Rep. Elise Stefanik had three university presidents on the hook today and decided to goad them by asking if calling for the genocide of Jews violated their university's code of conduct or anti-harassment policies. "Yes or no?" she demanded repeatedly, but all three presidents demurred. Instead they replied with various versions of "it's context dependent"—which outraged Stefanik and a bunch of other people too.
The problem is that Stefanik very deliberately didn't ask the presidents how they personally felt. I think we can all guess that. She asked about their universities' written policies. At Harvard, for example, racial harassment is defined as actions
that demean or abuse another individual or group because of racial or ethnic background. Such actions may include, but are not restricted to, using racial epithets, making racially derogatory remarks, and using racial stereotypes.
The student handbook adds this:
It is important to note here that speech not specifically directed against individuals in a harassing way may be protected by traditional safeguards of free speech, even though the comments may cause considerable discomfort or concern to others in the community.
Calling for genocide certainly falls within the "racially derogatory" bucket, but like it or not, it's factually correct to testify that it's protected as free speech unless it's directed at an individual in a harassing way. In other words, it's context dependent.
The presidents were not waffling, nor being morally bankrupt. They surely all think that calling for Jewish genocide is ugly and antisemitic. But it's also protected speech in some circumstances, so that's what they said. It was the correct answer.
There's more nuance, though. If John/Jane Doe calls for genocide, it's not necessarily a threat or even perceived as direction to commit violence. However, if a former POTUS called the genocide of Muslim Americans to be good and necessary, I doubt that would be protected speech. But, I'm neither a constitutional nor 1A expert, so maybe a former POTUS can call for the extermination of all Muslim Americans and no one will stop it, especially the courts? ¯\(°_o)/¯
God save us all from ourselves and our insistence on not breaking the glass in the case of an emergency, especially those moderates who seem to think everything is fine. No wait, sacrifice them first -- they deserve what they get.
Over the course of American history, I believe that various members of various administrations have used the phrase "bomb them back to the stone age" in reference to the peoples of Vietnam, Pakistan, Iraq and more.
Actually following through on that threat would surely be genocidal, but of course nobody was prosecuted, and the words involved were generally regarded as either "harmless" hyperbole or protected speech.
The people of Vietnam, Pakistan, Iraq, and others have not been systematically targeted, however. I see fault in your logic.
The original post was about whether calling for genocide -- something quite different from being "systematically targeted" -- was protected speech.
It's far less likely for a former or current president* to face any charges for calling for genocide than a regular citizen, protected speech or not. Our presidents are basically elected kings, as Trump is proving every day. Who exactly is going to arrest Trump or Bush for doing anything criminal?
*Of course IOKIYAR rules and elected Dems are far less likely to call for genocide of anyone anyway, but I also find it difficult to believe that Obama, Biden or Carter are ever at risk of being arrested either, no matter what they say or do.
Under a new Trump administration I would say that Biden, Obama, and the Clintons are very much in danger of being arrested.
It seems, though, that a lot of people think that calling Israel's actions in Gaza a genocide is not free speech.
Yes, A lot of people seem to think that calling Israel out on anything is "anti-Semitic," too. And yet Nazis march around all the time waving flags that let you know what THEY think on those topics, and they don't get arrested unless for it.
She's running for Vice President.
Not a chance. She may have the canine deference, but no way will Orange Jesus have a dog like her at his side.
He's probably looking over some hot evangelist chicks, or some FoxNews babe.
I will defend your right to call Stefanik a “dog” — I wouldn’t want you kicked off campus for it — but I think it’s a slur we should know by now to avoid.
Ah. But you were just channeling Trump, who of course thinks that way.
Or were you? Maybe that’s how you think about her too. At least you don’t refrain from referring to a woman as a “dog,” even if others would.
It’s impossible to tell. Speech is speech, but what people mean (sometimes subconsciously) is another thing.
Regulation of speech is often an attempt to regulate thought. Which is an impossible task.
