I don't think you are stupid. I just don't agree with you. But I think those university presidents looked stupid for not being able to answer the question simply and clearly, and I don't think they can afford to look stupid even when we all believe them to be smart. They lost this round. No amount of intellectual tap dancing is going to change that.
I don't think you are stupid. I just don't agree with you. But I think those university presidents looked stupid for not being able to answer the question simply and clearly, and I don't think they can afford to look stupid even when we all believe them to be smart. They lost this round. No amount of intellectual tap dancing is going to change that.
Different worlds. They live in a world where qualifications, nuances, conditions, and complexities must be addressed and acknowledge; to do less would be to lie. Stefanik (and much of the audience) live in a simpler world of black and white 30 second sound bites.
I don't think so. They had 2 audiences: the academic world and everybody else. Stefanik had already set up the trap, and they couldn't avoid it, so they had to respond in a way that wouldn't anger or frighten those in the academic world, where they spend most of their time,
I don't think you are seeing the broader perspective, or you are refusing to compromise because you want to win the argument. A hearing like that is a public relations game. They didn't know how to play it. By choosing their ivory tower-speak over the language of the context they were in, they alienated a lot of people including some I know who are very much enmeshed in the academic world.
I do see it in a broader perspective and see it a bad PR. Magill has already paid for that. However, given the way Elise Stefanik set up her trap, a simple, unequivocal "yes" would have been far more dangerous for academic free speech in the long run. They refused to sacrifice academic free speech for PR.
I'm glad to see that Harvard wasn't willing to sacrifice academic free speech for PR and donors.
Ask your academic friends if they think a student should be academically punished for chanting something like "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," which some auditors will hear as a call for genocide and others will not.
If they say "yes," ask them whether the student or the university will win the resulting lawsuit.
The "broader perspective" goes beyond PR, and I think the university presidents saw that and were willing to protect their universities even if, as in Magill's case, it cost their jobs.
I understand your point of view but I think you are clinging to a tangent. The Harvard president has now apologized, and there was an article in NYT yesterday about how opinion on campuses is divided. There is no monolithic "academia" for these university presidents to throw themselves into the breach for.
Should I be able to use the "n" word in public statements if I don't think it's offensive even though everyone else in the world does? "From the river to the sea" has a history of meaning death to Israel. If someone wants to chant a slogan that means, "freedom for Palestine," they should be able to be encouraged to use less loaded language without destroying freedom and democracy and the American way of life. If free speech is interpreted as broadly as you want it to be, Trump can get away with anything.
"There is no monolithic "academia" for these university presidents to throw themselves into the breach for."
You mean a large number of academics are not in favor of academic free speech? Are you sure of that?
"From the river to the sea" also has a history of meaning "freedom for Palestine."
As for Trump's getting away with anything, when it comes to coded hate speech, he already does.
As for coded hate speech, I think that door is already wide open, and it's too late to close it; after all, Trump and the GQP and the white supremacists have been working hard to make it the American vernacular. Ban a phrase, and the haters will come up with a new one; meanwhile some innocent will use the phrase with no idea that it's coded hate speech.
I certainly don't have an inside track on "academia." From what I am reading, those university presidents do not have the unanimous support of academics and it is disingenuous of you to suggest that I mean they are not in favour of free speech. I don't think you have made your case for "from the river to the sea." Enough people understand that to be a threat to Israel that no one should use it and feign innocence. But we are repeating ourselves. This is my last comment on the subject. Feel free to take another shot if you want to.
I never said all academics agree with the 3 university presidents; I said they are in favor of academic free speech. That doesn't mean they define and/or apply it identically.
I agree with the presidents because their position protects academic free speech as I understand it.
As for "from the river to the sea," Likud's Founding Charter declares "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." Do you see that as a threat to Palestinians? It is certainly a rejection of the Oslo Accords and the 2-state solution, but, if we are to take a Palestinian call for "from the river to the sea" as a call for the genocide of the Israelis and/or Jews everywhere, shouldn't we see Likud's invocation of the same phrase as a call for the genocide of the Palestinian people?
