limited just as 1A free speech is.
I also have no idea how you prevent there from being consequences. You can prevent *punishment*, which is the point of 1A, but not consequences. Consequences can be deliberate acts and knock-on effects. How precisely do you stop that from happening?
But that isn't preventing consequences. Just some consequences. And it still ignores the fact that even 1A speech is limited. So you can't pretend that social norms of speech should be the same as 1A while ignoring the fact that 1A is limited.
Further, I really dislike the notion that any of this is new. Businesses have *always* been able to fire people for pretty much any reason. Public shaming has always been a thing that happens. Doxxing is, I guess, relatively new, but personally I have no problem with outing Nazis. At will employment is the norm in the U.S. Now we're saying they specifically can't fire an employee for "political speech or bad posts"? What constitutes bad posts? If someone is harassing a trans employee because they don't like "trans ideology" or whatever ish, is that political speech?
This is probably a cop-out. But while everyone was freaking out about wokeness killing free speech in the back of my mind I was always like "The problem..... is ... free will ... employyyyment!" I was .... 25 yrs old when I huddled with another female employee at the "progressive" journalism outlet that had a "crying room" for women when another woman was like, "CA has free will employment. This creep we work for can fire us at any time for any reason."
It is long past time we stop referring to Harvard/Yale/Stanford/etc as "elite" universities. They have no claim to the title, unless you're one who is obsessed with money and power.
I think the political leadership in the US and in Israel don't give a fuck because that will happen when they're out or power.
"From the River to the Sea, all Palestine will be free" was, if memory serves, the slogan of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine back in the 70s and 80s. The PFLP was a socialist Palestinian resistance movement that wanted a secular state in Palestine with freedom of religion, from the river to the sea.
There never was any implication in the slogan that all Jews in Palestine be exterminated. The only thing the people who are saying it's a call for genocide do is to project what they themselves support--the ethnic murder of Arabs in Israel/Palestine with the goal of driving all the survivors elsewhere.
"No— but can we agree that getting doxed, blasted on right-wing media, and having your NYU scholarship pulled is enough punishment for an 18-year-old for tearing down a poster?"
Well, no.
This is what I struggle with. For all the chat about First Amendment and free speech, this isn't the government punishing anyone. People have freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences.
" But is it more likely that college sophomores were drawn to the slogan because they want to wipe Israelis off the face of the earth? "
Does it really matter? All students have the right, according to Penn and Harvard, to feel safe on campus.
For example, Harvard's Title IX policy is fairly straightforward. https://oge.harvard.edu/files/oge/files/interim-title-ix-sexual-harassment-policy.pdf
In one of the linked trainings, Harvard presents scenarios that involve potential Title IX violations and explains how students should react to them.
In one scenario, "Andre" keeps "messing up Logan’s pronouns" and commenting on Logan’s "outfits, hair, and nail polish," causing Logan to feel "drained and frustrated with again being in a situation to educate his peers on gender identity."
Andre’s remarks "contribute to a climate of disrespect and may also violate Harvard’s policies," the training says. "It may be helpful to reassure [Logan] he is not being oversensitive and the impact he is experiencing is valid."
It flatly doesn't matter to Harvard (and Penn's very similarly worded policy) what the actual meaning of 'to the river and the sea' means as long as everyone understands that the impact echoes other genocidal claims.
I struggle with that because the questions posed at the Congressional two-minute hate (which for the record I think was ridiculous) had a really easy answer according to accepted policy. Do students have the right to call for genocide? A: No. It disturbs the learning environment, it causes harm, and in the balance any educational benefit is pretty small. Same as if someone went around calling for the genocide of people on the basis of gender or sex.
I guess I don't understand why it's hard to turn that around and consider how Arab and Muslim students feel about mass slaughter of children and how it feels for these institutions — as well as the US government and most media — to say over and over again in a thousand different ways that their lives and their emotions and ideas matter less than the lives and emotions of Jewish students. This posture helps no one—remember the Grazyzone before it went off the rails of Max's ego? The concept is supposed to be about tactics used by Islamic extremist groups to make Muslims feel unwelcome in Western societies thereby whipping up radicalism. Who wore it better, ISIS or the US govt?
They absolutely can create organizations to petition the Israeli government, or the U.S. government, or the United Nations.
The issue is the questions were specifically around condemning some real easy softballs like quote unquote 'calling for genocide.'
Obviously, no Jewish students should be able (or, I submit, are able) to call for "genocide"
Harvard does not let "ironic" rightwing trolls "jokingly" talk about putting brown people in camps. So where is the breakdown in how there's suddenly required context when people sincerely ask for genocide?
The line of questioning would have been relevant if there were evidence of students running around chanting "we're calling for genocide." There's no proof of this. Why ask such a fraught hypothetical? Oh because bad faith virality is our cultural and political currency.
It is relevant if Harvard or Penn's policy actually allows for calls to genocide.
If students can call for genocide. then there'd be no point to continue asking questions.
