The problem really isn’t that students at her institution support genocide. The problem is that when she asked if chanting in support of the murder of Jews was against school policy, she equivocated. She would not have equivocated if the students had been chanting that Blacks should be killed, instead of Jews.
Exactly. What they said was so offensive, not because she spoke in favor of free speech. It was because after being outspoken and sanctioning students for years in regards to hate speech towards other groups, when it comes to murdering Jews, they are suddenly eliciting the importance of freedom of speech.
When you promote hate speech as free speech against one group, while punishing hate speech against all the others, it leaves many outside observers with the opinion that you tacitly approve of hate speech against that group and I believe creates a hostile environment in the entity you lead towards members of that group.
ELISE STEFANIK: It’s a yes or no question. Let me ask you this. You are president of Harvard, so I assume you’re familiar with the term intifada, correct?
CLAUDINE GAY: I’ve heard that term, yes.
ELISE STEFANIK: And you understand that the use of the term intifada in the context of the Israeli Arab conflict is indeed a call for violent armed resistance against the state of Israel, including violence against civilians and the genocide of Jews. Are you aware of that?
CLAUDINE GAY: That type of hateful speech is personally abhorrent to me.
ELISE STEFANIK: And there have been multiple marches at Harvard with students chanting quote, “there is only one solution intifada revolution.” And quote, “globalize the intifada.” Is that correct?
CLAUDINE GAY: I’ve heard that thoughtless, reckless and hateful language on our campus, yes.
ELISE STEFANIK: So, based upon your testimony, you understand that this call for intifada is to commit genocide against the Jewish people in Israel and globally, correct?
CLAUDINE GAY: I will say again that type of hateful speech is personally abhorrent to me.
Given that the Second Intifada saw over 800 Israeli civilians murdered in terrorist attacks, it is not unreasonable to interpret "globalize the intifada" as call for murdering Israelis and/or Jews outside of Israel. And if the President of Harvard admits it happened, we don't really need to know the exact dates in order to know that it did happen.
Also, if you don't sit on someone's neck, you don't have to worry about being shaken off. If you don't benefit from or justify oppression, you have nothing to fear from the uprising against it.
It's when you want to eat the cake and still have it when things get "complex", like posting walls of text that amount to "no, I don't" in context.
> like posting walls of text that amount to "no, I don't" in context.
Claudine Gay never said "no" in that part of her testimony. She described "there is only one solution intifada revolution" and "globalize the intifada" as "thoughtless, reckless and hateful language" and "hateful speech" which is "personally abhorrent to me", but didn't give a clearcut answer to the question of whether it is "indeed a call for violent armed resistance against the state of Israel, including violence against civilians and the genocide of Jews".
ELISE STEFANIK: So, based upon your testimony, you understand that this call for intifada is to commit genocide against the Jewish people in Israel and globally, correct?
CLAUDINE GAY: I will say again that type of hateful speech is personally abhorrent to me.
If she thinks it’s so hateful, why are you trying to excuse it?
CLAUDINE GAY: I will say again that type of hateful speech is personally
abhorrent to me.
ELISE STEFANIK: Do you believe that type of hateful speech is contrary
to Harvard’s code of conduct or is it allowed at Harvard?
CLAUDINE GAY: It is at odds with the values of Harvard. But our values
also —
ELISE STEFANIK: Can you not say here that it is against the code of
conduct at Harvard?
CLAUDINE GAY: We embrace a commitment to free expression, even of views
that are objectionable, offensive, hateful. It’s when that speech
crosses into conduct that violates our policies against bullying,
harassment —
ELISE STEFANIK: Does that speech not cross that barrier? Does that
speech not call for the genocide of Jews and the elimination of Israel?
CLAUDINE GAY: When —
ELISE STEFANIK: You testify that you understand that it’s the definition
of intifada. Is that speech according to the code of conduct or not?
CLAUDINE GAY: We embrace a commitment to free expression and give a wide
berth to free expression even of views that are objectionable —
ELISE STEFANIK: You and I both know that’s not the case. You were aware
that Harvard ranked dead last when it came to free speech. Are you not
aware of that report?
CLAUDINE GAY: As I observed earlier, I reject that characterization.
ELISE STEFANIK: It’s — the data shows it’s true. And isn’t it true that
Harvard previously rescinded multiple offers of admissions for
applicants and accepted freshmen for sharing offensive memes, racist
statements, sometimes as young as 16 years old? Did Harvard not rescind
those offers of admission?
CLAUDINE GAY: That long predates my time as president, so I can’t —
ELISE STEFANIK: But you understand that Harvard made that decision to
rescind those offers of admission.
CLAUDINE GAY: I have no reason to contradict the facts as you present
them.
ELISE STEFANIK: Correct, because it’s a fact. You’re also aware that a
Winthrop House faculty dean was let go over he — over who he chose to
legally represent, correct? That was while you were dean.
CLAUDINE GAY: That is an incorrect characterization of what transpired.
ELISE STEFANIK: What’s the characterization?
CLAUDINE GAY: I’m not going to get into details about a personnel
matter.