As a general rule, regulating speech is a bad idea. But rather than use that principle as an excuse for anything goes, we should work to promote the speech of those who use speech carefully. Unfortunately, what our culture promotes & incentivizes is often the opposite. I think today we have culture problem, not a college (or government) policy problem.
(Just riffing.)
Martin is right though, possible misogyny aside. There is no way Elise Stefanik is going to be a VP pick as long as Noem, Lake, and the entire extended Fox News Universe of blond women exists.
Kindly refrain from insulting both dogs & women.
I’ve been debating this topic extensively on a variety of centrist to liberal comments boards the last two months. I’ve seen thousands of calls for genocide: every single one of which was for Palestinian genocide. Literally all of them. In fact, out of tens of thousands of comments I have not seen any that wished extra-legal harm on Jews either collectively or individually.
Sure, Twitter can find you a whacko who will say anything. In fact it is very good at feeding you this incitement as your team hate-retweets them over and over. But they are not representative of what your actual opponents are saying.
Generally here is what the progressive left thinks should happen to Jews in order to solve this fiasco: some combination of financial settlement of the harms the have inflicted on Palestine, relocation out of the West Bank or out of Israel entirely (to the US, Europe, etc), accountability for crimes committed as individuals, and UN peacekeeping. Effectively nobody wants them to be physically harmed.
I believe when people talk about "calling for genocide" of the Israeli people, they are referring to the phrase "from the river to the sea," which is widely interpreted as a threat to wipe out Israel and, presumably, its people. I suspect in your extensive discussion, you must have seen this phrase once or twice, and that's what people like Stefanik are talking about.
Now, there are clearly ways (in theory) that the land in question could become Palestinian without genocide, so there's room for debate about whether the phrase necessarily calls for genocide. As you say, many on the left simply see it as a way of calling for Palestinians to have the same access to those lands as anyone else, to have an equal say in the way those lands are governed, and to be protected under the same laws as citizens.
Whether that's a realistic hope after 70 years of conflict is at least debatable, of course.
However, the Likud Party's slogan "From the river to the sea" is somehow *not* calling for ethnic cleansing (at the very least))? A kind of IOKIYAAR? If an Israeli says it, it's okay?
Duh. If a Republican or people affiliated with the Republican Party says it, it's all ok. This extends to Likud and Netanyahu of course.
> it's factually correct to testify that it's protected as free speech unless it's directed at an individual in a harassing way.
So I can call for the genocide of all your people, but it becomes harassment when I remind you that you are included? This feels like hair-splitting, legalistic cowardice.
How is it "legalistic cowardice" to adopt a policy that heavily weighs *against* punishing people for saying things you don't like?
Cowardice would be university codes of conduct that require (or allow) the university to punish or suppress speech that majorities/university administrators find unpleasant. Haranging said universities for failing to engage in such punishment is bullying, and that's what granstanding fools like Stefanik are doing here.
Well said.
If I state that everyone like you should be killed, how is that not directed at you? And acting on those words is not harassement, but rather physical assault at best and murder at worst. And let’s be honest: if such speech were uttered on campus against racial groups, women, or the transgendered, then it would not be tolerated at all.
All people holding views such as yours should take a long look in the mirror. But not you, of course. Just. Every. Single. One. Of your type. Don’t take it personally, my friend.
I’d be interested in hearing your defense of when a Harvard student could make a heart-felt call for the eradication of the transgendered on campus.
The question, though, is whether "it's protected as free speech unless it's directed at an individual in a harassing way" is actually what the policy as-applied means.
In other words, are people saying "Palestine shall be free, from the river to the see" (not directed at any specific Jewish/Israeli student) being treated the same by the administration as those saying "you will not replace us"? Are those displaying Hamas flags treated like those displaying the Confederate flag?
Laugh. Let's get real.
Does anyone believe Harvard's commitment to free speech will last 5 seconds if a group of students start chanting "George Floyd deserved to die. Fucking nigger had it coming!" outside the African American Studies department?
Is there a way to permanently ban this person? I think he just went a bridge too far.
Why? He's exactly right.
