I'm in shock folks. I saw more of this clip and you would not believe what Gay says. They asked Gay (the black) if she was 'okay' the the call for the 'mass murder of African-Americans' and she gave the same answer. She essentially said it was free speech. So just to be clear, this woman seemed pretty okay with the call for genocide without racial bias. El Pollo Loco!!! 🐓
An embarrassment for our country and these universities. And the questioner missed a great opportunity… “In what context is calling for genocide ok then?”
Indeed! They kept going in circles and the administrators just kept citing the wording of the policy that mentions context, but asking them for an example of what context would make a call for genocide acceptable would have forced them to get specific about what "context" they are referring to.
This reminds me of the scene in The Patriot where Benjamin Martin is meeting with Gen. Cornwallis and Cornwallis makes a comment about his officers shouldn't be "accorded inappropriate levels of hostile attention" to which Martin replies, "To your mind what are appropriate levels of hostile attention?" But to answer the question you pose, genocide is fine as long as it's targeted at the right groups like, in this case, the joos as well as white people. At least according to the left.
I normally can acknowledge the rationale on both sides of an argument, but I am baffled as to why a president of a university would refuse to agree that students calling for genocide against any race or ethnic group is unacceptable.
She's not asking if it's acceptable, she's asking if it violatesv the policies surrounding bullying or harassment, which generally require a specific target, which is what they're trying to clarify. It likely violates other school policies.
@@A-Known-Enemy The context of whether or not calling for genocide is against school policy is the same as asking if it is acceptable. All she had to do was say, I'm not sure off the top about all the language of our policies, but calling for genocide is NOT acceptable. She would not have been let go if she had said that.
@@peaceseeker9927 she's answering the question that's being asked. In other parts of the 6 hour hearing, she explicitly denounces antisemitism on numerous occasions.
@@A-Known-Enemy - No, she actually did not answer the question as it was asked. But that is not the main issue. If you don't understand by now why she made a monumental mistake that was easily avoidable, and ended up losing her job, it's because you don't want to. This particular issue does not require much expertise to make sense of.
If your only reaction to someone calling for the outright slaughter of 14 million people is, “I need context,” then you’re in favor of it. My reaction used to be outrage and anger when a white cop did whatever to a person of color. Not anymore.
Dr. Gay simply believes that the Jews in Israel are "occupyers," and that the Arabs have the sole rights to that land. So her response is predicated on that belief. Her mindset is driven by a disdain for Israelis in the land. He believes (yes, Dr. Gay) that Israelis should be banished from that land. Simple as that.
The real question is...... How did they all get that job?👀🙄 I'm doubting they got it because of their IQ and knowledge of 🇺🇲 history. I'm just saying 🤷🏻♂️ We need to fix these 🇺🇲 college's. No more of this hiring based on gender and ethnicity and political affiliation or installed by anti 🇺🇲 billionaires. It should be based on hard work and IQ. Knowledge of World History. No more politically biased nonsense. Everyone in these colleges need to be politically neutral as well. Neutral to the religious as well. It shouldn't matter if you're Christian, Jewish or Muslim. All welcomed as long as they're not pushing their religion down everyone's throats. Im just saying. Harvard used to be one of our best colleges. This is ridiculous.
Which points exactly to the problem of Islam. It's aim is to overtake and overcome all other religions. Overtly. What do people think Intifada is? Maybe less DEI, and fewer L A programs dealing with "certain" types of Studies.
I hate to tell you but they are the direct result of Equity, Equality and Inclusion. Definitely Not the result of Qualifications Aptitude and Merits, For Sure!
Shame on them. In US Criminal Justice system, according to the US Penal Code, verbal assault is not just harassment. It is a distinctive, separate crime punishable under title 18 USC. Yelling at people that you want to kill them ( to commit genocide or homicide ) is not free speech, it is death threat (assault and aggravated assault shown by the physical manifestation - i.e. police was needed to protect Jews against the mob), and hence it falls under criminal assault that incites the mob to physical violence and to commit genocide, to kill (Jews).
Shame on who? The presidents egos were big enough for them not to answer "how" the interrogator wanted them to answer but both were basically saying "yes" as requested. That white lady took the opportunity to be a bully.
Its just painful to watch, can imagine paying billions to study there, when they literally can tell you directly that your life cost nothing for them, you need to have some proper context to be allowed to live your life
It's absolutely infuriating how she had the audacity to smile at such a question. It's like she's completely devoid of any empathy or understanding. Her reaction is nothing short of pure psychopathy.