I don't think you are stupid. I just don't agree with you. But I think those university presidents looked stupid for not being able to answer the question simply and clearly, and I don't think they can afford to look stupid even when we all believe them to be smart. They lost this round. No amount of intellectual tap dancing is going to change that.
Different worlds. They live in a world where qualifications, nuances, conditions, and complexities must be addressed and acknowledge; to do less would be to lie. Stefanik (and much of the audience) live in a simpler world of black and white 30 second sound bites.
Exactly! They are out of touch.
I don't think so. They had 2 audiences: the academic world and everybody else. Stefanik had already set up the trap, and they couldn't avoid it, so they had to respond in a way that wouldn't anger or frighten those in the academic world, where they spend most of their time,
I don't think you are seeing the broader perspective, or you are refusing to compromise because you want to win the argument. A hearing like that is a public relations game. They didn't know how to play it. By choosing their ivory tower-speak over the language of the context they were in, they alienated a lot of people including some I know who are very much enmeshed in the academic world.
I do see it in a broader perspective and see it a bad PR. Magill has already paid for that. However, given the way Elise Stefanik set up her trap, a simple, unequivocal "yes" would have been far more dangerous for academic free speech in the long run. They refused to sacrifice academic free speech for PR.
I'm glad to see that Harvard wasn't willing to sacrifice academic free speech for PR and donors.
Ask your academic friends if they think a student should be academically punished for chanting something like "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," which some auditors will hear as a call for genocide and others will not.
If they say "yes," ask them whether the student or the university will win the resulting lawsuit.
The "broader perspective" goes beyond PR, and I think the university presidents saw that and were willing to protect their universities even if, as in Magill's case, it cost their jobs.
I understand your point of view but I think you are clinging to a tangent. The Harvard president has now apologized, and there was an article in NYT yesterday about how opinion on campuses is divided. There is no monolithic "academia" for these university presidents to throw themselves into the breach for.
Should I be able to use the "n" word in public statements if I don't think it's offensive even though everyone else in the world does? "From the river to the sea" has a history of meaning death to Israel. If someone wants to chant a slogan that means, "freedom for Palestine," they should be able to be encouraged to use less loaded language without destroying freedom and democracy and the American way of life. If free speech is interpreted as broadly as you want it to be, Trump can get away with anything.
"There is no monolithic "academia" for these university presidents to throw themselves into the breach for."
You mean a large number of academics are not in favor of academic free speech? Are you sure of that?
"From the river to the sea" also has a history of meaning "freedom for Palestine."
As for Trump's getting away with anything, when it comes to coded hate speech, he already does.
As for coded hate speech, I think that door is already wide open, and it's too late to close it; after all, Trump and the GQP and the white supremacists have been working hard to make it the American vernacular. Ban a phrase, and the haters will come up with a new one; meanwhile some innocent will use the phrase with no idea that it's coded hate speech.
I certainly don't have an inside track on "academia." From what I am reading, those university presidents do not have the unanimous support of academics and it is disingenuous of you to suggest that I mean they are not in favour of free speech. I don't think you have made your case for "from the river to the sea." Enough people understand that to be a threat to Israel that no one should use it and feign innocence. But we are repeating ourselves. This is my last comment on the subject. Feel free to take another shot if you want to.
I never said all academics agree with the 3 university presidents; I said they are in favor of academic free speech. That doesn't mean they define and/or apply it identically.
I agree with the presidents because their position protects academic free speech as I understand it.
As for "from the river to the sea," Likud's Founding Charter declares "between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty." Do you see that as a threat to Palestinians? It is certainly a rejection of the Oslo Accords and the 2-state solution, but, if we are to take a Palestinian call for "from the river to the sea" as a call for the genocide of the Israelis and/or Jews everywhere, shouldn't we see Likud's invocation of the same phrase as a call for the genocide of the Palestinian people?