No, he's exactly wrong. If student are chanting racist sh*t right outside the AAS Department, then that speech is being directed at specific individuals and is, legally, harassment and intimidation and not protected by the first amendment. Harvard's commitment to protecting that speech will indeed stop at that point, as it should.
This specific individual is being targeted. Should this be against the code of conduct? Or it a grey area because the student is Jewish and not black, gay or Muslim.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID-13ZY1DWM
1. What specific individuals are being targetted?
2. How is calling to globalize the intifada not targetting Israeli students, at minimum, given that the intifada targets Israelis?
I struggle here. The AAS example is a good one. But why is that against the First? I know it could be considered harassment of a targeted person but where the heck do yo draw the line? I understand context matters but not clear enough.
Do you even know what genocide means? When I say that I support the systematic killing of everyone sharing your sex/race/sexual orientation/etc. then you would have to be a damn fool to feel excluded. And acting on such words in a way directed at an individual is not harassement, it is assault with the intent to murder.
I mean, apparently, it's OK for Republicans to shriek about how gays are immoral, disgusting, etc. and should be jailed or "eliminated" and those same Republicans still are employed, able to eat in restaurants, etc. We generally don't punish them until they direct all that vitriol towards destroying the life of a specific gay person. (And even then we often just shrug.)
In that context, it's not surprising that speaking about genocide in generic ways is treated differently from speaking about genocide in specific ways... and only towards specific people. (I have a feeling Elise and the GOP don't care about genocide targeted towards Palestinians, whether generic or specific.)
We're talking about code of conduct, not legal prosecution. I don't know of any republicans calling for gays to be eliminated. But, if they did, they would most likely be fired from their jobs. Anyone at my firm certainly would be.
And now you know how very unpleasant it is for a black student to hear conservatives or Republican complain about black-on-black crime, or black neighborhoods, or hip hop culture, or…..
Laughable.
The equivalent of "From the river to the sea" would be chants advocating deporting all blacks back to Africa.
No equivalency.
This is my problem with the The First too: where is the line drawn?
When you come right down to it, there is only one context-independent principle. Wisdom is the principle that we treat each other the way we would want to be treated, and we can't do that unless we understand ourselves and understand people that disagree with us. And we can't do that unless we understand human nature.
The alternative is much simpler in the short term. Tell everyone, "Do as I say and not as I do." But then you need power to impose your will on others, and you have to deal with all kinds of nasty long-term effects like having to rationalize genocide, or being a victim of genocide.
Free speech is a context-specific rule. Rules are used in contexts in which they are ways of adhering to the wisdom principle, or they are used in contexts in which they are ways of violating the principle. Elsie, being a "do as I say, and not as I do" person, is using the free speech rule to violate the wisdom principle, and she's being enabled every time people allow her to get away with it.
For example, if you're dealing with a Christian Nationalist you can say the following:
Elsie ... the only yes or no answer I can give you is the answer to the question, "Do we adhere to the principle stated in Luke 10:27?" The answer is yes, in every context, without exception. The code of conduct rules are our best efforts toward adhering to that principle.
If you're dealing with a fundamentalist capitalist, then you reference Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiment, which is the same principle stated in different words. You have to speak in a language the other person can understand. Get it right, and they may not agree, but they otherwise change the subject.
Communication is the key, all right! Thanks for these concrete examples of how to do it.
There's a growing sentiment among us Lefties that we should not interact with the "other side" at all, since every last one of them is totally abhorrent in every possible way. But that's dumb, really dumb.
Bill Clinton made a point of understanding his adversaries and their positions, so that he could argue their case even better than they could themselves. Then he was ready to negotiate.
Israel has made a point of refusing to talk to its fellow Palestinians. As the stronger hand, they ought to be making the first move. But that would make their self-righteous "victimhood" less credible.
The question I like to ask to dodge some of the sensitivity around this issue is: How many dead civilians are an acceptable cost to defeat Hamas to the current leadership on both sides?
Ignore this comment, it makes no sense without the edits, which were removed.
