[wat0n]

So it appears they disagree with even these charges. Not sure how that strengthens your argument in any way.

What do you think will happen if it goes to trial?

No, I'm saying that antisemitic rhetoric is not common at anti-genocide demonstrations. It would take a redefinition of the term to claim otherwise. For example some people have tried this by claiming that phrases like "from the river to the sea" are inherently antisemitic, but this claim has been long discredited.

No, it's not.

Those justifying and indeed chanting for repeating October 7 are.

So are those who tell Jews to go back to Poland, Germany, Israel or anywhere else they don't want to go.

Not a common thing said at these demonstrations. According to your own criteria, it shouldn't be a reflection on the whole movement. (You consistently dismiss racist remarks by the pro-regime folks as not a reflection of the general pro-regime "movement" so you should stay consistent)

I provided several examples of that.

The denial is strong in this one.

Disruptive according to who? Disruptive in what way?

Not allowing for normal lectures because of the noise, for starters.

Schools are public spaces. The "property rights" question is out of place here.

It's not and also not all schools even allow them to be. As in, there are schools where encampments can't happen simply because there's nowhere to camp.

Only to genocide supporters. But people who generally oppose things like genocide (the majority of people) agree with these peaceful protests.

Not true either. The protests are not popular.

This is also not related to the first thing you posted.

Clear example of students harassing someone (an university president) at his home. Or what, you think protesting in front of your house isn't unwelcome conduct i.e. harassment?

[KurtFF8]

What do you think will happen if it goes to trial?

Guess we'll find out

No, it's not.

Those justifying and indeed chanting for repeating October 7 are.

So are those who tell Jews to go back to Poland, Germany, Israel or anywhere else they don't want to go.

That is not a chant at Palestine protests, just a case or two of isolated comments by unaffiliated people. Same with the other comment you've mentioned. Again, per your own criteria, these can't be used to frame the entire movement as you've said about the pro-regime counter demonstrators.

I provided several examples of that.

The denial is strong in this one.

Again, by your own standards they can't be used to frame the entire movement. This is how you dismissed what you claimed were isolated incidents of pro-regime racists, so these must be dismissed too by your own logic.

Not allowing for normal lectures because of the noise, for starters.

Lectures in universities tend not to be held in the middle of fields in common areas. They are usually in classrooms.

It's not and also not all schools even allow them to be. As in, there are schools where encampments can't happen simply because there's nowhere to camp.

Where there's "no space to camp" there usually aren't encampments. This seems like a non point.

Not true either. The protests are not popular.

Their aims are popular of course as a definitive majority supports a ceasefire. And while the constant negative press by the corporate media has indeed tried to damage their image, it's actually surprising that the American public is still quite divided over the punishments and in most polls: Americans are overall quite split on the encampments.

Clear example of students harassing someone (an university president) at his home. Or what, you think protesting in front of your house isn't unwelcome conduct i.e. harassment?

So now all protesting is equal to harassment? Public figures are often the targets of protests.

[QatzelOk]

Three wat0n quotes unpacked

Nazis usually project their nonsense on others, and boy they've been excusing October 7 lately.

You have advanced from calling people you don't agree with "antisemites and rapists" to calling them "Nazis." Godstud would be proud of your smears.

Being a student doesn't make you an owner or even a shareholder of the university.

No it doesn't. But undergrads often discover that they have moral agency, and that the world has many unresolved problems. Students also have free time between semesters to "find themselves" and protest against injustice. This is why you find them threatening. They aren't career-slaves yet.

If Palestinians can use violence against Israelis, why can't Israel respond?

If Jeffrey Dahmer's victims can attack Jeffrey with violent words, why can't he drill holes in their heads to "protect himself" from humiliating words?

Is there a power imbalance between these two protagonists?

[wat0n]

Guess we'll find out

Oh, we will since the DA does have evidence given their charges weren't dropped.

That is not a chant at Palestine protests, just a case or two of isolated comments by unaffiliated people. Same with the other comment you've mentioned. Again, per your own criteria, these can't be used to frame the entire movement as you've said about the pro-regime counter demonstrators.

Oh but it is and has been seen in way too many of them. And not just as a chant, also as a sign.