ELISE STEFANIK: Well, let me ask you this, will admissions offers be
rescinded or any disciplinary action be taken against students or
applicants who say from the river to the sea or intifada advocating for
the murder of Jews?
CLAUDINE GAY: As I’ve said that type of hateful reckless offensive
speech is personally abhorrent to me.
ELISE STEFANIK: [inaudible] today that no action will be taken — what
action will be taken?
CLAUDINE GAY: When speech crosses into conduct that violates our
policies, including policies against bullying, harassment or
intimidation, we take action. And we have robust disciplinary processes
that allow us to hold individuals accountable.
ELISE STEFANIK: What action has been taken against students who are
harassing and calling for the genocide of Jews on Harvard’s campus?
CLAUDINE GAY: I can assure you we have robust —
ELISE STEFANIK: What actions have been taken? I’m not asking —
CLAUDINE GAY: What actions underway?
ELISE STEFANIK: I’m asking what actions have been taken against those students.
CLAUDINE GAY: Given students’ rights to privacy and our obligations
under FERPA, I will not say more about any specific cases other than to
reiterate that processes are ongoing.
[…]
And _that_ is why she should not lead a university, Harvard or otherwise. All she had to do was say, without commenting on any specific cases, that chanting “there is only one solution intifada revolution.” or “globalize the intifada.” would be regarded as “bullying, harassment or
intimidation” and students found to have participated in those acts would be punished according to the rules they were required to agree to when they decided to attend Harvard. To retreat to bureaucratic platitudes about FERPA instead shows that the Harvard administration is itself is antisemitic (aka racist). They simply don’t think that what these students did was wrong. They also don’t believe that the rules should be applied to everyone equally.
> They also don’t believe that the rules should be applied to everyone equally.
Exactly. It's unbelievable to me that this is apparently hard for these university presidents to understand. Set the standard and keep it - whether it's punish all the 'abhorrent' things students say, or none of them.
As a Jew, I can't imagine continuing to donate to an institution that was so clearly run by people tolerant of anti-semitism. Hopefully Harvard's endowment sees significant punishment, since the university itself appears to agree with Gay's stance.
Some people consider "from the river to the sea" to be a call to genocide of Jews. Because, of course, they ignore the simple fact that majority of Jews don't even live in Israel [1]. And to call for a Palestinian state from the river to the sea doesn't say that Jews people cannot live inside it. And ironically the likud party which dominated the Israeli government the last couple of decades have almost the same sentence in its first point on its charter [2] and no one calls this a call to kill all Palestinians (Although some say it in public [3][4]).
>Some people consider "from the river to the sea" to be a call to genocide of Jews. Because, of course, they ignore the simple fact that majority of Jews don't even live in Israel [1].
so it's only genocide when you're trying to wipe them out entirely? if you only wipe out a quarter, for instance, that's not genocide?
I didn't say that. This is just you trying to bend my words. I did say that from river to the sea does not mean that Jews living in Palestine will be wiped out. If you think that this the meaning that's fine. I just hope that you consider it the same when the other side use almost exactly the same slogan (interesting you ignored that)
And why do you suppose she did that? Is it perhaps because of the constant attempts to force people to treat "jews the people belonging to a certain race/religion" and "the state of israel" as exactly the same thing? The sheer amount of people who accept these, bad faith, to put it mildly, arguments, is, well, not surprising, but is pretty sad.
So because those Zionist arguments exist, calling for the murder of Jewish people (not metaphorically, the question was a hypothetical) is something where "nuance" matters now?
You acknowledge the arguments as bad faith, then turn around and use them to relativize hate speech. Anyone calling for the murder of Jewish people (per the metaphorical) would never accept those arguments in the first place
I was going to write a long winded reply about the differences between "hate speech" directed at "israelis" vs "jews" and how easy it is to conflate the two, especially with the constant israeli attempts to force people to treat the two as the same thing, but instead let me ask you a question:
Do you honestly think that the president of harvard wishes for, hopes for, or even wants, the mass murder of jewish people all over the world?
And following up on that, do you honestly believe that the students at harvard want all jewish people all over the world to be murdered?
Isn't it more likely that the students in question want the israelis to stop committing acts of violence against palestinians and perhaps don't view the palestinian violence as any worse than what the israelis are doing?
One thing I've noticed over the years is that it seems really easy for people who benefit from the current status quo to condemn violence meant to change the status quo. It's pretty easy to come up with restrictions for people's protests when you're not the one living in an oppressive society.
> And following up on that, do you honestly believe that the students at harvard want all jewish people all over the world to be murdered?
"We, the undersigned student organizations, hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence."
For the people who view Oct 7 as justified, yes
> Isn't it more likely that the students in question want the israelis to stop committing acts of violence against palestinians
They can want both at the same time. October 7th was an act of terror against Jewish civilians. The people who blame the Israeli government 100% (including aforementioned student organizations) don't find fault with the people committing those murders. That implies that they see the murder of Jewish people as justified punishment for the actions of the Israeli government. The choice of words is deliberate
Criticizing the Israeli government and publicly stating that an act of terror is justified are two very different things, of which Harvard students know the difference
