MIT has officially decided not to academically suspend CAA students who repeatedly violated the administration’s guidelines and threats. They have shown that actions against Jews at MIT do not have consequences.
vs. reported:
we have decided, as an interim action, that the students who remained after the deadline will be suspended from non-academic campus activities. The students will remain enrolled at MIT and will be able to attend academic classes and labs.
We will refer this interim action to the Ad Hoc Complaint Response Team, which includes the chair of the Committee on Discipline, for final adjudication.
So the issue here seems to be whether disciplinary procedures are allowed to be followed, or whether certain groups have expectations that rules are being short-circuited at whim.
[quote=“roycroftmom, post:513, topic:3648143”]
“No one was identifying students by religion for any special treatment; the lobby was closed to all. It is irresponsible to suggest otherwise”.[/quote]
There are a number of sources that say that the MIT Hillel warned Jewish students to avoid the area and that it wasn’t closed to all students until much later in the afternoon.
"Many Jewish students fear leaving their dorm rooms and have stated that they feel MIT is not safe for Jews. This message is compounded by the public and private warnings of Hillel and many faculty that Jewish students should not enter MIT’s main lobby today, November 9th, 2023. "
I’m not an MIT parent so can’t speak from first hand experience but those are the reports that I’m reading from various outlets.
Yes - but one says incorrectly there are NO consequences at all, and falsely adds it being so because of one particular race/religion,
… while the other says that some consequences were taken immediately, and which additional ones under consideration will be handled formally.
I understand it to mean the interim measure of non academic suspension was taken immediately, but that the final disciplinary decision has not yet been reached. They will give a fair review, which is appropriate given the high stakes, especially for students here on student visas. So my understanding from the statement is that they will be careful and fair in making a final decision on what appropriate action to ultimately take, with this interim measure in place while they decide. To me that is different from deciding not to take action. Am I misreading?
No, it is the difference between singling people out because of religion ( prohibited) versus treating all equally.
No doubt NYC mass transit was disrupted yesterday by recent mass protests, and that probably prevented people from moving about the city. Many Jewish people would have been impacted, but so were many Buddhists, Atheists, Christians, and yes, Muslims too. The transit disruption wasn’t targeted at, or effective only upon, those of a certain religion. Same here.
It is quite remarkable that some believe otherwise. No one noticed MIT has many Asian heritage students who could not get to class? They don’t count, why?? The goal of the protest was to shut down class ( done), not to prevent only certain ( Jewish) kids from attending. It is not always all about only you.
I meant to reply to thread, not the immediately prior poster
The fact that one group’s organization chose to advise its membership is self-selective based on membership, not necessarily because that group was actively being targeted.
The student’s post was (intentionally?) vague about the fact that one group decided amongst themselves on an advice. It was not a third party, or the college, keeping students of group ‘x’ from any location.
No, but if there is selective reporting/omissions, with the goal to portrait a certain picture, then there might be an agenda.
(As far as “secret” - that wasn’t me!)
Did anyone imply that?
I think the college was clear in stating:
“the face-to-face confrontation between the protesters and counterprotesters intensified. We had serious concerns that it could lead to violence.”
The fact that the pro-Palestinian protestors disrupted all students equally doesn’t mean all students are affected equally.
If the KKK or some other white nationalist group was the group demonstrating at MIT, and all students were “inconvenienced” due to blocked access, would anyone claim that African American students had no basis to feel threatened by such a protest even though all students were equally “inconvenienced” by it?
Pro-Palestinian protestors are chanting “from the river to the sea” which is both anti-Semitic and supportive of genocide. That’s directed at Jewish students. The fact that these protestors are the same people sitting next to Jewish students in their classes is no doubt threatening and disturbing to them.
Then it would seem your objection is to MIT’s free speech policy, which recognizes that permitted speech may indeed be deeply offensive to others but still protected ( though subject to the usual time place manner restrctions). Students should certainly research the relevant university policy prior to attending if this is a central concern of theirs.
It is of course equally likely that Palestinian students felt disturbed/offended/threatened by the counterprotestors as well. It goes both ways, remember.
I understand some protestors have said that, and that’s offensively wrong. But do you have any proof that these protestors at MIT said that? I have not read that they have.
Because we have already seen that the news of these events can be exaggerated or intentionally distorted. For example, the Harvard protest was a “die-in”, with students sprawled out on the ground to represent Palestinian deaths. This was a peaceful protest, something that I hope everyone here believes is a fundamental right, even if they don’t agree with the message being delivered. Yet somehow that got twisted as being “pro-Hamas” by the student who lied about being harassed because he was Jewish.
The KKK has a verified record of murder in this country. In my view, being terrified of the KKK is justified based on its history of violent practices here in our country.
Any group protest advocating violence or physical harm of any sort to others should be prohibited and punished.
If a peaceful protest becomes violent, then it needs to be shut down & individuals engaging in violent acts need to be arrested and charged.
No student, teacher, administrator, guest, or employee of any school in the United States of America should fear for their safety; all should be free from threats & acts of violence.
Freedom of Speech is a Constitutional right, but not an absolute right as it has limits.
Now is a time for leadership as well as a time to appreciate our Constitutional freedoms without threats of violence or acts of violence. Students here on visas need to understand and adhere to our laws or be deported.
College & university administrators have a duty to enact reasonable measures to ensure student safety on campus at all times. Heads of schools have a duty to condemn acts of violence or threats of violence.
I am concerned about rights under the US Constitution as exercised & protected in the United States of America.