Again, by your own standards they can't be used to frame the entire movement. This is how you dismissed what you claimed were isolated incidents of pro-regime racists, so these must be dismissed too by your own logic.

Not the same situation because, as I said, pro-Palestine protesters enjoy unconditional support by the major pro-Palestine organizations while racist pro-Israel protesters do not enjoy any relevant support by any major pro-Israel one.

Lectures in universities tend not to be held in the middle of fields in common areas. They are usually in classrooms.

Yet the classrooms are often close to those areas.

Where there's "no space to camp" there usually aren't encampments. This seems like a non point.

Yet it shows colleges are not open spaces. There's no legal requirement for them to have one.

Their aims are popular of course as a definitive majority supports a ceasefire. And while the constant negative press by the corporate media has indeed tried to damage their image, it's actually surprising that the American public is still quite divided over the punishments and in most polls: Americans are overall quite split on the encampments.

No, their aims are not popular. A majority supports a ceasefire but only as long as the hostages are released yet pro-Palestine protesters do not call for that.

Which is one reason why polls say explicitly a plurality of Americans is against the protests.

So now all protesting is equal to harassment? Public figures are often the targets of protests.

Protesting at my home? Following me when I'm going home like a stalker? It undoubtedly is. I do not welcome that.

You have advanced from calling people you don't agree with "antisemites and rapists" to calling them "Nazis." Godstud would be proud of your smears.

Lots of overlap between both.

Oh wait, right. I mean, supporting the mass rape and murder of Jews, and only Jews, is totally not anti-semitic and totally not something Nazis agree with.

No it doesn't. But undergrads often discover that they have moral agency, and that the world has many unresolved problems. Students also have free time between semesters to "find themselves" and protest against injustice. This is why you find them threatening. They aren't career-slaves yet.

No. Students who are harassed by them feel threatened, and for good reason.

Besides, undergrads can as be violent and murderous as everyone else.

If Jeffrey Dahmer's victims can attack Jeffrey with violent words, why can't he drill holes in their heads to "protect himself" from humiliating words?

Is there a power imbalance between these two protagonists?

Someone like Amit Soussana was in fact a lot more like a Jeffrey Dahmer victim, but one who was lucky to be let out (but not so lucky not to be raped).

Is that the power imbalance you're talking about? Or since the victim is Jewish in this case, the power imbalance nonsense doesn't matter?

[Pants-of-dog]

Donors are withdrawing millions of dollars in planned funding to punish US universities for their responses to Hamas’s attack on Israel, in a stand-off over free speech, higher education funding and academic leaders’ public responsibilities.

Billionaire benefactors including Apollo Global Management’s Marc Rowan and Limited Brands founder Leslie Wexner have called for stronger condemnation of Hamas and antisemitism by universities, and tougher action against students protesting against Israel. Law and investment firms have threatened to rescind job offers they had made to students, or not hire protesters when they graduate.

The pressure has left universities including Harvard, Stanford and the University of Pennsylvania struggling to contain a growing crisis, with some revising earlier statements to be more outspoken.

Others — including free speech advocates and the University of North Carolina Wilmington — have defended principles developed in the 1967 Kalven report for the University of Chicago and since used more widely that colleges should commit to academic freedom and insist on “institutional neutrality on political and social issues”.

On Tuesday, Liz Magill, president of the University of Pennsylvania, said: “Penn stands emphatically against the terrorist attacks by Hamas in Israel and against antisemitism”, but acknowledged “we should have communicated faster and more broadly about where we stand”.

Her declaration came too late for donors, including Ronald Lauder, the cosmetics heir, who criticised a recent Palestinian literature festival held on campus and said he would pull funding. Others withdrawing support included venture capitalists David Magerman and Jonathon Jacobson, and Jon Huntsman, the former US ambassador to China and ex-governor of Utah, who said he was “closing his checkbook”.

….(article continues)….

https://www.ft.com/content/22316ef9-f71 ... fa18fcb520

Note that this is from The Financial Times, not exactly a hotbed of leftism.

This is yet another example of how free speech and capitalism are not always compatible.