Well, see I have to confess I'm confused, because rightwingers have spent the last ten years moaning that colleges and universities are suppressing free speech, specifically because they were acting against *hate speech* like calls for genocide. An atmosphere like that is pretty much designed in a lab to create university admins who are going to say "it depends" when asked that question. You cannot have it both ways: do you want colleges to be free speech centers where all kinds of speech are allowed, or do you want them to kick people who call for genocide off campus?
Also, there's zero evidence anyone has sincerely asked for genocide.
Then I'm confused because surely if rightwingers have been wrong all this time, then there's really no context needed -- right? It's just 'We do not live in Donald Trump's wet dream where we debate whether Sandy Hook actually happened. Students do not have a free floating right to harm other students in the name of freedom. Thank you Congresswoman, next question.'
It's not so much that they're wrong (they typically are) but that they're fucking hypocrites. They want *their* right to hate speech but they want to suppress anyone else's . . . or in this case, what they are claiming is hate speech but they actually have no evidence for, in what is actually an attempt to get pro-Palestinian liberation groups and protests banned from campuses, and maybe take the atmosphere they've created and use it to blow up the careers of a few college presidents.
Republicans are trying to blow it all up: the government, academia, the welfare net (such as it is in this pathetic country), etc. Everything they do is about getting more power. They're not serious people and I'm not prepared to take anything they say seriously, except insofar as they are dangerous.
The admins did a shitty job (and I think I've explained why, so I don't understand why you are confused), but Elise Stefanik is not doing this to protect Jewish students, or any students. I notice the hearing did not include any discussion of a concomitant rise in anti-Muslim sentiment and violence.
I wouldn't want the job of Ivy president and I blog for a "living!" Personally I'm a free speech absolutist. But, also, many "free speech absolutists" are such annoying edgelord trolls that I can see why it's a turnoff for young people. Meanwhile can I just add the utter insanity of arguing about this while kids die?
We are all utterly fucked. This will radicalize a generation. And all the fucking boomers doing all this will be dead by the time our kids go through another 9/11.
FFS! That’s not what “from the river to the sea” means, but thanks for the Zionist interpretation, bro! It’s been so lacking on social media!
Sure, and 'All Lives Matter' doesn't mean black people should be shot by cops. And yet it is weird that it comes up only when black people are killed.
To be clear, the question posed assumed that the speech was for genocide specifically. If you look at the transcript, it wasn't about any specific wordage.
Either way, I guess my point is that Harvard and Penn's stated policy is fairly straightforward and I just still struggle with how people are simply choosing to ignore how obviously there's two levels of scrutiny they apply to alleged violations of campus safety.
Explain the two. I mean, you CAN admit that actual antisemitic GOP pols are using this moment to attack higher education, yes? Or are you fond of their motives, I can’t tell.
To be clear, the question posed assumed that the speech was for genocide specifically. If you look at the transcript, it wasn't about any specific wordage.
I really don't think it's useful to get sidetracked by the historical context of "from the river to the sea."
https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2023/12/07/penn-president-liz-magill-house-hearing-testimony-sot-egan-nc-vpx.cnn
The phrase only has baggage because Zionists choose to interpret it as genocidal because they want to eliminate all things Palestinian. How is that not obvious?
Because in the questions they weren't asking about the phrase at all. You're confused.
Tana specifically says that the consequences were too much. Not that there should have been no consequences.
"People have freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences."
I first started hearing this on the liberal side about 10 years ago, and now after so many left-wing cancellations the right has realized it's a useful rhetorical framework. But it was a moronic thing to say then and it's just as moronic now. Freedom of speech means precisely freedom from consequences, otherwise it doesn't mean anything at all.
Interesting take, but then you must also admit, if societal free speech is exactly like 1A free speech, in that there can be no consequences from it, it must also be limited just as 1A free speech is.
I also have no idea how you prevent there from being consequences. You can prevent *punishment*, which is the point of 1A, but not consequences. Consequences can be deliberate acts and knock-on effects. How precisely do you stop that from happening?
By inculcating social norms (and formal regulation in some situations) against doxxing, firing people for political speech or bad posts, etc etc
But that isn't preventing consequences. Just some consequences. And it still ignores the fact that even 1A speech is limited. So you can't pretend that social norms of speech should be the same as 1A while ignoring the fact that 1A is limited.
Further, I really dislike the notion that any of this is new. Businesses have *always* been able to fire people for pretty much any reason. Public shaming has always been a thing that happens. Doxxing is, I guess, relatively new, but personally I have no problem with outing Nazis. At will employment is the norm in the U.S. Now we're saying they specifically can't fire an employee for "political speech or bad posts"? What constitutes bad posts? If someone is harassing a trans employee because they don't like "trans ideology" or whatever ish, is that political speech?
"At will employment is the norm in the U.S."
Yes, that's problem number one
BOOM 🔥🔍📰🖤
Sharing with all my friends!