My original point was that there is an asymmetry here. To Israel, dead civilians are a political liability, and to many Israelis, a moral one, too. To Hamas, dead civilians mean something entirely different. Dead Gazans are martyrs; dead Jews (Israeli or otherwise) are counted as some kind of victory, EVEN IF IT MEANS MORE DEAD PALESTINIANS.
This asymmetry means that lots of Gazans will die, but there is an upper limit on how many the IDF will kill. I feel cold-blooded for saying it, but I am waiting to see what that upper limit will turn out to be.
What happens when that turns out to be hundreds of thousands? Aren’t the Israelis talking about the deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/22/israel-apologise-japan-offensive-facebook-comments
And that was before the current leveling of Gaza. This is what they’re saying now:
https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-ground-operations-gaza-nagasaki-hiroshima-atomic-bombings-2456454-2023-11-01
Bad is bad and good is good. You can't expect others to accept "It's okay for me to be selfish but not okay for you to be selfish because you're better at it than me."
You should be able to accept that we are equal, and every human life is the most important human life one the planet, except that it's tied for first place with eight billion other humans.
When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Is there any university that specifically has a policy on genocide?
I think there are probably a lot of things universities don't have actual policies about.
University presidents, particularly those from the Ivies, seldom have to deal with partisan demagogues. A preface like "The First Amendment protects a lot of speech I find personally repugnant." will fireproof any answer.
I don’t consider Ackman a reliable reporter. I found some video of Stefanik’s questioning at Politico.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/05/university-presidents-antisemitism-house-panel-00130143
To accept Stefanik’s argument, you have to agree that calling for “intifada” or using the slogan “from the river to the sea” is genocidal speech. I might call it troubling, but it’s not “genocidal.” There's a difference between that and saying “kill all the Jews.” On both sides, there is an abuse of the charge of “genocide.” The term gets thrown around because it’s powerful. It’s the ultimate evil. Once you believe the other side is engaged in the ultimate evil, virtually anything your side does in retaliation to (or to preempt) their evil becomes justified. Language matters. I think we need more policing against abuse of the word. No one should accept Stefanik’s use of the word. It’s wrong and it leads to more atrocity. (I’ve argued against the pro-Palestinian side’s abuse of the word too.)
I find the Ackman and Stefanik side more than a little shifty. Weren’t they just about a minute ago on the “free speech absolutist” side? Now they want colleges to shut down and penalize speech they don’t like. These are not principled people.
Stefanik, for her part, is a Trump bootlicker and nobody in America today is more responsible for the recent rise of antisemitism than Trump himself. She is no ally to Jews. No one should fall for her devious ways.
Ackman, for his part, has been waging a war against institutions of higher education. If fascism comes to America, he’ll be.cheering on the new regime. Understand what he’s doing. He’s not to be trusted.
Well said. Moreover, Stefanik adopted the tired old "Answer 'yes' or 'no'!" trick at the end of a question which didn't permit such a crude response. It's pretty much always an indication that a dishonest interrogater wants to find ways to misrepresent someone's true opinions.
"Content moderation" isn't really easier on a college campus or at any organization than it is online. It always has to be context dependent, it will always involve some subjective hair-splitting. We all (or most of us) agree that calling for genocide is wrong, but there are a million different ways of expressing a range of sentiments, and most of the time there aren't clear bright lines you can rely on.
It's maybe an interesting area of discussion but a rather crappy gotcha question. It will always depend on the details.
And there will always be people who walk it right up to the line no matter what the standard. From sheer perversity if nothing else.
Can someone define the point where free speech becomes incitement?
That's precisely what's going to be decided in Trump's Jan. 6 trial -- and subsequent appeals.
Brandeburg v. Ohio, Hess v. Indiana.
It's saying 'Attack it now' is illegal, but 'Attack it later' is not.
Apparently, you can appear on a college campus (or really anywhere) and call for genocide of your enemies or Democrats in general - "vermin" - and that's A-OK.
