Elizabeth Magill, president of the University of Pennsylvania, resigned following her comments after Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) questioned her on the school’s free speech and harassment policy. There’s been calls for the removal of Claudine Gay as well, Harvard’s president. So far, Gay remains.
All three university presidents have faced criticism because none could definitely suggest that student groups calling for the genocide of Jews on their campuses violated policies of harassment and bullying. One particularly revealing exchange between Stefanik and Magill went like this:
Stefanik: “Ms. Magill at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s rules or code of conduct yes or no?”
Magill: “If the speech turns into conduct it can be harassment, yes.”
Stefanik: “I am asking, specifically calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment.”
Magill: “If it is directed or severe or pervasive it is harassment.”
Stefanik: “So the answer is yes.”
Magill: “It is a context-dependent decision.”
Stefanik: "This is the easiest question to answer yes, Ms. Magill.”
Stefanik: “Ms. Magill at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s rules or code of conduct yes or no?”
Magill: “If the speech turns into conduct it can be harassment, yes.”
Stefanik: “I am asking, specifically calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment.”
Magill: “If it is directed or severe or pervasive it is harassment.”
Stefanik: “So the answer is yes.”
Magill: “It is a context-dependent decision.”
Stefanik: "This is the easiest question to answer yes, Ms. Magill.”
Stefanik called on the three university presidents to resign from their posts on Friday, such was her disappointment in the inability of the leadership of some of our most recognized institutions of higher education to distance themselves from bigotry and hate — and to condemn it.
Following Hamas’ attack on Israel October 7, elite universities have become a hotbed of controversy when many students and professors responded not with empathy toward Israel or outrage toward terrorism, but called for the annihilation of Jews, Israel, and condemnation of the country’s right to defend itself.
In the Wall Street Journal, Heather Mac Donald laid the blame for the rising antisemitism on campus at the feet of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) campaigns that are now etched into the policies of many corporations and institutions of higher education. As might be expected, many universities are taking the opposite tack and actually including antisemitism under the DEI umbrella of “oppressed” groups.
But the entire concept that some groups in America are inherently oppressed and others are oppressors, is subjective, steeped in xenophobia, and often bogus. America simply isn’t like other countries, where this may actually be true. It also continues to emphasize a wildly obvious double standard: A 2020 article in the Harvard Business Review explained “when and how to respond to microaggressions” which were defined as “verbal, behavioral, and environmental indignities that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults to the target person or group.” But now that Jewish students find themselves on the other end of these microaggressions --- and worse --- Harvard’s president can’t see the double standard.
Democrats don’t think the Jewish community in America is oppressed but historically in other countries, this is not the case. This in and of itself should prove the structure of oppressor versus oppressed bankrupt: Steven Speilberg is Jewish but a successful Hollywood icon, so he can’t be oppressed. But what about Eitan Yahalomi, the 12 year-old Israeli boy (who is also, actually, French-Israeli) whom Hamas kept in solitary confinement for over two weeks after abducting him? What about the Jewish students on Ivy League campuses who have been subjected to harassment and bullying non stop since October 7? Any system like this that is arbitrary and subjective is flawed and should be thrown out. DEI seems to be, at the most primitive level, based on these kinds of notions.
Even the Supreme Court ruled last summer that Harvard had discriminated against its Asian applicants for years, condemning affirmative action. But President Gay was nonplussed and instead said that although the university admissions “will change how we pursue the educational benefits of diversity–but our commitment to that work remains steadfast.” Unfortunately, this same commitment hasn’t applied to the existing Jewish students on Harvard’s campus.
The only thing that will chill DEI efforts and realign the blatant bigotry on college campuses, short of a spiritual revival, is money. Money talks all the time, but especially in crises. Big donors have already stopped giving to their alma maters. Ross Stevens, founder and CEO of Stone Ridge Asset Management, had committed about $100 million in 2017 to Penn, his alma mater. He announced he was withdrawing it in light of Tuesday’s hearing. Everyone, conservative or not, should encourage this.
During the hearing, Rep. Brandon Williams (R-N.Y.), asked a pertinent question: “Should the federal government keep shoveling money and privilege to institutions that fail so profoundly in their mission?” No. The only question remains is does Congress have the stones to stop this? If they do, they should. Universities like Harvard don’t need taxpayer-funded subsidies and the hearing last week proved they don’t deserve it, either.
Following Hamas’ attack on Israel October 7, elite universities have become a hotbed of controversy when many students and professors responded not with empathy toward Israel or outrage toward terrorism, but called for the annihilation of Jews, Israel, and condemnation of the country’s right to defend itself.
In the Wall Street Journal, Heather Mac Donald laid the blame for the rising antisemitism on campus at the feet of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) campaigns that are now etched into the policies of many corporations and institutions of higher education. As might be expected, many universities are taking the opposite tack and actually including antisemitism under the DEI umbrella of “oppressed” groups.
But the entire concept that some groups in America are inherently oppressed and others are oppressors, is subjective, steeped in xenophobia, and often bogus. America simply isn’t like other countries, where this may actually be true. It also continues to emphasize a wildly obvious double standard: A 2020 article in the Harvard Business Review explained “when and how to respond to microaggressions” which were defined as “verbal, behavioral, and environmental indignities that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults to the target person or group.” But now that Jewish students find themselves on the other end of these microaggressions --- and worse --- Harvard’s president can’t see the double standard.
Democrats don’t think the Jewish community in America is oppressed but historically in other countries, this is not the case. This in and of itself should prove the structure of oppressor versus oppressed bankrupt: Steven Speilberg is Jewish but a successful Hollywood icon, so he can’t be oppressed. But what about Eitan Yahalomi, the 12 year-old Israeli boy (who is also, actually, French-Israeli) whom Hamas kept in solitary confinement for over two weeks after abducting him? What about the Jewish students on Ivy League campuses who have been subjected to harassment and bullying non stop since October 7? Any system like this that is arbitrary and subjective is flawed and should be thrown out. DEI seems to be, at the most primitive level, based on these kinds of notions.
Even the Supreme Court ruled last summer that Harvard had discriminated against its Asian applicants for years, condemning affirmative action. But President Gay was nonplussed and instead said that although the university admissions “will change how we pursue the educational benefits of diversity–but our commitment to that work remains steadfast.” Unfortunately, this same commitment hasn’t applied to the existing Jewish students on Harvard’s campus.
The only thing that will chill DEI efforts and realign the blatant bigotry on college campuses, short of a spiritual revival, is money. Money talks all the time, but especially in crises. Big donors have already stopped giving to their alma maters. Ross Stevens, founder and CEO of Stone Ridge Asset Management, had committed about $100 million in 2017 to Penn, his alma mater. He announced he was withdrawing it in light of Tuesday’s hearing. Everyone, conservative or not, should encourage this.
During the hearing, Rep. Brandon Williams (R-N.Y.), asked a pertinent question: “Should the federal government keep shoveling money and privilege to institutions that fail so profoundly in their mission?” No. The only question remains is does Congress have the stones to stop this? If they do, they should. Universities like Harvard don’t need taxpayer-funded subsidies and the hearing last week proved they don’t deserve it, either.