@@stellaargallon8271 There was an incident in the Philippines back in 2010 with the late president noynoy Aquino who said 'i smile when I'm exasperated' or something re the Hong Kong bus hostage incident. I remembered that in particular because I'm a dual citizen of HK and ph. Sigh. Quote: On September 3, 2010, Aquino took responsibility for the crisis.[89] Aquino actually has direct supervision of the Philippine National Police, since Aquino had asked Secretary of the Interior and Local Government Jesse Robredo to address other concerns, such as coming up with a comprehensive plan on delivering social services to and relocating informal settlers in coordination with the local governments.[89] No formal apology for the crisis was made by Aquino until President Rodrigo Duterte formally apologized in 2018 as president of the Republic of the Philippines and in behalf of the people of the Philippines.[90]
Calling a genocide is 100,% harassment. Imagine if the word Jews was exchanged to B L M THE CONTEXT WOULDN'T EXIST EITHER.. THESE TWO INSULTED THE COURT AND SHOULD BE JAILED IMO
My guess is that the antisemitic students protesting at the universities have been recorded doing so. They can be recognised. My guess is also that these same students will be looking for jobs or teaching opportunities down the road; next year or the year after. And many of those positions will be in companies or institutions funded or supported by people with Jewish backgrounds. It seems to me that those organisations would be well within their rights to reject applicants who obviously disagree - show no respect towards - the fundamental, core beliefs of these companies and institutions. Don't hire these woke activists... hold them accountable.
Was this really “anti-Semitism”? Or simply a emotional overreaction to the actions of Israeli leaders who killed thousands of innocent people (including children) in Palestine?
@@phobos258 I work in sales Phobos. My boss is called Evelyn on Tuesdays and Thursdays but is still Eddie on Mondays and Wednesdays. On Fridays a pot-plant or penguin can turn up.
Amazing how fast that smirk got wiped from her face when someone pulled funding for some major endowment or something like that. Now she's backpedaling and tripping over herself to rewrite policy. I'd pay more attention to updating the resume lady, I think you are going to need it.
That smirk on her face is all the context I need. Obviously, the University Presidents had collaboration on how they were all going to answer for their individual universities. It is hard to tell who the radicals are the students or university leadership.
Actually, if they answered the question they would have been better. Is it so hard for someone to say, Genocide of Jews is wrong or is it a problem for you as well
@@allanzylbert1306 I do believe genocide of Jewish people is wrong. You gave me a direct question and I gave you a Direct answer. The difference is you’re not a politician and you’re broke so there’s no monetary gain. You completely missed my point. but at least we can be honest and broke together. 😂
well nobody in the world wants or is advocating any genocide against jews. Actually the evil state in the middle east is actually making a genocide against children of Gaza.
@@allanzylbert1306no one in the video said or seems to believe that the genocide of Jews isn’t wrong. This is a question of free speech, not genocide. Words are not equivalent to genocide, even when the word in question is “genocide” 🤣… the extremists like you are hilarious right now. I promise you don’t want to live in a world where your government can equate your words to actual actions like you’re doing and then punish you for saying something they don’t like.
Amazing that they missed that question!! It really makes them look dumb or that they had a prepared response given to them. It also looks like they all decided and colluded on their response beforehand
@@HeatherHotcakesBecause the answer is so obvious. Yet the directors of most prestigious universities couldn't figure it out. They apologized after but it was too late. During the apologies, the smug expression was replaced by concerned face 😂😂. It was pleasant to watch
So, by their reasoning, the calling for the extermination of any race of people, may not be hate speech or even harassment because it rests upon the context? The fact these presidents have to pause and think before answering such a question is chilling frightening! Our colleges and universities are in serious serious trouble!
Imagine for a second a Freshman student enrolled in a fictional writing course (extremely common.) They submits their first writing assignment where one of their fictional characters calls for genocide in act one of a three-act play. The teacher requires the students to only submit act one and the student does so. The student is planning on using act two and three to demonstrate the horrible error of the character in act one's language, but THE CONTEXT OF THE SITUATION has them submitting a play which appears as though they are calling for genocide in a way that violates the policy of the institution. Let's just assume that the student hasn't memorized the Universities code of conduct (which I would guess is true for 99.9% of all students.) Perhaps this example sucks, which could mean that if mine sucks than there is even a better example out there to reference. Is it possible that you can see a tiny bit of non black/white, yes/no, red/blue nuance that someone representing that student might need to call into the light of day when unpacking the situation in their pubic testimony. When you are suddenly the one pushed into congressional mock-trial, you will appreciate the non-totalitarian approach to complex situations. No situation is simple.
@@ecosystemology - This a very bad analogy. It reminds me of Alice in Wonderland and looking through the kaleidoscope and imagining something that isn't real. We are clearly not talking about a writing assignment, but actual words used by students calling for genocide. To say those students didn't mean it because they had no real means to carry it out or it was just a mindless mantra at the time of heated demonstrations is ignoring the fact that all violence eventually carried out starts out as words and slogans. The only context that needs to be understood here is this is hateful and violent speech. The radical left has been coddled and protected in these universities for decades and it's high time the administration get called out on it finally. I'm actually glad this process is happening. It pulls back the curtain and allows those with open eyes to see where these people exactly stand. And yes, the question these presidents were asked was that simple. You can see how they struggled. Their internal battle of humanity versus their ideology. Their ideology rules them.
By their reasoning? Or perhaps by the reasoning of our own constitution and Supreme Court case law, Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Should universities be morally or socially obligated to moderate speech to an even greater extent than law? also their are 2 types of speech, protected and unprotected, hate speech is not legally defined in either category.