But the GOP needs a fainting couch if someone - even just purely a theoretical person that doesn't exist in any real life examples - calls for genocide on a college campus of anybody... and that's an outrage.
Today in IOKIYAR 101.
It's not OK. Jews have been ringing the alarm bell about authoritarian leftist antisemitism for years and kept getting ignored by "Good Progressives". Now the chair of the congressional progressive caucus is literally making excuses for raping Jewish women and the "Good Progressives" are making excuses for their own degeneracy.
Take some responsibility. The American Left is sick and you're going to put Trump back in power at this rate. If nothing else, "Good Progressives" are transparent bigots and cowards and a total disgrace.
Ah, yes. The bothsideism concern troll. Thoughts and prayers, pal. Now bugger off, m'kay?
Stefanik should be asked if calling for the extermination of Hamas without limits is a call for genocide that should be restricted.
Hamas is not an ethnic or religious group.
Hamas is a terrorist group. Not an ethnic group.
Then there was this:
The fallback position, which I've seen from numerous right-wingers, is "Palestinians aren't an ethnic group, they're just Arabs. So they can't be the target of genocide." Any semantic port in a storm.
Kevin I think you’re misinterpreting the speech policies. The caveat in the student handbook protects say white student who quotes a James Baldwin essay, calls for genocide which may be a direct or indirect call for violence isn’t protected under any reading I can imagine.
I think the correct answer is "You're grandstanding and I'm not willing to participate in your theatrics".
If you think the anti-Semitism on college campuses is not real and not worth investigating, you are extremely ignorant of what is going on. Or maybe just an anti-Semite yourself.
Who said anything about anti-semitism not being "real" or "not worth investigating? Straw man much?
for all the talk of genocide it would certainly bolset the Palestinian credibility if they and others in the region admitted their genocide of Armenians, Assyrians and others
That's a good point--the median age of Palestinians _is_ 150 years, so plainly it makes sense to cluck our tongues about their failure to admit their complicity in committing genocides on behalf of the Ottoman Empire in 1915.
swing and a miss
Sorry, Kevin. Calling BS here.
We are not talking about whether Congress will regulate this speech and ban it. We are talking about a code of conduct on a University campus. We are not talking about throwing someone in prison for saying something. We are talking about disciplining them under a university system.
A university has an obligation to provide for the physical safety of its students. It should go without saying (but apparently doesn't) that includes not being told that you, your family, everyone in your synagogue, and every person of your race or faith should be exterminated, or ethnically cleansed from where they were born.
It is 2023 and I am sad that this needs to be said.
Exactly. Thank you. It's utterly shocking that KD and some people here are defending these university presidents. I don't think they'd have the same stances if large groups of students were marching and demanding the death of all black people or Muslims or Native Americans. But somehow with Jews it's a grey area and talk of their genocide can be rationalized.
As you said, no one is saying these people should be arrested. We're talking about a code of conduct. If I went around my office promoting genocide I would certainly be fired.
It should go without saying (but apparently doesn't) that includes not being told you, your family, everyone in your synagogue, and every person of your race or faith should be exterminated, or ethnically cleansed from where they were born.
That is not the speech that Stefanik is describing as "genocidal." (I'm referring to the video I watched, not Ackman's account.) Stefanik is referring to use of the slogan "from the river to the sea" and to calls for an intifada. The slogan has a history. It seems to mean different things to different people at different times. Maybe some people using it do want genocide, but it's too big a leap to say anyone using it is calling for the extermination of the Jewish people. Intifada is the Arabic word for uprising. An uprising is not a genocide, even if some people saying it mean that all Jews should be killed.
We need to separate what people say and what people mean. The first is observable, the second is guesswork. It's dangerous to regulate speech (what people say) because you think you know what people mean (which is something different than what they say).
I happen to think the slogan is troubling and the calls for an intifada are wrong. But I don't buy the argument that they fail to fall under what we call protected speech. The way to combat it is by calling it out and arguing against it. If we start banning controversial speech and punishing those who use it, we're losing important freedoms.
