Claudine Gay resigns under pressure

[PartySick 174,781]

3 minutes ago, Dennis said:

She is the president of a leading educational institution in the U.S which does receive some tax-payer funding too. So of course the public, donors or legislators have the right to ask her questions. And it's literally her job to answer such questions in a way that reflects well on the institution and its staff. That's what she's paid for.

We can blame conservatives or we can actually correct the issue that conservatives used to make their point. That's my only disagreement with you. You prefer the former, I prefer the latter.

The disagreement is clearly whether or not that question deserves a legitimate answer. You think it does, I think it doesn't.

It wasn't posed in good faith and in concern for jewish people nor was it an innocent query into Harvard's rules.

It was specifically crafted as part of a larger plot to put her in an impossible spot.

If she answered "yes, calls for gen*cide are against school rules" then the right wins 'cause now she's inadvertently helped label pro-Palestine demonstrations as antisemitic and gen*cidal in nature.

If she answered "no, calls for gen*cide aren't against school rules, they're protected under free speech" then the right wins 'cause now they can portray HER and Harvard as a whole as antisemitic, which helps in the right's rampant war on education in this country.

It was lose-lose, the only way she could have broke even is to call the question what it was: ridiculous, pointed, and clearly trying to push some asinine narrative.

[Dennis 8,391]

1 minute ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

She answered that she found it personally abhorrent, but that the specific circumstances would dictate whether or not it violated the code of conduct. Pretty uncontroversial answer, imo 

So let me ask you this. Because genuinely it's a matter of equity and making sure you're treating all cases the same. So try to be fair for once.

If another president of a University was asked the question whether "calling for the genocide of African-American students violates the code of conduct" and they said "It depends on the context", you would still say the same?

Think about it a little bit.

You would still think it's uncontroversial? If so, that's fine, as long as you're comfortable with your inner truth. Only you will know the answer.

 

[Dennis 8,391]

2 minutes ago, PartySick said:

If she answered "yes, calls for gen*cide are against school rules" then the right wins 'cause now she's inadvertently helped label pro-Palestine demonstrations as antisemitic and gen*cidal in nature.

This is the issue here. Most people who engage in prejudice don't realize it. And we all do to a certain extent. But this is prejudice, right here. The fact that you think stating the obvious about Jewish students who deserve equal protection will serve as a pretext to harm pro-Palestinians. 

You've decided to create an unbreakable connection between the Jews and a foreign conflict far away. You've decided that Jews can never be detached from this conflict by the mere assumption that a non-political generalistic statement against calls of violence against them, will inherently be viewed as something connected to Palestine, or harmful to pro-Palestinians.

I know you have a good heart, and I hope you'll reflect on this. Challenge your beliefs a little bit and maybe you'll see it's wrong to think this way. Protecting people should never be viewed as something done at the expense of others.  Everybody deserves protection.

[Ladle Ghoulash 55,360]

14 minutes ago, Dennis said:

So let me ask you this. Because genuinely it's a matter of equity and making sure you're treating all cases the same. So try to be fair for once.

If another president of a University was asked the question whether "calling for the genocide of African-American students violates the code of conduct" and they said "It depends on the context", you would still say the same?

Think about it a little bit.

You would still think it's uncontroversial? If so, that's fine, as long as you're comfortable with your inner truth. Only you will know the answer.

 

She was literally asked those exact questions and gave that exact answer. The policy as it stands and as she represented it is also fully consistent with the First Amendment. 

[PartySick 174,781]

1 minute ago, Dennis said:

This is the issue here. Most people who engage in prejudice don't realize it. And we all do to a certain extent. But this is prejudice, right here. The fact that you think stating the obvious about Jewish students who deserve equal protection will serve as a pretext to harm pro-Palestinians. 

You've decided to create an unbreakable connection between the Jews and a foreign conflict far away. You've decided that Jews can never be detached from this conflict by the mere assumption that a non-political generalistic statement against calls of violence against them, will inherently be viewed as something connected to Palestine, or harmful to pro-Palestinians.

I know you have a good heart, and I hope you'll reflect on this. Challenge your beliefs a little bit and maybe you'll see it's wrong to think this way. Protecting people should never be viewed as something done at the expense of others.  Everybody deserves protection.

Don't misrepresent my stances please, I said that's the way the right would portray the situation. They would use her response, turn her into a pawn, and craft the narrative that "pro-Palestine = anti-jew" and run with it to continue invalidate people who just want the slaughter to stop.

I don't personally see this as having anything to do with the jewish people, at least not directly, which is why I get frustrated when people portray being against Israel as being against jews.

I'm against the US military as well, but I don't hate myself as a US citizen

I've been enjoying our debate here, keep it honest

[Dennis 8,391]

Just now, PartySick said:

Don't misrepresent my stances please, I said that's the way the right would portray the situation.

It does not matter how the right would portray the situation. 

I'm not gonna decide whether saying that people deserve protection or not based on how the right will perceive it.

If people can't answer question about Jews without thinking about Is*rael, that's ON THEM, and not anybody else.

As far as I'm concerned, it was a straightforward question that deserved a straightforward answer.

You blame people for portraying others as being against Jews when they're against Is*rael. And you're correct on that. But you turn around and seem to do the exact same here and can't approve of a statement supportive of Jewish students in the U.S without contextualizing it based the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Pro-Palestinian protesters. 

And this is not an attack on your character or anything. I know you enough, but I'm challenging your beliefs related to this particular issue which I think may inadvertently constitute prejudice.

 

[holy scheisse 23,078]

That’s so Gay 

[Dennis 8,391]

12 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

She was literally asked those exact questions and gave that exact answer.

You haven't answered my question about how you personally feel about it, but I hope you entertained it at least.

As for the "exact answer", I don't see it in the clip. Do you have the exact verbiage of her answer? Because it doesn't seem to be there. Stefanik ended her intervention without asking the question you mentioned, so not sure what you're refering to.

[PartySick 174,781]

1 minute ago, Dennis said:

It does not matter how the right would portray the situation. 

I'm not gonna decide whether saying that people deserve protection or not based on how the right will perceive it.

If people can't answer question about Jews without thinking about Is*rael, that's ON THEM, and not anybody else.

As far as I'm concerned, it was a straightforward question that deserved a straightforward answer.

You blame people for portraying others as being against Jews when they're against Is*rael. And you're correct on that. But you turn around and seem to do the exact same here and can't approve of a statement supportive of Jewish students in the U.S without contextualizing it based the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Pro-Palestinian protesters. 

And this is not an attack on your character or anything. I know you enough, but I'm challenging your beliefs related to this particular issue which I think may inadvertently constitute prejudice.

 

I-

Then you're missing my point entirely

I'm saying when a question like this is posed in bad faith, it doesn't deserve an answer. It's literally that simple.

"Do you support mutilating kids?" (when asking about gender affirmative care for minors)

"Do you support killing children?" (when asking about abortion)

"Do you support people overdosing on drugs?" (when asking about regulating opioids)

"Do you support letting a foreign army invade the US?" (when asking about allowing asylum seekers and migrants into the country)

"Does Harvard disallow calls for gen*cide against Jewish people?" (when, I'm assuming, asking about student demonstrations in support of Palestine)

The only answer that should be given in these circumstances are "you're being disingenuous and I won't entertain this nonsense".

The right are trolls in this country. Every conversation is a contest, every stance is a religious and tribal one. You can't give them an inch, they'll take an astronomical unit  the only way to "win" is to not play their stupid game. And when you're smack dab in the middle of their plot (as seen in that Politico article) about to become one of their pawns regardless of the answer, you don't give them an answer. I've learned this from living in blood red bum-f*ck nowhere in Florida for 29 years

I'm gonna bail on this though as I don't appreciate being called prejudice when I've been nothing but respectful to you and idk how to better convey my point than this 

Until the next debate

[Roughhouse Dandy 13,921]

And no one is even mentioning the WSJ opinion piece stating plainly that this was the conservative attempt to harness the "culture wars" to get what they want. 

It's embarrassing that annoying neo-libs aren't just letting them do it, but defending and carrying water for them as they pull us closer to a christofascistic nation. 