@@collectionconnection3722 - This has nothing to do with case law. This has to do with each of these school's policy. Their testimony essentially said we could have hate speech based on certain conditions. That's not in keeping with their policies. I'm sure if that genocide speak was directed toward other minorities, like Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, Women, LGBTQ, there would've been wide condemnation and the student groups behind it would be banned and those students involved expelled. I'm quite certain of it. The double standard is so obvious they are actually choking on it as they sit there. One of these reprehensible administrators is already gone. The others should take her lead and follow suit.
Can you share an example of not only condemnation of hate speech of AA, Asians, LGBTQ+, Latios but "student groups behind it would be banned" at a college or university prior to 7 Oct?
Especially Urkel. This is probably the first time in her life she's been called out on anything. You can hear the irritation in her voice, like "Who is this person and how dare they question me??"
... it's Unbelievable.. - Why is this Ms.Magill smiling?.. - I do not understand... - what's so funny about this case??... / what makes her smiling? 😞...
Bloomberg, please provide timestamps. the entire hearing is 5 hours and i'd like to locate these segments so i can hear the rest of Ms. Stefanik's questioning.
If the question was "does calling for the genocide of gays constitute harassment yes or no " would answers have been different??? Thar ya be! Of course they would have said yes... ..but Jews....its "context dependant". Think about that.
I think the answer is in 1:48 . Why isn't dehumanisation enough? Why seemingly go further like 'dehumanisation is part of anti-semitism' like anti-semitism is worse than dehumanisation of Jews? I think it should be reversed. 'It's anti-Semitism and specifically dehumanisation.' But if the order is correct, then this might explain why Ukrainians blacks Palestinians are not asked about?
What's even more Incredulous is that their Responses were clearly coordinated. They all enlisted the same fatuous phrase in response to the question, claiming it only violates code of conduct if it escalates to "conduct"
She answered the question,"only if it turns into conduct then it can be harassment!" Meaning, only if they start killing Jews!!! , then it CAN be harassment.... She was very clear on how amoral she is !!!
It is shameful; It's pathetic and it's abominable on the part of this congresswoman Elise Stefanik who wants to be a superwoman and who needs advertising spotlights to disseminate her gray brand image on a large scale. Because we should never address a dean of a famous university as if she were facing an intelligence agent during a police interrogation
all federal grants, contracts, payments and reimbursements to harvard university and mit should be frozen until these presidents resign. i am a harvard alum from currier house.
Antisemitism lives in the foundations of human society and human nature. The human ego-the desire to enjoy at the expense of others and nature-evolves throughout history and during a person’s life. The more it grows, the more it feels an opposite force also dwelling within. That opposite force is called a “point in the heart.” Contrary to our egoistic desires that wish solely to absorb pleasures into themselves, the point in the heart is a desire that has potential to develop into a desire that loves, gives and positively connects to others. The point in the heart is also known as the seed of the soul, as we can develop it to discover our soul-the connection that underlies those very points. The realization of the potential encased in this small point of desire is the ability to rise above the human ego, where instead of detaching from one another through our growing egoism, i.e. increasingly prioritizing self-benefit over benefiting others, we instead prioritize the benefit of others and positive human connection. The point in the heart is the opposite of our egoistic nature. There are people who host only the negative egoistic force, and there are people who have both the negative egoistic force and the positive altruistic force. When both positive and negative forces coexist in us, then we become called “Jews” or “Israel” according to our inner essence. Likewise, if we solely host the negative egoistic force with no revelation yet of the point in the heart, then we are called “nations of the world” according to that essence. We underwent several stages of development throughout history. The point in the heart first surfaced throughout human society in ancient Babylon. The Babylonians who felt the inner urge to seek something deeper in life beyond the earthly egoistic desires joined Abraham, who taught a method for how to nurture the point in the heart in order to rise above the ego and positively connect. Abraham organized the Babylonians who wanted to study with him into a group, and he called this group “Israel,” which is made up of the words “Yashar Kel” (“straight to God”), i.e. people who aim themselves directly at the attainment of nature’s upper force of love, bestowal and connection, which is opposed to the force existing in human beings, the force of reception. Since Abraham’s time, the two groups-Israel and the nations of the world-have undergone much development. Some from the Israel camp left the group to pursue their natural egoistic inclinations, i.e. with an inclination to the nations of the world, while some from the nations of the world felt that they possess a special closeness and connection, which draws them to Israel. In other words, Jews are not a nationality, but they are people who host the point in the heart, which associates them with the positive force of nature, and which is opposite to the egoistic force that we are born and raised with by nature. The source of antisemitism is in the contrast and conflict between the two opposite desires of our inborn egoism and the point in the heart that can develop our ability to rise above the human ego.
The source of antisemitism is that the russian bolshevic revolution, with the dismantling of institutions etc, was realized by people who were jewish, whereas one would have expected them to be mere russians, and that they were backed by money resources obtained from loans given to them by new york bankers who were jewish, whereas one would have expected them to be impartial mere workers. You signaled some general reason for antisemitism, when it is in fact a specific action-and-reaction matter. For one, I am very mad that jewish bankers helped jewish vandals (instead of refusing them, like I would have done), and if anyone else is mad about the bolshevic revolution(s), I understand them. When you have in mind the ”inclination towards to the nations of the world” that jews have, try to explicit them, and see if it is worth by any means to conceal them blandly, like you did. Otherwise, you do put ideas together quite well, and I may like a discussion with you if we were to meet. But you should be mad about the bolshevic revolution of 1917.
