So 3 university presidents walk into a bar

From watching the video that twig posted, there’ve been marches on campus with rhetoric that translates to Jewish genocide. It’s reasonable to expect that there are Jewish students on campus.


How did gossip/ hearsay even on the table? This is a direct question and answer circumstance. SHE,S RIGHT THERE.

I see no comparison to “he said she told him that she heard him say.”…let’s get real.


Sure, that’s probably protected speech. But I wouldn’t classify that as “calling for genocide” either.

It’s certainly not chanting “globalize the intifada” in a public march. I think that qualifies as intimidating and harassing Jewish students. It’s certainly hate speech.


Magill (President of Penn) resigns

The question remains whether her replacement will be just as bad.

MIT doubled down though

Arguably Magill at Penn was in the most hot water of the three of them since there was/is a 9 figure donation in jeopardy of being yanked.

The little video clip I saw was asking “is there any possible context…” and for me the context is: in private.

I didn’t know this centered on a march-- which adds a lot of context.

Yeah, i felt the question was wrong. I don’t think a student talking to their roommate about intifada ought to be a violation of school policy unless it’s potentially directed at the roommate. But i do think that public marches chanting slogans that translate to “kill the Jews” should be a violation of university policies against bullying, harassment, and intimidation. The question should have been specific and explicitly about the marches and the slogans chanted at the marches.


I mean, when she was questioning the Harvard president she brought up “globalize the intifada” and “there is only one solution; intifada revolution” as specific examples of things that were being chanted at marches and asked if that speech was contrary to Harvard’s code of conduct or if it was allowed at Harvard.

Sounds like precisely what you said she should have asked.

The president refused to say that it was against the code of conduct.


I would recommend watching the video of the Jewish students of the schools explaining the anti-semitism they have been facing.

4:55 - MIT student discussed the anti-semitism she and fellow students are facing.

8:50 - NYU student

12:10 - Penn student. This one there is a fair amount of detail.

17:25 - Harvard law student.

1 Like

The president of Harvard should have said that chanting those statements at rallies is a violation of their policies against bullying, harassment, and intimidation. Nonetheless, that wasn’t explicitly asked. The actual question was broader.

I was talking to a friend about MIT’s actions, and it’s very complicated. MIT’s administration said they would suspend students who blocked the main campus while chanting stuff like that. And then they didn’t, because a lot of the students were at MIT on student visas, and would be deported if they were suspended. MIT, to its credit, has taken some action. It has suspended several students from extracurricular activities. But the universities are in a difficult situation.

I would listen to the MITs student description what is going on. It seems like their administration isn’t doing enough.

If the goal of the questions was to evaluate the position of the universities, the “it depends on the context” responses should have been followed up with “can you provide a context where calling for genecide wouldn’t be against your policy”. Presumably they had something in mind.

1 Like

I just wrote to the office of the president of Harvard asking them to do more. I said that I felt those rallies crossed to line and are action, and that I feel intimidated and for the first time in my life feel anxious as a Jew to visit campus. And that I’m currently on my class’s reunion committee and wondering if I should be.

I’m curious if I’ll get a response, and what it will be.


Yes, the point of the questioning was obviously not to understand the policies, but to trap university presidents into bad sound bites. And it was certainly successful at its goal.

But I actually care about some of those universities, and hope they can navigate this crisis in a way that is constructive to all their students, including the Jewish and Arab students.


I have a few thoughts about this.

First, the sooner Congress, the media, and everyone else recognize there is more to education than the Ivy League, the better. These schools educate just a tiny fraction of the population. So small that it shouldn’t even matter. But we treat their every controversy like national news that impacts everyday people. Caring about what stupid things a few dumb college kids say or do is a waste of time, and caring even more because those dumb kids go to a small handful of selective colleges is an even bigger waste of time.

Second, the college presidents got horrible advice and coaching on how to “testify.” Lucy is absolutely right that “the point of the questioning was obviously not to understand the policies, but to trap university presidents into bad sound bites.” You can’t give honest answers to questions that aren’t asked in good faith, and trying to do so well only provide the bad sound bites Stefanik was looking for. They would have been much better off saying they aren’t going to make judgements about what type of hypothetical speech crosses the line.

1 Like

Well technically MIT is not Ivy League, but it’s as good as an Ivy League school, so your point stands.

That said, obviously any three schools selected would be a tiny subset. I don’t know why it was those three and not Yale or Princeton or Columbia or Cal Tech or Berkeley. Or University of Texas or Ohio State (which I think are the two biggest colleges?)

Maybe the antisemitism is worse on those campuses?

But I also think that the elite schools also serve as something like thought leaders and what starts at those schools often trickles down to others. I think elite schools were among the first to call for the abolition of slavery, recognize LGBT rights, seek to have a racially diverse student body and such.

1 Like

This was my immediate assumption. If they came out too directly, there is every chance the politicians questioning them have folders full of individuals who’ve made genocidal statements (on Facebook, Twitter, etc.) while at those universities and weren’t punished. This is then used to show they judgmentally shut down free speech.

Altogether I really don’t care though.

How many people make genocidal statements as a matter of course? Perhaps one of the requirements to be admitted to the Ivy League (after all, they are selective) should be “not likely to make genocidal statements”

1 Like

They all should die!!

Will not be more specific.

Is that supposed to be a genocidal statement?