[Ladle Ghoulash 55,360]

18 minutes ago, Dennis said:

You haven't answered my question about how you personally feel about it, but I hope you entertained it at least.

As for the "exact answer", I don't see it in the clip. Do you have the exact verbiage of her answer? Because it doesn't seem to be there. Stefanik ended her intervention without asking the question you mentioned, so not sure what you're refering to.

Not really sure why my personal feelings would be relevant to Harvard’s policy. I personally think the speech is wrong, but it’s protected speech. As someone who consistently stumps for the rule of law, I’m actually kind of surprised you’re stooping to this “gotcha” line of questioning.

Here’s the transcript of where Gay offers the same answer to the question about calls for the murder of African Americans and proceeds to answer that they are committed to free speech and it depends on the context, only to be interrupted by Stefanik: 

Congresswoman Stefanik: Dr. Gay, a Harvard student calling for the mass murder of African Americans is not protected free speech at Harvard, correct?

President Gay: Our commitment to free speech -

Congresswoman Stefanik: It’s a yes or no question. Is that correct? Is that okay for students to call for the mass murder of African Americans at Harvard? Is the protected free speech?

President Gay: Our commitment to free speech -

Congresswoman Stefanik: It’s a yes or no question.
 

https://stefanik.house.gov/2023/12/icymi-stefanik-demands-answers-from-harvard-president-claudine-gay-on-harvard-s-failure-to-condemn-antisemitism-and-anti-israel-attacks-on-campus

The line of questioning is in hideously bad faith and would be a lose-lose for Gay. 

[PartySick 174,781]

5 minutes ago, Roughhouse Dandy said:

And no one is even mentioning the WSJ opinion piece stating plainly that this was the conservative attempt to harness the "culture wars" to get what they want. 

This is what I was getting at

Never a legitimate concern among them, they stand for nothing, and allowing them to use antisemitism or any other negative as a weapon against people who objectively do not deserve it does no good for anybody.

[PartySick 174,781]

@Flippy I'm gonna fight you I stg

[Dennis 8,391]

10 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

Not really sure why my personal feelings would be relevant to Harvard’s policy. I personally think the speech is wrong, but it’s protected speech. As someone who consistently stumps for the rule of law, I’m actually kind of surprised you’re stooping to this “gotcha” line of questioning.

Here’s the transcript of where Gay offers the same answer to the question about calls for the murder of African Americans and proceeds to answer that they are committed to free speech and it depends on the context, only to be interrupted by Stefanik: 

Congresswoman Stefanik: Dr. Gay, a Harvard student calling for the mass murder of African Americans is not protected free speech at Harvard, correct?

President Gay: Our commitment to free speech -

Congresswoman Stefanik: It’s a yes or no question. Is that correct? Is that okay for students to call for the mass murder of African Americans at Harvard? Is the protected free speech?

President Gay: Our commitment to free speech -

Congresswoman Stefanik: It’s a yes or no question.
 

https://stefanik.house.gov/2023/12/icymi-stefanik-demands-answers-from-harvard-president-claudine-gay-on-harvard-s-failure-to-condemn-antisemitism-and-anti-israel-attacks-on-campus

The line of questioning is in hideously bad faith and would be a lose-lose for Gay. 

It seems that her answer is cut off.

However, if she was going to say that they tolerate it as free speech, it's literally a lie.

I'm old enough to remember that a couple of years ago, Kyle Kashuv's Harvard admission was canceled when it turned out that he used the N-word on discord when he was 16.

It was probably the right decision.

And this is one of many other examples of Harvard punishing hate speech. But for her to pretend that they consider it free speech is simply a lie.

[Roughhouse Dandy 13,921]

Just now, PartySick said:

This is what I was getting at

Never a legitimate concern among them, they stand for nothing, and allowing them to use antisemitism or any other negative as a weapon against people who objectively do not deserve it does no good for anybody.

Which is why I commend you for adding some sense into these discussions frequently even when faced with reactionary/bad faith arguments. I'm running out of patience with the bs and have to disengage to avoid popping off and getting banned, so I'm very glad to see another Florida gremlin picking up the slack 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