You are correct but the school indicated they would be reviewing and taking “appropriate” actions.
It had appeared she was given the option to resign but I could be wrong.
I stand corrected but still support WF’s response.
1 Like
Interesting. As a Cornell grad, I followed the goings on there. The Administration’s behavior post October 7 was not actionable IMO but I won’t say those students didn’t feel threatened.
Statements that condone the use of violence….
Many in my Jewish circle have been posting/tweeting things that condone bombing Gaza…I wonder if that would pass WF’s sniff test?
3 Likes
I would hope not. Moral consistency matters and innocent human life is precious regardless of whose it is.
8 Likes
I do not know what exactly is being meant by “things that condone bombing Gaza”, or how much thought went into WF’s statement, but it goes without saying that there is no moral —or legal —equivalency between deliberate slaughter of innocent civilians by a terrorist organization and legitimate acts of self-defense that result in unintended casualties among civilians illegally used as human shields.
The US government recognizes Israel’s right to defend itself, just as it recognizes Hamas as a terrorist organization.
There is no symmetry here.
(2 minute video)
5 Likes
I have not heard any of the advocates of women’s rights in universities decry the mass rapes of Israeli women by Hamas.
Incidentally, international women’s rights organizations have also chosen not to respond in any way.
6 Likes
OK. My toned down repost was also flagged as offensive. I’m not upset at all. But, I’m really curious as to what people were offended by. If the person who flagged it does not mind and if it does not violate community standards, I’d love it if you could send me a DM explaining what was offensive. I promise not to respond substantively (so you don’t have to worry about getting into a debate), except possibly with another question.
. . .
1 Like
It wasn’t flagged as “offensive” but it broke the rules. Specifically, any post that questions the rules or the actions of a moderator is off-limits. There is a way of questioning the rules (which is not PM’ing me), which is indicated in the rules which are linked at the bottom of this, and every page.
As an aside, I don’t generally edit posts. So 90% of the post can be fine, but the 10% can result in the post being hidden.
Whether killing 12,000 (mostly) civilians is necessary self-defense, is what much of the disagreement at colleges centers around. The terrorist killings on October 7th were unacceptable. But, when even legitimate governments, multi-nationals, and world-leaders struggle with the question whether killing near ten times the number of civilians so far is necessary, then I think we should accept (not decry) that young people at colleges will equally struggle to agree on a single answer.
4 Likes
This is not the question I was responding to, though.
I limited my post to focus on colleges and the moral dilemma that students face, and what causes some to loudly take sides. A more direct response to your assertion would have belonged into the political forum, which I am not member of.
2 Likes
This is how mature people do it.
Here is the article mentioned in the segment.
No doubt, they disappointed people on both sides of the issue which means they got it more right than most other institutions.
Northwestern’s President formed a committee to combat antisemitism and hate, and stated that certain speech is off limits (“from the river to the sea…”).
A letter to the editor of the school newspaper, signed by 65 NU student organizations, called him out for following the “mass hysteria and collective psychosis” of censorship that characterizes the response at other universities.
“(President) Schill’s choice to platform fringe beliefs on the use of this statement and deny genocide in an attempt to mischaracterize the mission of activists on campus is intentionally irresponsible and incredibly dangerous…
…he has chosen a side. “
Well, there you have it.
1 Like