Sounds like they all got together to get their 'answers' 'straight' before questioning. Or they all had the same legal team give them these statements...
These university presidents are unified in their answer, clarifying the Congresswoman’s broad question. The key word is ‘calling’. Does ‘calling for genocide’ express intent and action? Is it a ‘call to action’ or a directive as Ms. Magil states? Is someone expressing one or more points in a responsible discussion where a ‘call’ to harm or exterminate or anything has been introduced? Will parody laws protect a comedian or satirist’s call for genocide in a performance? Can the subject even be discussed at some of our oldest & finest institutions & universities? According to the Congresswoman, no. The refusal of a person to even consider another point of view other than their own is the very definition of extremism. The Congresswomen interrupts each reply because she can’t hear, let alone consider an answer other than one of two she’s determined. Is genocide wrong? Yes Is discussing genocide wrong? No These university presidents are protecting our freedom of speech & right to assemble. Finally, in a raised voice & combative tone, the Congresswomen says,“Calling for the genocide of Jews is dependent upon context.” 0:40 With her black & white, right or wrong, yes or no answer, she’s wrong. At least she’ll appear that way when people read her quote in 10 or 20yrs. If she was back in college, she’d probably be vilified & expelled. We all know that’s ridiculous because in the context of this video, her statement further clarifies their answers, just as the universities, unitedly answer, clarifying the question.
'Conduct', i.e., actually killing Jews, rather just threating to do so, 'can be' (sic) considered 'bullying and harrasement'. I would like to see the c.vs of these acadmeic imposters. I wouldn't allow to teach at a nursery school.
Everyone needs to be simpler, like the Israelis themselves - they did not shout at all corners about their intentions, but simply took and killed thousands of innocent Palestinians. Where have I heard the proverb, that - "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me" ?
Freedom of speech doesnt stop just because you dont like what the person is saying. Simply saying something is not enough. You must also ACT in order to break the law.
You can't be that uneducated, yes you can. If you say a fire is in a theater and there is non, that's not free speech and you'd get arrested If you call for the killing if Jews, that's HATE SPEECH, ADOLPH AND ITS NAZI SPEECH
@CodyFlood123 passing codes of conduct that violate constitutional rights isn't exactly a winning strategy either. Whatever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"? Unless it moves beyond mere words, what has actually been violated?
Many of these schools have internal policy that allow for things normally not allowed in the city, state, country. For an example 'Title IX', largely because the college campus is Private Property. This is more likely akin to grilling your neighbor if they are committing hate acts inside their house or beating their wife etc.
@shoopddawhooped and perhaps any school that doesnt specifically abide by the constitution in their internal policy shouldnt be recieving government grants or tax breaks of any sort. You dont get to take in 10s of billions in tax payers money to provide education to the public while making your own kangaroo courts and attempting to rewrite the constitution on your grounds to favor a more authortarian environment.
Unbelievable! Plainly flabbergasting…these people have zero shame! Resignation is not adequate… fire them and then prosecute them for hate crimes! Where the hell is the DOJ!?!?
My GOD how in the word this stupid racist biased people manage to be at the head of such of prestigious institutions. what is going on in the US ? Donors should ask for their immediate resignation
The only person who should've been asked to resign is Stefanik. If anyone's harassing and bullying, it's her. Her question is also vague. "Calling" where? Online? Face-to-face with a Jewish student? This entire hearing was politically motivated. Meanwhile not a tear shed by the likes of Stefanik for the genocide in Gaza.
It has been one day and Liz Magill at Penn resigned. Claudine Gay in Harvard has *already* cost the endowment no less than 100 Million from Jewish donors pulling funds. The question for Harvard then is just how much money is it worth to continue having, specifically, Dr. Gay as representation for the campus culture? There are multitudes of possible and instant replacements of any equal opportunity category, so what makes Claudine so special that she can cost the University more than *she could possibly make for Harvard in her entire life* ?
Not sure if I’m the only one that noticed this, but when dr gay is talking the guy behind her is nodding his head with her words. Probably showing he told her the exact words to say.
I can bet that Elise Stenfak knows nothing about the history of Palestine; nor anything at all on the history of the Arabs and on Islam as a religion and as an Islamic world. I can bet that this overzealous MP knows absolutely nothing about international politics and I'm pretty sure she doesn't know the names of Arab countries or the geography of the Arab-Muslim world. She is there carrying out the plans and programs of her masters who placed her there. I take her as an example but she is not the only one in the American Congress to act like programmed robots, real parrots and real puppets in the pay of the international economic cartel led by imperialist America.
The question "Is calling for the genocide of jews bullying and harassment" is a dumb question. It is neither bullying nor harassment. That doesn't mean it doesn't violate another policy. If asked, "Is theft bullying and harassment" you would surely say no. That doesn't mean you endorse theft, that just means that it does violate that policy. This question is specifically asked that way because any intelligent person with a knowledge of the policy would say no, but most of the braindead people who watch the video or read the headline will think that she is endorsing "calling for the genocide of jews."
I dont understand this at all because Palestinians are Semites too Semite: name given in the 19th century to a member of any people who speak one of the Semitic languages, a family of languages spoken primarily in parts of western Asia and Africa. The term therefore came to include Arabs, Akkadians, Canaanites, Hebrews, some Ethiopians (including the Amhara and the Tigrayans), and Aramaean tribes. Although Mesopotamia, the western coast of the Mediterranean, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Horn of Africa have all been proposed as possible sites for the prehistoric origins of Semitic-speaking populations, there remains no archaeological or scientific evidence of a common Semitic people. Because Semitic-speaking peoples do not share any traits aside from language, use of the term “Semite” to refer to the broad range of Semitic-speaking peoples has fallen out of favour. In fact, by 2500 BCE Semitic-speaking peoples had already become widely dispersed throughout western Asia. In Phoenicia they became seafarers. In Mesopotamia they blended with the civilization of Sumer. The Hebrews settled with other Semitic-speaking peoples in Palestine. in knowing that what they were asking in the context - I understand why the presidents answered as they did it appears the court of opinion is where they are actually attempting to be tried. Shapiro is right is SHOULD NOT BE HARd to condemn genocide YET the US will actively engage in genocide in order to secure mineral, oil, and gas or now carbon credit rights in black and brown countries. THE US has a hard time owning up to it's part in persistent active genocide of NATIve americans for corp interests or things like eminent domain. sounds good in practice there is a lot of area that if too dark a shade of grey it falls out of focus all we hear about is war in middle east when there is ACTIVE GENOCIDE IN VARIOus countries across AFRICA with MILLIONS DEAD and DYING - why is that not in the news? Maybe because the US is busy VETOING UN policy to help these countries or sanctioning these countries because they support those with similar interests - LIKE FREEDOM from colonial rule? THERE is more going on than just this
Intifada means risings up. Where did the genocide of jews definition come from ?. The original chant was " There is only one solution it further revolution " . Intifada , rising up or revolution are interchangeable.
It doesn't matter what's the meaning of the word, What matters is what the Intifada IS. The intifada was a period of 5 years in which palestinian terrorists daily murdered jews in horrifying terror attacks. Palestinian suicide bombers regularly exploded in busses, restaurants, clubs etc. Calling for "globalizing the Intifada" is the same as calling for the genocide of the Jews
This didn't happen during the BLM etc .. but Congress hearing happend quickly when there's campus support of movement against genocide in Palestine/gaza???
Ugh... It's OK though because they've done the woman thing and apologised for their testimony. They think that apologising makes it OK in their fluffy, leftist, addled brains. Get them back in there since their "apology" and keep asking them the same questions. They still wouldn't be able to offer a concrete answer...
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it ...
Depends on the context.
UFO? 🤔🤔
But seriously - they are answers so annoying! 🇮🇱❤️🇺🇦
“If the Jew did not exist the antisemite would invent him.” -JP Sarte
Let's not let one go... Both Magill *and* Gay had smiles on their faces. I don't know why Gay gets a pass on this.
You really don't know?👸🏿
Cuz she’s BLM
You're gonna hate on me for saying this but she gets a pass because she's black.
Found the racists
I'm in shock folks. I saw more of this clip and you would not believe what Gay says.
They asked Gay (the black) if she was 'okay' the the call for the 'mass murder of African-Americans' and she gave the same answer. She essentially said it was free speech.
So just to be clear, this woman seemed pretty okay with the call for genocide without racial bias. El Pollo Loco!!! 🐓
An embarrassment for our country and these universities. And the questioner missed a great opportunity… “In what context is calling for genocide ok then?”
Indeed! They kept going in circles and the administrators just kept citing the wording of the policy that mentions context, but asking them for an example of what context would make a call for genocide acceptable would have forced them to get specific about what "context" they are referring to.
This reminds me of the scene in The Patriot where Benjamin Martin is meeting with Gen. Cornwallis and Cornwallis makes a comment about his officers shouldn't be "accorded inappropriate levels of hostile attention" to which Martin replies, "To your mind what are appropriate levels of hostile attention?" But to answer the question you pose, genocide is fine as long as it's targeted at the right groups like, in this case, the joos as well as white people. At least according to the left.
ask salman rushdie
she did ask
She did ask it in full version. She even asked if calling for genocide of African Americans violates Penns court of conduct.
What’s with all the creepy smiling by these university presidents?
Fascists
Yep, it's even scary 😯😯
It’s because they might get away with saying all of this.
It's smug self-righteousness. Remember the far left credo: "We're smart and always right, and you're dumb if you believe otherwise"
That is how lefties and Democrats always respond
I normally can acknowledge the rationale on both sides of an argument, but I am baffled as to why a president of a university would refuse to agree that students calling for genocide against any race or ethnic group is unacceptable.
