[Pants-of-dog]

There may be other reaction s to lawsuits, but that is irrelevant to the claim that Columbia is punishing protesters because of the lawsuits, This has already been explained, so bringing up this weird irrelevant tangent twice seems, well, weird and irrelevant.

Kraft, on the other hand, has claimed many times on social media that he will withhold funds if Columbia administration does not crack down harshly on the protesters.

Apparently, centrists and liberals have no problem with rich people buying censorship. This directly contradicts their claims that they are acting as watchdogs for democracy.

[wat0n]

There may be other reaction s to lawsuits, but that is irrelevant to the claim that Columbia is punishing protesters because of the lawsuits, This has already been explained, so bringing up this weird irrelevant tangent twice seems, well, weird and irrelevant.

Kraft, on the other hand, has claimed many times on social media that he will withhold funds if Columbia administration does not crack down harshly on the protesters.

Apparently, centrists and liberals have no problem with rich people buying censorship. This directly contradicts their claims that they are acting as watchdogs for democracy.

Oh let me see.

When Columbia settles a lawsuit it knows it will lose (or else there's no reason for settling) it's an "overreaction" but when antisemitic leftist conspiracy theorists claim Columbia changed its policies over the complaints by a Jewish donor it's "obviously an example of Zionist donor influence". Am I correct here?

[Pants-of-dog]

No.

This is stupid.

I just showed why Columbia would settle even if it thought it would win, and @wat0n is completely ignoring it and pretending it never happened.

It is impossible to debate this person. More time is spent repeating and explaining the argument and why the criticism is not relevant than time spent actually learning anything.

[wat0n]

No.

This is stupid.

I just showed why Columbia would settle even if it thought it would win, and @wat0n is completely ignoring it and pretending it never happened.

It is impossible to debate this person. More time is spent repeating and explaining the argument and why the criticism is not relevant than time spent actually learning anything.

No, you didn't.

The loser of a civil rights suit has to pay the attorneys under the law.

(b)Attorney’s fees
In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92–318 [20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.], the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 [42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.], the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 [42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq.], title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.], or section 12361 of title 34, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including attorney’s fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer’s jurisdiction.

It's not my fault your arguments are both nonsense and your double standards evident, and I'm happy to call you out even if it makes you sad.

If you don't like debating then why come to a political discussion forum I wonder?

[Pants-of-dog]

What does “may allow” mean?

This is important because it is right there in the text and confirms my claim.

[wat0n]

Yet it also means Columbia can perfectly expect to avoid paying fees for a frivolous suit (particularly since it's standard).

The real issue is that the suit isn't frivolous at all.

[Pants-of-dog]

Unless the lawsuit can be shown to compare financially with the millions that Kraft is withholding or threatening to withhold, this is not a counter argument.

This heavy handed reaction from administrators is not happening in some vacuum. The threats to financial stability come from various directions because of the protests.

There are the donors, obviously.

There are also the direct investments in Israel.

And in companies making weapons for the IDF, If a university is a shareholder in Lockheed Martin, for instance, they could be making a direct profit from the ongoing bombings.

And then there is federal funding that is threatened if Republicans feel that the administration is not doing enough to “stop antisemitism” which means “censor protesters”.

This is where the decision making is happening. At budget meetings.

[wat0n]

If a court found Columbia guilty of a Title VI violation, it would not just be a huge reputational damage - impacting not just Kraft but all donors -, it would also lose federal funding.

The stakes are quite high.

This is also why schools would be willing to settle the Title IX adjudication lawsuits arising from the Obama-era "Dear Colleague" letter on the matter, since schools were put between a rock and a hard place by it and their only way out was settling.

[Pants-of-dog]

If a court found Columbia guilty of a Title VI violation, it would not just be a huge reputational damage - impacting not just Kraft but all donors -, it would also lose federal funding.

The stakes are quite high.

This is also why schools would be willing to settle the Title IX adjudication lawsuits arising from the Obama-era "Dear Colleague" letter on the matter, since schools were put between a rock and a hard place by it and their only way out was settling.

This seems to be pure speculation.

Perhaps you can clarify your argument, if there is one?

[wat0n]

What part do you disagree with exactly?

That Columbia settled because it knows it couldn't win?

That losing a Title VI trial would harm its reputation and make it lose federal funding?

[Pants-of-dog]

If @wat0n does not wish to clarify the argument, it does not seem like anyone will be able to address it.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog could just answer those questions or explain what's so unclear to him.

[Unthinking Majority]

Canadian court agrees with my view, forcing protestors at the University of Toronto to remove their tents since the campus is private property and the university says no one group should be able to unilaterally occupy and block access to a part of campus meant to be available for everyone to use. Protestors are still free to protest on campus, just not hold the university to random:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/ ... ncampment/

The University of Toronto has been granted an injunction against a pro-Palestinian encampment, clearing the way for what the university hopes is an orderly end to a two-month long demonstration that has occupied part of its campus.
...
“Today’s court order returns Front Campus to the entire university community and prevents any one group from asserting control of a shared space at the university in order to promote a particular view and deprive others of the freedom to express opposing viewpoints.”
...
Justice Koehnen sided with the rights of the university as a property owner. “In our society we have decided that the owner of property generally gets to decide what happens on the property. If the protesters can take that power for themselves by seizing Front Campus, there is nothing to stop a stronger group from coming and taking the space over from the current protesters. That leads to chaos,” Justice Koehnen wrote.
...
Justice Koehnen wrote that the injunction will still preserve the right to protest on campus but will not allow camping overnight. He said the university had not made a strong prima facie case that the encampment is violent or antisemitic, but he said there was a strong prima facie case that protesters had taken over university property. He said the protesters were unable to point to a case where a court has allowed someone to take over a public space for an extended period of time. He said a 50-day occupation is significant, and although there have been signs of progress in negotiations, the protesters have said they will not leave until their demands are met.

