Monday, December 11, 2023

University Presidents Who do not Consider Calls for Genocide of Jews to be Code of Conduct Violations Should Resign or be Fired

In a Congressional committee hearing, Representative Elise Stefanik asked the presidents of Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, and MIT a simple question: Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate the school's code of conduct or rule regarding bullying or harassment, yes or no?

Each president flunked that very simple exam by not answering "Yes, calling for the genocide of Jews violates our code of conduct regarding bullying or harassment." University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill--who testified that the answer depends on "context," implying that calling for the genocide of Jews is not bullying or harassment unless those calls lead to actual genocide--subsequently resigned, though she will retain her position as a tenured member of the university's law school; her continued employment as a professor teaching the next generation of lawyers is exhibit A of why tenure should be abolished, or at least not granted without any limitations. There is so much talk about "microaggressions"; how is a Jewish student--or any student who opposes the genocide of Jews--supposed to feel about having a professor who does not think that calling for the genocide of Jews violates the school's code of conduct or rule regarding bullying or harassment? Will the University of Pennsylvania create "safe spaces" for students who are not comfortable being taught by Magill?

Harvard President Claudine Gay and MIT President Sally Kornbluth have thus far neither resigned nor been relieved of their duties. The Congressional testimony of these three university presidents is just a snapshot of the moral bankruptcy of self-proclaimed "progressives" that has been exposed by their reactions to Hamas' October 7 mass casualty terrorist attack.   

Anyone who thinks that Representative Stefanik's simple question was a trap or a political trick should simply replace "genocide of Jews" with "genocide of Blacks," "genocide of women," or "genocide" of any group other than Jews, and then ponder how those university presidents would have replied. It is obvious that they would have immediately said "Yes." It is inconceivable that any college campus would tolerate marchers and protesters chanting slogans calling for the genocide of Blacks, women, or any other group--except for Jews. 

As Representative Stefanik said in response to Magill, "This is the easiest question to answer 'yes,' Ms. Magill."

It is disingenuous and ludicrous to assert that these university presidents are trying to protect free speech; the only speech that is "free" on college campuses today is speech that rigidly adheres to self-proclaimed "progressive" talking points. Those talking points justify any form of "resistance" against "oppressors," so because white people in general and Jews in particular are classified as "oppressors" in the "progressive" taxonomy the university presidents cannot conceive of how or why calling for the genocide of Jews would violate any campus rules.  

We saw the same kind of flawed thinking last year after Kyrie Irving made an antisemitic social media post. Anyone who defends what Irving did should also be prepared to defend, as I wrote at that time, a social media post promoting "a video filled with vile, hateful stereotypes of Black people claiming that slavery never happened, that Black people worship Satan, and that Black people are responsible for the suffering of white people, who are actually the original and true Black people." It is obvious that a social media post promoting such a video would be universally condemned; to act otherwise because the video slurs Jews is to reveal that many people view Jews as less than human, and thus not deserving of basic human rights.

The problem here is much bigger than the morally obtuse and indefensible Congressional testimony of three university presidents; the problem is that self-proclaimed "progressives" have assaulted and corrupted large portions of our education system, our media outlets, and our political discourse. Until people who possess moral courage and moral clarity reform the education system, the media outlets, and our political discourse, the raging fire that could destroy our society will continue to spread. It is not enough to put out a brush fire here or there; the resignation of one university president--or even three--will not solve the larger problem: noxious ideas and movements that have gained widespread acceptance must be refuted and rooted out. It is not surprising that hundreds of Harvard professors have spoken out to defend President Gay; anyone who has been indoctrinated by flawed conceptions is going to find it difficult, if not impossible, to understand why those conceptions are flawed.


  1. I guess Gay just resigned. It is unfortunate how many others are defending her. While many Harvard professors are, have you heard of any who aren't defending? Well, there must be enough backlash to cause her to resign. Hopefully not every professor thinks the same as her. You make a good point if we were to substitute the genocide of Black people or gays or another people instead of Jews, that almost everyone would be outraged and not deem that acceptable.

  2. Anonymous:

    Yes, Gay finally resigned, although she will still be a professor at Harvard, and that is unacceptable considering her documented plagiarism plus her lack of a functioning moral compass.

  3. It's interesting about the plagiarism. It looks pretty clearcut, but seems like she still has a lot of supporters making excuses for her saying it's basically not a big deal.

  4. Anonymous:

    It is clearcut, and plagiarism is very harmful in an academic setting because it boosts the status of the plagiarizer while marginalizing the person who is plagiarized; in an academic setting of "publish or perish," how often a person is cited is very important, so what Gay did was nothing less than an attempt to make her work look original while not giving credit to researchers who did original work. It is theft.

    It is not surprising that Gay has supporters making excuses for her; the supporters are the same people who elevated her to a position that she is not intellectually or morally qualified to hold, and the same people who seek to elevate other people who are similarly unqualified. This is all part of a larger program of replacing objective standards of achievement/excellence with subjective standards. Left unchecked, this program will destroy higher education (and, eventually, our country).

  5. Not really surprising Gay's plagiarism probe basically said what she did was ok, especially since it was Harvard themselves investigating. But interestingly or maybe not, that several of the authors she plagiarized said they're ok with it. Who knows, maybe they were paid off? Her plagiarism is blatant and evident. The probe looks like it's making excuses for her saying things like 'she didn't mean it' or 'it was accidental.' Who could accidentally write the same sentences or someone else or paraphrase that closely even once? What are the odds? Let alone many times. I'm sure I'd be in big trouble if I did that at my job. She gets a slap on the wrist and gets to keep her job as far as I can tell. What we're learning from Harvard is that plagiarism is ok. We all make mistakes and deserve second chances, and there's a place out there for everyone, but probably not at a prestigious university like Harvard for her, though Harvard is looking less and less prestigious lately. I'm sure all of her support is politically, racially, and/or gender related. I'm guessing mostly politically.

  6. Anonymous:

    I have seen at least one of the people who Gay plagiarized speak out publicly against what she did and explain why her actions are damaging. I would assume that the ones who support her do so to advance their careers by not rocking the boat, or out of fear that speaking out could damage their careers.

  7. Right. Not as publicized as much, but I see Carol Swain is who you're talking about or only example I can find. That's good she's speaking up about this plagiarism. I can see this example of Gay being a class/discussion topic in colleges in the future and the ethics/morality surrounding it of what actually happens in the real world.

  8. Anonymous: Yes, Carol Swain has been outspoken and stated without hesitation that Harvard should fire Gay.


All contents Copyright (c) 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 David Friedman. All rights reserved.