She's not asking if it's acceptable, she's asking if it violatesv the policies surrounding bullying or harassment, which generally require a specific target, which is what they're trying to clarify. It likely violates other school policies.
@@A-Known-Enemy The context of whether or not calling for genocide is against school policy is the same as asking if it is acceptable. All she had to do was say, I'm not sure off the top about all the language of our policies, but calling for genocide is NOT acceptable. She would not have been let go if she had said that.
@@peaceseeker9927 she's answering the question that's being asked. In other parts of the 6 hour hearing, she explicitly denounces antisemitism on numerous occasions.
@@A-Known-Enemy - No, she actually did not answer the question as it was asked. But that is not the main issue. If you don't understand by now why she made a monumental mistake that was easily avoidable, and ended up losing her job, it's because you don't want to. This particular issue does not require much expertise to make sense of.
If your only reaction to someone calling for the outright slaughter of 14 million people is, “I need context,” then you’re in favor of it. My reaction used to be outrage and anger when a white cop did whatever to a person of color. Not anymore.
Smirk on her face says everything !!!
These “leaders” are ridiculous!
No, they are not simply ridiculous! They are dangerous!!!
LOL! Hey Ms President of Harvard, genocide can't be targeted at an individual. If you comprehended the definition of the word, you'd know that.
Dr. Gay simply believes that the Jews in Israel are "occupyers," and that the Arabs have the sole rights to that land. So her response is predicated on that belief. Her mindset is driven by a disdain for Israelis in the land. He believes (yes, Dr. Gay) that Israelis should be banished from that land. Simple as that.
The real question is......
How did they all get that job?👀🙄
I'm doubting they got it because of their IQ and knowledge of 🇺🇲 history.
I'm just saying 🤷🏻♂️
We need to fix these 🇺🇲 college's.
No more of this hiring based on gender and ethnicity and political affiliation or installed by anti 🇺🇲 billionaires.
It should be based on hard work and IQ.
Knowledge of World History.
No more politically biased nonsense.
Everyone in these colleges need to be politically neutral as well.
Neutral to the religious as well.
It shouldn't matter if you're Christian, Jewish or Muslim. All welcomed as long as they're not pushing their religion down everyone's throats.
Im just saying.
Harvard used to be one of our best colleges.
This is ridiculous.
Yep, when you need a great sturgeon you look at qualification, not gender, race or religion.
How did they all get that job? For 10 points, the mystery acronym is...(drumroll please)...ta daaaaaa: DEI!
Which points exactly to the problem of Islam.
It's aim is to overtake and overcome all other religions. Overtly. What do people think Intifada is?
Maybe less DEI, and fewer L A programs dealing with "certain" types of Studies.
I hate to tell you but they are the direct result of Equity, Equality and Inclusion. Definitely Not the result of Qualifications Aptitude and Merits, For Sure!
Jews hire based on ethnicity more than any other group on the planet
If they keep their jobs they'll win all the way.
Magill and Gay have resigned.
Shame on them. In US Criminal Justice system, according to the US Penal Code, verbal assault is not just harassment. It is a distinctive, separate crime punishable under title 18 USC. Yelling at people that you want to kill them ( to commit genocide or homicide ) is not free speech, it is death threat (assault and aggravated assault shown by the physical manifestation - i.e. police was needed to protect Jews against the mob), and hence it falls under criminal assault that incites the mob to physical violence and to commit genocide, to kill (Jews).
Shame on who? The presidents egos were big enough for them not to answer "how" the interrogator wanted them to answer but both were basically saying "yes" as requested. That white lady took the opportunity to be a bully.
Its just painful to watch, can imagine paying billions to study there, when they literally can tell you directly that your life cost nothing for them, you need to have some proper context to be allowed to live your life
It is time to get the hateful anti-American leaders out of higher education. I feel sorry for students in today's college system.
It's absolutely infuriating how she had the audacity to smile at such a question. It's like she's completely devoid of any empathy or understanding. Her reaction is nothing short of pure psychopathy.
i mean when you hear something stupid like that u gonna smile
Agree 100%. I thought I am the only one noticed.This is serious question, and yet the president of a so called PEEN is smiling & it's embarrassing.
@@stellaargallon8271
There was an incident in the Philippines back in 2010 with the late president noynoy Aquino who said 'i smile when I'm exasperated' or something re the Hong Kong bus hostage incident. I remembered that in particular because I'm a dual citizen of HK and ph. Sigh.
Quote:
On September 3, 2010, Aquino took responsibility for the crisis.[89] Aquino actually has direct supervision of the Philippine National Police, since Aquino had asked Secretary of the Interior and Local Government Jesse Robredo to address other concerns, such as coming up with a comprehensive plan on delivering social services to and relocating informal settlers in coordination with the local governments.[89] No formal apology for the crisis was made by Aquino until President Rodrigo Duterte formally apologized in 2018 as president of the Republic of the Philippines and in behalf of the people of the Philippines.[90]
Calling a genocide is 100,% harassment. Imagine if the word Jews was exchanged to B L M
THE CONTEXT WOULDN'T EXIST EITHER.. THESE TWO INSULTED THE COURT AND SHOULD BE JAILED IMO
Wow not a definitive yes?!