“If unchecked, this in effect means that the protesters can hold the university to ransom,” he wrote. “As passionate as the protesters may be about their cause, they do not have the unilateral right to decide how Front Campus can be used by their exercise of force, occupation or intimidation.”
...
“The university’s approach here is to make Front Campus available to everyone, including to those who just want to eat breakfast, while at the same time making the entire campus available to protesters provided they do not appropriate or block access to university property,” he wrote. “This is consistent with the underlying foundation of liberal democracies: as much liberty as possible so long as one person’s liberty does not unreasonably infringe on the liberty of others.”

[KurtFF8]

Hillel is also a mainstream student organization.

The Democratic and Republican Parties are mainstream political parties, yet they are also hostile to BDS and support the apartheid regime of Israel. Hillel holds political opinions on this topic, so let's not pretend that any criticism of their opinions is anything other than a criticism of their opinions.

It seems you don't like how Jewish students think, and want to segregate them.

This is truly a bizarre leap. I believe you really do have a reading comprehension problem here.

Of course this is not just against freedom of speech - weird to see leftists whine about it - but antisemitic since this standard doesn't apply to other student organizations.

More blatant lies by you.

[wat0n]

The Democratic and Republican Parties are mainstream political parties, yet they are also hostile to BDS and support the apartheid regime of Israel. Hillel holds political opinions on this topic, so let's not pretend that any criticism of their opinions is anything other than a criticism of their opinions.

Not a reason to ban them from campus, it's weird that the leftists who have been crying about free speech now want to go back to their old ways of censoring campus organizations. Also, Hillel is not a political organization but a religious one.

This is truly a bizarre leap. I believe you really do have a reading comprehension problem here.

Not at all, just pointing out the actual consequences of your position.

More blatant lies by you.

No lie at all.

Only Jewish organizations and students are being subjected to litmus tests.

If you disagree, why won't the same leftist students start demanding to kick out from campus student Islamic organizations that, for example, do not criticize the status of women and LGBT people in Islamic countries?

[QatzelOk]

...No lie at all...

Your whole schtick is to lie in order to protect your favorite cause: reactionary moneyed politics.

And Pants likes to accuse you of lying - but in a polite way.

The content of both your posts is purely incidental and this is why it so boring to follow your "debate" on any subject. It goes nowhere and reads like a transcript of the most boring Abbott and Costello exchange.

"Who's on First?"

"I refuse to answer your manipulative question."
The Study says that What is on Second Base."

"That so-called study was done by I Don't Know."

Zzzzzzz.....

[wat0n]

Your whole schtick is to lie in order to protect your favorite cause: reactionary moneyed politics.

And Pants likes to accuse you of lying - but in a polite way.

The content of both your posts is purely incidental and this is why it so boring to follow your "debate" on any subject. It goes nowhere and reads like a transcript of the most boring Abbott and Costello exchange.

"Who's on First?"

"I refuse to answer your manipulative question."
The Study says that What is on Second Base."

"That so-called study was done by I Don't Know."

Zzzzzzz.....

Your only recourse, like for other leftists here, is whining upon finding facts just don't agree with your nonsense.

Hence the false accusations of lying even when I provide sources to back my claims up and you don't.

[KurtFF8]

Not a reason to ban them from campus, it's weird that the leftists who have been crying about free speech now want to go back to their old ways of censoring campus organizations. Also, Hillel is not a political organization but a religious one.

As you're here promoting the lie that the Palestinian groups are terrorist supporters (aka you want them banned). The hypocrisy is so blatant. And as usual, you're totally misrepresenting not only the positions of just about every group involved, you're also misrepresenting the conflict between them.

Not at all, just pointing out the actual consequences of your position.

You either actually didn't read what I wrote or you truly didn't understand what I wrote.

No lie at all.

Only Jewish organizations and students are being subjected to litmus tests.

If you disagree, why won't the same leftist students start demanding to kick out from campus student Islamic organizations that, for example, do not criticize the status of women and LGBT people in Islamic countries?

Absolute lies by you. It's not about a "litmus test" it's about actual conflict between these organizations and their positions on things like BDS. You of course ignore this and pretend it's about religion, it's not. And it's not about their social stances, your example here isn't relevant to the discussion.

As usual: you have to deflect because you know your position is weak and indefensible.

[wat0n]

As you're here promoting the lie that the Palestinian groups are terrorist supporters (aka you want them banned). The hypocrisy is so blatant. And as usual, you're totally misrepresenting not only the positions of just about every group involved, you're also misrepresenting the conflict between them.

No, I didn't misrepresent anything.

And I don't want them banned for supporting terrorism. I want them to stop disrupting university operations and harassing people.

Supporting terrorists is wrong, but it's not something warranting a ban, just repudiation.

You either actually didn't read what I wrote or you truly didn't understand what I wrote.

It seems you don't understand what you write yourself.

Absolute lies by you. It's not about a "litmus test" it's about actual conflict between these organizations and their positions on things like BDS. You of course ignore this and pretend it's about religion, it's not. And it's not about their social stances, your example here isn't relevant to the discussion.

As usual: you have to deflect because you know your position is weak and indefensible.

More bullshit.

Wanting to ban Hillel over whatever political positions it has goes against free speech. Note Hillel does not disrupt university operations or harass people, it also doesn't condone that at all (unlike leftists), so this is purely about speech and indeed it is those leftist organizations who want to limit campus speech.

And yet we don't see leftist organizations, which are supposedly feminist, demand student organizations - including Islamic ones - to condemn Iran's repression of women lest they be kicked from campus like they want Hillel to be. Why do they hold this double standard?