The Fox article incorrectly says Columbia suspended SJP over support for Hamas. They suspended them for continuing to host potentially disruptive events without a permit. They were warned in advance, then the participates were warned during the event and still declined to comply.
3 Likes
False equivalency. Speaking up is not a violation of the code of conduct. OTOH, blocking other students from attending class just may be. And if that becomes your hypo headline, Iād guess most woudl agree that any student who blocks another from attending a class (for which they paid thousands) should be suspended, or at least subject to a hearing.
MIT leadership chose to put itself in this position.
I didnāt say it was. Neither did MIT.
But there are heightened emotions all around and I can see how a headline like this could be written. In any case, I donāt excuse MITās decision (as I mentioned in my prior posts).
1 Like
Of course that would be the headline-look at the prior headlines
1 Like
Just to be clear, the U.S. Constitution, including the First Amendment, applies to everyone within US borders, regardless of citizenship status. Unless the speech is direct, personal, and either truly threatening or violently provocative, it is protected.
Freedom of speech is essential to a democratic society. Itās one thing to hate what is said, itās another to deny the right to say it.
https://international.globallearning.cornell.edu/maintaining-your-status/protests-and-your-rights
1 Like
You may want to read MITās statement again. The disciplinary action they took (stopping short of suspension) was because the students blocked hallways and a lobby that they were not allowed to block, not because of what they said.
From the statement:
āI am deliberately not specifying the viewpoints, as the issue at hand is not the substance of the views but where and how they were expressed.ā
4 Likes
Censorship never winsā¦
āāColumbiaās repression of our free speech reinforces a racist narrative that devalues Palestinian life and erases anti-Zionist Jews who condemn the conflation of a violent apartheid state with the Jewish people,ā SJP and JVP wrote in a joint statement to Spectator regarding their suspension.ā
1 Like
I did read it and I understand, but Iāve read this entire thread and there is some enthusiasm to deny free speech to college students, and especially to international ones.
We canāt support Israelās democracy by diminishing our own.
2 Likes
Just to be more clear, that link is incomplete. Free speech only applies to public and governmental agencies or in the public square. A private company or private college, such as Cornell or MIT, can decide which speech is acceptable within their confines.
4 Likes
could you point out those posts, as I have not seen any.
1 Like
Do we want institutions of higher learning to control the speech (thoughts) of their students? I believe freedom of speech should be valued on all campuses- private or public.
I am not aware of any that has.
1 Like
They already do affect free speech. Certain words and speech that is legal in the public square is forbidden on a private college campus.
Regardless, itās not what I (or āweā) want, private institutions have a legal right to regulate speech in any way they see fit. Itās the US Constitution. If parents donāt like such regulations, they can look elsewhere for college or attend a public Uni.
1 Like
I am not a legal person, but here are thoughts on this from others. Maybe itās not only an issue of private schools getting to do what they want, but rather what they promise to deliver.
āFurthermore, private colleges and universities are contractually bound to respect the promises they make to students. Many institutions promise freedom of expression in university promotional materials and student conduct policies, but then deliver selective censorship once the first tuition check is cashed. They may not be bound by the First Amendment, but private institutions are still legally obligated to provide what they promise. Private institutions may not engage in fraud or breach of contract.ā
And this study shows that a good number of private schools have written policies upholding freedom of speech on their campus:
āSalkin and Messke looked at 190 private universities and examined whether the schools had documents articulating protection of free expression. They focused only on statements that affirmed free speech, rather than tracking statements that prohibited certain speech. Salkin and Messke identified 75 statements, many of which had been created in the past seven years. They analyzed the statements and identified four themes: free speech as an educational good, responsibility for the university environment, speech and conflict, and alignment with public institutions and the U.S. Constitution.ā
and I would add, āand enforceā. (which MIT has clearly chosen not to do)
The point was not that it would actually be equivalent, but how the click-bait tabloids would add their own twist to feed misguided outrage (as observed/documented repeatedly in recent weeks.)
1 Like
Is āFrom the river to the seaā fuzzy @DadOfJerseyGirl? This phrase was chanted by demonstrators at Columbia and, I think, at Harvard.
Arguably, eliminating Jews from the river to the sea is advocating genocide or the forced expulsion of probably 10 MM people. This is certainly the way the phrase has been used by Hamas and the PLO, among many others.
But, Rashida Tlaib argues that it is an aspirational chant about coexistence.
As someone loosely connected to a university, my sense is that if one used phrases like this where the minority was black, women (well not actually a minority at many schools) or LGBTQ+ rather than Jewish, these same universities would be much more likely to have stepped in in some way to ensure that people felt safe. When the minority is Jewish, not so much. That may change, but only as a result of donor backlash.
Before the university presidents were reflexively responding to the pressure of progressive, pro-Palestinian (and in some cases pro-Hamas) factions of the student body and professors but now see that they have to balance this against donor backlash. It took Gay about a month to denounce the āfrom the river to the seaā phrase:
Professors who issued remarkable support for the Hamas attack at various schools are walking their statements back in mealy-mouthed ways.
In the parlance of university administrators, I wonder how the Jewish students could feel safe in classes with Professor Rickford of Cornell (who said he was āexhilaratedā by the Hamas attack on Israel) or Professor Tasko of the Art Institute of Chicago (she of āIsraelis are pigs. Savages. Very very bad people. Irredeemable excrement,ā) or Joseph Massad of Columbia (who described the Hamas attack as āinnovative,ā a āmajor achievement,ā and a source of ājubilation and awe.ā) even if some have made half-hearted apologies.
8 Likes
Not to me.
I am unclear why youāre directing this question, and in fact your whole post, at me. Are you under the mistaken impression that Iāve condoned antisemitic or any other kind of hate speech?
It would depend on what the āspeaking upā was.