[KurtFF8]

https://www.ft.com/content/22316ef9-f71e-4076-8d95-b3fa18fcb520

Note that this is from The Financial Times, not exactly a hotbed of leftism.

This is yet another example of how free speech and capitalism are not always compatible.

Yet people like @wat0n will still claim that this was all about "trespassing"

[wat0n]

The police response certainly is about trespassing, @KurtFF8.

Donors have the right to decide whoever they want to donate to. Leftist entitlement is such that they believe they don't just have a right to taxpayer money, but also to private donations.

[Pants-of-dog]

The problem with donors is not about who is entitled to the money. The money is a gift and therefore no one is entitled to it.

The problem is the the donors feel entitled to dictate school debate. In this specific case, they feel like they can tell the universities to crack down on anti-genocide protesters.

This is a direct attack on freedom of speech by financial interests.

[wat0n]

No different from all sorts of actors, even students, who feel entitled to dictate school debate. Yet it is quite evident schools are not moved by donors (but they are sometimes moved by students).

[Drlee]

I think of Universities as mini-states. They are only nominally private property. I say that because they are almost entirely funded by the federal government in one way or another. Now if Columbia wants to forswear any government assistance, (student loans for example) then perhaps they can make their absurd trespassing claims.

It is a real problem for me to hear of a university claiming that one of its students or their guests could be trespassing. It seems to me that if they want to claim trespassing they should first expel the student. A university is a student's home.

I also have a real problem stifling protest on colleges simply because it does not suit one's fundraising goals. For that is what this is all about. I do not see the same rancor against protestors when they are protesting environmental issues.

The claim of antisemitism is very weak in the first place. Israel makes the claim to be a Jewish state. So are we to assume that any protest against the actions of this nation are antisemitic? Not hardly. Israel is a member of the family of nations. It is time they stopped behaving like a poor country cousin. If any other nation behaved toward people under their control as Israel has toward the Palestinians it would be roundly condemned. Indeed we would have seen UN troops keeping the peace early on.

Israel is a rogue nation under Netanyahu at least and one could assert has been for some time. There is absolutely no military excuse for Israel's military to be behaving in the brutal manner that it has.

[Pants-of-dog]

How is it evident that donors have no influence on campus administration?

[wat0n]

^ simple, schools did not change course despite the threats. Lawsuits by affected students have been more effective as schools try hard to avoid reaching discovery (I wonder why).

I think of Universities as mini-states. They are only nominally private property. I say that because they are almost entirely funded by the federal government in one way or another. Now if Columbia wants to forswear any government assistance, (student loans for example) then perhaps they can make their absurd trespassing claims.

It is a real problem for me to hear of a university claiming that one of its students or their guests could be trespassing. It seems to me that if they want to claim trespassing they should first expel the student. A university is a student's home.

Too bad even the federal government will stand with colleges declaring students banned on campus over being found to have e.g. sexually harassed classmates trespassers if they are stupid enough to show up on campus.

Also, colleges certainly did not invite the non-students who have participated in the encampments.

I also have a real problem stifling protest on colleges simply because it does not suit one's fundraising goals. For that is what this is all about. I do not see the same rancor against protestors when they are protesting environmental issues.

The claim of antisemitism is very weak in the first place. Israel makes the claim to be a Jewish state. So are we to assume that any protest against the actions of this nation are antisemitic? Not hardly. Israel is a member of the family of nations. It is time they stopped behaving like a poor country cousin. If any other nation behaved toward people under their control as Israel has toward the Palestinians it would be roundly condemned. Indeed we would have seen UN troops keeping the peace early on.

Israel is a rogue nation under Netanyahu at least and one could assert has been for some time. There is absolutely no military excuse for Israel's military to be behaving in the brutal manner that it has.

The claims are not weak and indeed Columbia settled one lawsuit over the harassment some Jewish students faced, to the point of committing to provide them with security on-campus until the end of this year and beyond if needed.

Columbia and other schools have held regular anti-Israel protests for decades yet this did not change the willingness of donors to contribute. No, their inaction over harassment of Jewish students did.

[Pants-of-dog]

Considering the fact that universities have been far more punitive about these protests than others, it seems that universities have listened to the donors.

