So 3 university presidents walk into a bar

I could scarcely believe it when I saw the replay of how the presidents of MIT, Harvard, and Penn all deflected on whether or not calling for genocide was within the schools code of contact. Using the programmatic response" depends on context."

On context? When you see or hear the word genocide, do you truly not understand what the writer or speaker is talking about. Are there legitimate forms of genocide? These 3 have no moral compass at all. Or do they not know the meaning of “context”? Whatever, they each should be dismissed immediately.

I did not think it possible, but they caused me to be sympathetic and identify with Elise Stefanik! I take back all my thoughts about the right overreacting to liberal university policies.


I think they went a bit too far into “lets try to give as many neutral answers as possible” given they knew that the politicians just wanted a silly media show.

Yes, it was a mistake on their part.

And nope, I still don’t sympathise with Elise Stefanik. She is one of the worst type of MAGA folks.


Do you have the link where I could watch this? Most of my family attended one or more of those three schools and would, of course, be horrified by what you describe.

Plenty on YouTube . Take your pick

1 Like

Good Lord

1 Like

Eh. No matter the answer, the response is, “so, you are FOR the killing of innocent children!!!”

Well shit.

Yeah, I think she asked for an example of a context where it was ok, under the university’s code of conduct, to call for the genocide of Jews.

If it depends on the context then there must be a context where the President thinks it’s ok.



Wow, a donor is threatening to pull back a $100,000,000 gift to Penn if the president is not replaced. Apparently her comments violated an agreement made by the university, according to the donor’s lawyers.

1 Like

Stefanik questioning the Harvard president. I have no words.


I don’t like or sympathize with her, but she did a damn good job of questioning those university presidents and their answers were repugnant.

And FWIW, Stefanik is a Harvard alumni, so she was questioning the President of her own alma mater.

1 Like

She is a despicable human being.

You get precisely zero points for not being one for a few hours.

The problem in the US is that the overton window has shifted so far to the right, that her crappy behavior has been normalised.


No one is praising her general behavior so you can stop with the straw man.

But she’s rightly calling out the university professors for being despicable in their treatment of and attitudes towards antisemitism.


She doesn’t really care about those attitudes.

This was simply a chance for political grandstanding.

The three University Presidents just gave her an easy win.

If they hadn’t, she would have found something else.

I think you need to do a lot more research into Elise Stefanik.

When I said “the worst kind of MAGA person” I meant it.

If Trump wins, thats the kind of person that will be causing large-scale political problems because she will align herself to anybody that will give her any power or influence. 100% malleable and 100% amoral. Thats her.

Take a good look below and have a re-think.

Ok, since you seem to have missed it the first time:


Apart from the diversion to judgement of Ms. Stefanik, the reactions from others (even Maureen Dowd finds the responses disturbing) are at least somewhat hopeful.

The fact that all three failed is alarming. These are supposedly the icons of higher education. It’s not just some 31yr old professor at East Bumfuck State. Am I to understand that these 3 represent the pinnacle of university administration? If so, then we have a pretty serious disease.And it’s no small wonder why so many of our leaders are spineless, striving, narcissists when this is elite education.


I can see them maybe hedging to head off the usual bait-and-switch that happens after a question like that - “well, this person said that Israel shouldn’t be a country, so shouldn’t they be fired?”

I have no idea if this might have gone there, but it might provide a “context”.

I saw the short clips, but didn’t have any big immediate feelings. I’m a lot more interested in how their policies work in practice than what the presidents say in a hearing.

I also don’t intuitively know the right answer. In “real-life”, it is obviously legal for adults to say that genocide is good. But it would obviously get you fired from a job if you used hate-speech in front of a coworker. University life is presumably? somewhere between the two.

1 Like

Not sure how genocide doesn’t fall under “bullying, harassment, or intimidation” towards the students in the group for which genocide is being called.


In real life I think? the distinction is audience? Like you could tell your wife that you think genocide is good. And your wife might repeat that to a neighbor. And the neighbor might repeat it to your boss. But that might not get you fired.

But I dunno. I haven’t tried it yet. :slight_smile: