The Times did a detailed article on the phrase including quotes fro various experts.
1 Like
It was a hypothetical. I was speculating about why MIT might have chosen not to suspend international students, who might be here from many different countries.
1 Like
The First Amendment prohibits the government (federal, state, local) from passing LAWS that inhibit free speech. MIT, NYU, etc are not governments. They have the right to make student codes of conduct and the schools alone have the ability to enforce those rules.
And I think they have an obligation to do so. Campuses are known to erupt over many issues not as important as this conflict is. Lots of people on campuses want to shout and pound fists and make their point known and often we like to see that in academia, a good debate, an exchange of ideas. Without rules it would be chaos. If the rules have no teeth (like âyou will be suspendedâ) there may not be much the schools can do to enforce those rules.
6 Likes
According to the students itâs not a call to reverse the 1993 Oslo accord of mutual recognition between Israel and Palestinians!
Supposedly itâs solely meant to describe the geographic extent of Palestine, in which multiple people and religions have co-existed for thousands of years â and thus should be permitted to continue to co-exist in the future â without any being displaced, or areas being reserved for privileged use.
(I canât speak to anyoneâs real intentions, but the latter part is the one that students state, they are demonstrating for.)
2 Likes
Not to you, @DadOfJerseyGirl. Sorry.
Meant to direct to @DigitalDad who seemed to be saying that the line between acceptable speech and unacceptable speech seemed clear.
It is to me:
If you state that you support Hamas terrorists, or their recent actions, then itâs unacceptable. If you state that any peoples shouldnât be allowed to exist, then itâs unacceptable.
If you state that you disagree with governments/organizations and their policies, then itâs perfectly acceptable, regardless which government. None can be off the table âjust becauseâ.
The ambiguity seems to be more with âsensibilitiesâ, and how certain âspeechâ is being interpreted against a speaker, depending on which cause a listener might root for. In the minds of some you either have to be islamophobe or antisemetic, if you should dare state any opinion. But keeping their mouths shut is not many studentsâ strong point, nor should it.
This debate should take place among young people who will have to live it and lead us for decades - and universities are the proper venue.
7 Likes
I always admired schools which just adopted the first amendment standard which is clearcut, and acknowledged that some students may be uncomfortable with othersâ speech but that is part of college for adults.
1 Like
Would you name some where it is âclear cutâ please?
Where the school would let students disrupt a right wing judge trying to speak but those same students would claim âfree speechâ to call for genocide?
Or perhaps schools where students could not say anything mildly offensive to, say, an LGBTQ student but that âfree speechâ against Jews is fair game?
Could you please list the schools so consistently enforcing this free speech standard? Many of us are curious.
5 Likes
Of those schools which have had at least some protests/vigils on campus, both Chicago and Princeton seem to be two examples of schools which have managed to hold to their standards consistently.
2 Likes
The president of Northwestern said something interesting in his recent statement that I think gets lost in the discussion. Just because you can to say whatever you like, doesnât mean you should.
There are probably many things weâd love to say to people in the workplace but we donât. Because we are a community of people that are all pulling for same objective and for peace in the community and not to detract from that goal, we treat each other with respect and civility.
I cannot imagine being on a campus where I join a protest to call for someoneâs eradication only to then sit next to them in class or work with them on an assignment.
5 Likes
@HelicopterParent1, how about taking a class (possibly a required course) from a professor who has said that âIsraelis are pigs. Savages. Very very bad people. Irredeemable excrementâ or that the Hamas attack was exhilarating" or a âsource of jubilation?â
I donât care what discriminated minority someone is part of - there should be no kid gloves when evaluating if someone is fit for a particular position, no matter their academic renown. Obviously, Iâm not privy to all information, but on the surface I would have expected Dr. Mika Tosca to (be given the opportunity to) offer taking unpaid leave, if not their outright resignation from teaching.
3 Likes
Yes, that would suck. Maybe Iâd start a class teaching that LGBTQ people are evil just to expose the hypocrisy. (Before this gets flagged, do be clear, I DO NOT hold the above position. Just trying to prove a point.)
Maybe Iâm trying to thread a needle here but if students are protesting, even using this disgraceful language, I suppose a student can avoid such speech occurring in the public square, so to speak. I do think it gets sticky pretty quickly if a school starts deciding whatâs acceptable and what isnât.
A professor teaching a class to a captive audience is different. I would think that professor could and should be fired for cause.
4 Likes
AlthoughâŠperhaps reversing myself, I try draw parallels to another community of people: the workplace. Sure, if a fellow employee was standing by the water cooler espousing such hate, yes, they should be fired and escorted out of the building.
1 Like
In a separate thread a poster stated Wash U St. Louis started a transfer program specifically for Jewish students unhappy at their current campus. I had never heard of that
1 Like
I can imagine being in a classroom where some joined a protest supporting the rights of Palestinians and where some people chanted from âfrom the river to the seaâ and who had no belief they were supporting âsomeoneâs eradication,â because thatâs not the only interpretation of the slogan.
Thatâs very different than supporting something unambiguous like âdeath toâŠâ or saying that terrorists (such as Hamas) who torture, rape and murder people are heroes. Itâs going to be really hard to move forward if every âsideâ takes the âif youâre not with us you are against usâ approach and paints everyone in broad strokes. Right now people on both âsides,â who in many cases want only peace, individual dignity and human rights for everyone, are being accused of supporting genocide.
5 Likes
A President of a multi-million company/college who is wasting cycles about lies and mis-informatoin on social media/tabloids is not doing it right. (They need a better comms team.)
It does not appear that the Wash U transfer program is specifically for Jewish students. They have not previously offered an option for spring transfers and have announced a pilot program for the Spring 2024 semester. Although the intent behind announcing this now undoubtedly is to scoop up Jewish students who are not happy at other elite universities, it is not a transfer program just for Jews.
4 Likes
Columbia and Barnard faculty are protesting Columbiaâs suspension of groups and suppression of protests.
As a Jewish American from New York City, Joseph Howley, associate professor of classics, said that âanyone who is telling our University leaders that they need to suppress our studentsâ free speech in order to keep Jews like me safe does not speak for me, and they never will.â
4 Likes
Not clear that the same is in the works for Professor Massad of Columbia (who described the Hamas attack as âinnovative,â a âmajor achievement,â and a source of âjubilation and awe.â) or Professor Rickford of Cornell (who said he was âexhilaratedâ by the Hamas attack on Israel). Obviously, like you, I am not privy to all information, but it is hard to believe (though sadly not hard to imagine) that these folks ought to be in a position to teach students.
1 Like