They more frightened of their students than Congress!!!
Or in agreement with them.
Defund these shools
My guess is that the antisemitic students protesting at the universities have been recorded doing so. They can be recognised. My guess is also that these same students will be looking for jobs or teaching opportunities down the road; next year or the year after. And many of those positions will be in companies or institutions funded or supported by people with Jewish backgrounds. It seems to me that those organisations would be well within their rights to reject applicants who obviously disagree - show no respect towards - the fundamental, core beliefs of these companies and institutions. Don't hire these woke activists... hold them accountable.
Was this really “anti-Semitism”?
Or simply a emotional overreaction to the actions of Israeli leaders who killed thousands of innocent people (including children) in Palestine?
where do you work? I just wanted to make sure your employer knows how you feel outside of your work environment. seems fair game.
Really? I believe "outside of work" in genociding Jews and want to work for firms, many of which have Jewish colleagues or owners?
@@phobos258 That I'm anti-woke Phobos? I'm proud of it. The truth is on my side.
@@phobos258 I work in sales Phobos. My boss is called Evelyn on Tuesdays and Thursdays but is still Eddie on Mondays and Wednesdays. On Fridays a pot-plant or penguin can turn up.
The Harvard president should not have a job when she cannot call out hate in the simplest form.
Only if hate is dealt equally!
She would’ve called it out if she didn’t support the idea of another genocide of Jews.
What I learned from this is its worse to misgender someone than calling for genocide of a group of people
The smirk on the President of UPenn's face as she refused to answer the question was disgusting!
And just like that nobody felt bad about Affirmative Action being eliminated.
These Presidents are considered the best and the brightest? Bravo Rep. Stefanik!
Amazing how fast that smirk got wiped from her face when someone pulled funding for some major endowment or something like that. Now she's backpedaling and tripping over herself to rewrite policy. I'd pay more attention to updating the resume lady, I think you are going to need it.
That smirk on her face is all the context I need. Obviously, the University Presidents had collaboration on how they were all going to answer for their individual universities. It is hard to tell who the radicals are the students or university leadership.
Both radical minority
And this is why we have more lawyers than handyman. You can’t even answer a direct question without fearing getting sued.
Actually, if they answered the question they would have been better. Is it so hard for someone to say, Genocide of Jews is wrong or is it a problem for you as well
@@allanzylbert1306 I do believe genocide of Jewish people is wrong. You gave me a direct question and I gave you a Direct answer. The difference is you’re not a politician and you’re broke so there’s no monetary gain. You completely missed my point. but at least we can be honest and broke together. 😂
well nobody in the world wants or is advocating any genocide against jews. Actually the evil state in the middle east is actually making a genocide against children of Gaza.
@@allanzylbert1306no one in the video said or seems to believe that the genocide of Jews isn’t wrong. This is a question of free speech, not genocide. Words are not equivalent to genocide, even when the word in question is “genocide” 🤣… the extremists like you are hilarious right now. I promise you don’t want to live in a world where your government can equate your words to actual actions like you’re doing and then punish you for saying something they don’t like.
Huh? Are you ok? Yes or no question, there is no "context"
Amazing that they missed that question!! It really makes them look dumb or that they had a prepared response given to them. It also looks like they all decided and colluded on their response beforehand
I agree.
It’s a dumb question.
@@HeatherHotcakes Dumb people say that math is dumb because they dont understand it.
@@HeatherHotcakesBecause the answer is so obvious. Yet the directors of most prestigious universities couldn't figure it out. They apologized after but it was too late. During the apologies, the smug expression was replaced by concerned face 😂😂. It was pleasant to watch
They evaded the question!
Don't donate money to these colleges, don't send your children there, don't patronize their athletic events
How funny is the way she smiles and nods her face at 1:24! She thinks she delivered a very smart answer...
So, by their reasoning, the calling for the extermination of any race of people, may not be hate speech or even harassment because it rests upon the context? The fact these presidents have to pause and think before answering such a question is chilling frightening! Our colleges and universities are in serious serious trouble!
Imagine for a second a Freshman student enrolled in a fictional writing course (extremely common.) They submits their first writing assignment where one of their fictional characters calls for genocide in act one of a three-act play. The teacher requires the students to only submit act one and the student does so. The student is planning on using act two and three to demonstrate the horrible error of the character in act one's language, but THE CONTEXT OF THE SITUATION has them submitting a play which appears as though they are calling for genocide in a way that violates the policy of the institution. Let's just assume that the student hasn't memorized the Universities code of conduct (which I would guess is true for 99.9% of all students.) Perhaps this example sucks, which could mean that if mine sucks than there is even a better example out there to reference. Is it possible that you can see a tiny bit of non black/white, yes/no, red/blue nuance that someone representing that student might need to call into the light of day when unpacking the situation in their pubic testimony. When you are suddenly the one pushed into congressional mock-trial, you will appreciate the non-totalitarian approach to complex situations. No situation is simple.