I've only seen some clips of the hearing, not the whole exchange. But in what I heard, Stefanik did not mention the phrase "from the river to the sea". She simply asked if calling for genocide is against their code of conduct.
Watch the 2nd clip at Politico.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/05/university-presidents-antisemitism-house-panel-00130143
She equates the words "intifada" (0:05) and "from the river to the sea" (1:35) with calls for genocide. It's a faulty premise.
I didn't see the rest of the questioning.
From "The River To The Sea" means exactly what it says. Given the opportunity, the Muslim world would gladly kill every last Jew. And then create a holiday to commemorate it. It's not hard for the university presidents to answer, "Yes, I oppose genocide." If they're too dumb to foresee the consequences of equivocating, they deserve to resign.
What does it mean when Likud and PM Netanyahu use it?
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/its-time-to-confront-israels-version-of-from-the-river-to-the-sea/
when Likud says it, they mean 'Status Quo'. Take that for what it is. Continued settlement, military control of area C, firm belief that there is no reason for a 2 state solution.
When someone says: Intifada and From the River to the Sea, they mean to replace Israel and ethnically cleanse or genocide all of the Jews in the land of Israel, West Bank, and Gaza.
Full disclosure: I believe that Israelis and Palestinians are both deserving of Safety, Dignity, and Statehood.
+1
How is ‘Continued settlement’ status quo?
Everyone knows the universities wouldn't tolerate this speech against any "oppressed" group, no matter what they claim their policies to be.
And I seriously doubt the Jewish students dealing with these ranting authoritarian leftist antisemites aren't experiencing personal attacks. The level of excuse-making is off the charts here, and sick.
And I see no evidence these administrators have any principles besides institutional and class loyalty, and their institutions and class have committed to Jew-hate as a political principle.
Shame on Drum for making excuses for "Good Progressives". The left is rotten and Drum is part of the problem.
Please don't feed this troll.
Noted.
Is "jemmy" Justin's little sister?
Jemmy seems to be outraged at things. Feigned or no, that's different from Justin's schtick, which is more a strategy of ennervation: "Hey guys, it's so hard to fight against evil, we should probably just give up."
There were other comments made at those hearings. From the Harvard Crimson:
"Foxx also asked the university presidents whether they believe Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish nation.
“'I agree that the state of Israel has a right to exist,' Gay said. The presidents of MIT and the University of Pennsylvania also offered affirmative responses."
The President of Harvard was willing to concede that Israel has a right to exist; but she was not willing to state that it has a right to exist as a Jewish nation.
Why not?
Would anyone get up in front of Congress and refuse to say that India has a right to exist as an Indian nation? Would anyone boldly assert that China has a right to exist, and then refuse to say that it has a right to exist as a Chinese nation?
Maybe they would. I guess. Maybe there really are people out there who oppose all forms of ethno-nationalism.
Nevertheless, I think it's entirely legitimate to wonder if President Gay only applies these standards to Israel.
In other words, it's only the Jews who have no right to their own nation.
A few weeks ago, Kevin asserted without any sort of evidence or data (which is unusual for him) that American universities are still the envy of the world. He made that assertion despite overwhelming evidence that our colleges and universities (in Blue states and Red) have suffered precipitous declines in academic freedom, free speech, viewpoint diversity, political diversity, ideological diversity, and many other metrics that make higher education worthwhile.
And now, Kevin appears to be continuing his defense of institutions of higher education (and their presidents) despite obvious implications that Jews are being singled out for discrimination.
Everyone has their blind spots. And, in Kevin's case, I'd say that he appears to be approximately 10-20 years behind the times in regard to the actual situation at our colleges and universities. Things are really bad there right now.
But one small bright side of the explosion of anti-Semitism on campus is that at least we are becoming more aware of those and similar problems. And that's an important first step.
Apparently you are unaware that there is a vigorous debate ongoing in India over the intent of some politicians to define India as a Hindu nation.— the effort to change the official name to ‘Bharat’ is one example. That is the correct comparison to make, as citizens of India include Moslems, Sikhs, Jains, Christians, Buddhists and whatever the little-contacted Andaman Islanders are.