[QatzelOk]

The problem with donors is not about who is entitled to the money. The money is a gift and therefore no one is entitled to it.

The problem is the the donors feel entitled to dictate school debate. In this specific case, they feel like they can tell the universities to crack down on anti-genocide protesters.

This is a direct attack on freedom of speech by financial interests.

Having attended universities for almost 30 years, and having worked at one for a few, the topic of "private donors" is something that I have debated with other students and faculty many times.

It's one thing for "wealthy philanthropists" to give money to universities to encourage "free research and debate."

But it's quite another animal when these wealthy patrons start dictating what they want the universities to do administratively or academically. In fact, if wealthy patrons get to dicated univeristy policy or academic content, they will be ruined as centers for knowledge, and instead become "Uncle Tom factories."

Many have already become "Uncle Tom factories," and this has sharply reduced their academic value and the pertinence of their research to human well being.

It was rich oligarchs who were behind MK ULTRA, so they should never have an influence on course content or administration.

[wat0n]

Considering the fact that universities have been far more punitive about these protests than others, it seems that universities have listened to the donors.

Because they are being exposed to lawsuits for violating the Civil Rights Act. This can also jeopardize their federal funding.

[Pants-of-dog]

Because they are being exposed to lawsuits for violating the Civil Rights Act. This can also jeopardize their federal funding.

Show that the U of A, for example, is being sued.

[wat0n]

I am obviously referring to American universities. Although I'd be surprised if there wasn't something similar going on in Canada.

[Pants-of-dog]

I am obviously referring to American universities. Although I'd be surprised if there wasn't something similar going on in Canada.

So we already have examples of universities reacting comparatively harshly to these protests and no lawsuit to explain it.

Provide evidence showing Columbia is being sued.

[wat0n]

So we already have examples of universities reacting comparatively harshly to these protests and no lawsuit to explain it.

Please show UoA is reacting comparatively harshly.

Provide evidence showing Columbia is being sued.

It wasn't just sued, it settled:

Columbia University has settled a lawsuit filed by a Jewish student in late April on behalf of all those who felt pressured to switch to online learning in the midst of intense pro-Palestinian protests this spring. The plaintiff alleged the Ivy League institution failed to provide the safe environment students had paid for.

The resolution, reached Tuesday, centers on a pledge from university officials to provide protection for students on campus at all times via a “Safe Passage Liaison,” who will have the authority to open alternative entrances and exits to students and will coordinate 24-hour security escorts upon request.

Columbia also agreed to promote discussions that will encourage alternatives to some of the more extreme forms of protest, as well as to consider academic accommodations for students who missed end-of-term deadlines due to protest-related campus closures.

“We think peaceful protest is a constructive way to solve situations,” Jay Edelson, an attorney for the anonymous plaintiff, told The Washington Post. But at Columbia, protesters tried to “push out, figuratively and literally, people who they deem are on the wrong side.”

According to the settlement, such actions created a threatening environment in which some Jewish students were subjected to antisemitism and feared for their safety.

“We got a focused security monitor who’s going to be able to serve as the eyes, ears and voice for anyone on campus who feels unsafe,” Edelson said. “That is a major win.”

The university expressed similar satisfaction with the settlement.

“We are pleased we have been able to come to a resolution and remain committed to our number one priority: the safety of our campus so that all of our students can successfully pursue their education and meet their academic goals,” university spokesman Ben Chang said in an email to The Post.

This is likely the first of many settlements to be reached, as Columbia—and other institutions—face numerous lawsuits and investigations from protesters on both sides of the Israel-Gaza conflict for allegedly failing to protect them after the war started last October and following President Minouche Shafik’s Capitol Hill hearing, which escalated tensions on many campuses.

[Pants-of-dog]

If the plaintiff was willing to settle, then this means that the university had no obligation to change anything. This is why institutions always prefer to settle lawsuits. This also means that they had to pay far less than they would have had it gone to court. This is almost certainly far less than the millions threatened by donors and divestment.

And Columbia is also being sued by protesters, as the quoted article shows.

If the university is being swayed by lawsuits, then these other lawsuits should have made the university comparatively less harsh.

This then contradicts the claim that lawsuits are an important dynamic.