There is plenty of opposition to China’s attempts to stamp out the cultures of Tibetans and Uighurs; that also seems to have escaped your notice.
@KenSchulz:
I am well aware of the problems in India and have visited there many times. But I would characterize that situation differently than you do. You present the topic, as best I can tell, from the perspective of a western, liberal, multi-ethnic democracy. And there's nothing necessarily wrong with that. But, when attempting to analyze vastly different cultures, that perspective may do more to confuse than to clarify.
Because the reality of the situation, as I understand it, is that there's probably a majority of humans on Earth who not only have no problem with defining nations in terms of ethnic identities, they in fact simply see that approach as the natural order of things.
Are there potential problems with that stance? Of course; but there are potential problems in all political or social organizations.
The USA, as best I am aware, is incredibly unique in the way it attempts to unite an astonishingly diverse population largely behind ideals. But there are an awful lot of people out there in the world who do not agree with that approach. And even here, there are limits to how far it can be applied.
Clearly, most American citizens do not like a major influx of immigration that appears to suddenly and drastically change the character of the nation. And any political party that wants to continue existing needs to take those concerns seriously rather than dismiss them all as bigotry.
Trump is declaring that, if elected, he'll be a dictator for a day so that he can just shut our borders. And I fear that such a statement could prove very popular. So rather than dismissing the 70+ million people who voted for him as prejudiced, the Democrats need a much, much more robust response to immigration concerns than "diversity is a strength, not a weakness." That line will win over university presidents while every battleground state turns blood red.
So, again, would anyone deny countries like China or India the right to their own national identities? Or is Israel singled out in this way as it is seemingly singled out in many other ways as well?
How do you write these long-winded comments without coming within a country kilometer of the issue. China and India can have their national identities, but that’s not license for an ethnic or religious majority (or even plurality) to turn minorities into second-class citizens.
It isn’t my Western democratic view that India is multiethnic and religiously diverse; Indians see it clearly enough that, since my college course in Asian Civ but pre-BJP, they created a half-dozen new states, along ethnic and religious lines.
@KenSchulz
I'm just commenting on reality.
"China and India can have their national identities, but that’s not license for an ethnic or religious majority (or even plurality) to turn minorities into second-class citizens."
I'm pretty certain that they would disagree with you. That's just the way the world is.
Can or should the USA use its influence to change the world in its own image? Well, that's a fraught question for the ages.
In general, we tend to promote human rights, even when dealing with countries like China. And I'm not opposed to that approach. I simply have little if any expectation that it will accomplish much.
But this conversation is about Israel. So, here's Chuck Schumer's statement:
“There are always things the Jews couldn’t do. Everyone could be a farmer but not the Jew, everyone could be a carpenter but not the Jew, everyone could move to Moscow but not the Jew, and everyone could have their own state, but not the Jew.”
The President of Harvard, Claudine Gay, appears to have been asserting that last sentiment in her statements before Congress: "everyone could have their own state, but not the Jew." See my original post above for a quote of her exact words.
And I cannot legitimately claim to know what's going on in her own heart and mind. It's possible that, like you, she's behaving in what I think may be an ethnocentric manner in expecting all other countries to mirror our own values of ethnic diversity and shun any sort of ethnic national identity.
But it's also possible that she's applying the anti-Semitic double standard that Schumer refers to and simply denies the possibility of an ethnic state only so far as Jews are concerned.
If I had to guess, I'd say it's a mixture of both these possibilities. To me, it seems pretty obvious that there's some anti-Semitic influence in her statement, and she's probably not even aware of it.
And the fact that Kevin's blog post completely glosses over that possibility is unfortunate.
This was a hearing about speech. I’m waiting for the Congressional hearing about animus against Moslems / Palestinians. A six-year-old is dead, his mother seriously injured, a young man is paralyzed after he and two others were shot. Perhaps we ought to start taking ‘anti-Semitic’ literally to include all peoples of Middle Eastern and North African origin.