@@ecosystemology - This a very bad analogy. It reminds me of Alice in Wonderland and looking through the kaleidoscope and imagining something that isn't real. We are clearly not talking about a writing assignment, but actual words used by students calling for genocide. To say those students didn't mean it because they had no real means to carry it out or it was just a mindless mantra at the time of heated demonstrations is ignoring the fact that all violence eventually carried out starts out as words and slogans. The only context that needs to be understood here is this is hateful and violent speech. The radical left has been coddled and protected in these universities for decades and it's high time the administration get called out on it finally. I'm actually glad this process is happening. It pulls back the curtain and allows those with open eyes to see where these people exactly stand. And yes, the question these presidents were asked was that simple. You can see how they struggled. Their internal battle of humanity versus their ideology. Their ideology rules them.
By their reasoning? Or perhaps by the reasoning of our own constitution and Supreme Court case law, Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Should universities be morally or socially obligated to moderate speech to an even greater extent than law? also their are 2 types of speech, protected and unprotected, hate speech is not legally defined in either category.
@@collectionconnection3722 - This has nothing to do with case law. This has to do with each of these school's policy. Their testimony essentially said we could have hate speech based on certain conditions. That's not in keeping with their policies. I'm sure if that genocide speak was directed toward other minorities, like Asians, Blacks, Hispanics, Women, LGBTQ, there would've been wide condemnation and the student groups behind it would be banned and those students involved expelled. I'm quite certain of it. The double standard is so obvious they are actually choking on it as they sit there. One of these reprehensible administrators is already gone. The others should take her lead and follow suit.
Can you share an example of not only condemnation of hate speech of AA, Asians, LGBTQ+, Latios but "student groups behind it would be banned" at a college or university prior to 7 Oct?
These presidents r so so emberessing themselves!! Shameful creatures!!!!🤦♀️✊️👊👊☠️☠️🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
The smugness and arrogance of these three presidents. Unbelievable.
Especially Urkel. This is probably the first time in her life she's been called out on anything. You can hear the irritation in her voice, like "Who is this person and how dare they question me??"
I think these elite educators would have been better served to immediately resign instead of answering these questions the way they did.
... it's Unbelievable.. - Why is this Ms.Magill smiling?.. - I do not understand...
- what's so funny about this case??... / what makes her smiling? 😞...
...and Gay (Harvard) had a smirk too. Let's not let that cat go.
Bloomberg, please provide timestamps. the entire hearing is 5 hours and i'd like to locate these segments so i can hear the rest of Ms. Stefanik's questioning.
If the question was "does calling for the genocide of gays constitute harassment yes or no " would answers have been different??? Thar ya be! Of course they would have said yes... ..but Jews....its "context dependant". Think about that.
I think the answer is in 1:48 . Why isn't dehumanisation enough? Why seemingly go further like 'dehumanisation is part of anti-semitism' like anti-semitism is worse than dehumanisation of Jews? I think it should be reversed. 'It's anti-Semitism and specifically dehumanisation.'
But if the order is correct, then this might explain why Ukrainians blacks Palestinians are not asked about?
Elise Stefanik is the new Chuck Norris.
What's even more Incredulous is that their Responses were clearly coordinated. They all enlisted the same fatuous phrase in response to the question, claiming it only violates code of conduct if it escalates to "conduct"
harvard racist AF man they support jq and knaye
Oh, no! The horror! By the way, Kayne was saying he needed to defend and protect himself. Defense! Look up DEFCON 3.
Not sure why they expected them to be able fabricate policy. They stated the universities policy. Move onto the next question.
She answered the question,"only if it turns into conduct then it can be harassment!"
Meaning, only if they start killing Jews!!! , then it CAN be harassment....
She was very clear on how amoral she is !!!
It is shameful; It's pathetic and it's abominable on the part of this congresswoman Elise Stefanik who wants to be a superwoman and who needs advertising spotlights to disseminate her gray brand image on a large scale. Because we should never address a dean of a famous university as if she were facing an intelligence agent during a police interrogation
They are academics, they don’t answer yes or no questions without context in ANY circumstance
All non-responsive answers as lawyers would say. Hope the wealthy donors close their wallets.
Makes me sick that we marched with them in the civil rights movement!
I think they have listed to too much Kanye West
all federal grants, contracts, payments and reimbursements to harvard university and mit should be frozen until these presidents resign.
i am a harvard alum from currier house.
The phrase 'the genocide of Jews' now sounds weird to me
Antisemitism lives in the foundations of human society and human nature. The human ego-the desire to enjoy at the expense of others and nature-evolves throughout history and during a person’s life. The more it grows, the more it feels an opposite force also dwelling within. That opposite force is called a “point in the heart.” Contrary to our egoistic desires that wish solely to absorb pleasures into themselves, the point in the heart is a desire that has potential to develop into a desire that loves, gives and positively connects to others.
The point in the heart is also known as the seed of the soul, as we can develop it to discover our soul-the connection that underlies those very points. The realization of the potential encased in this small point of desire is the ability to rise above the human ego, where instead of detaching from one another through our growing egoism, i.e. increasingly prioritizing self-benefit over benefiting others, we instead prioritize the benefit of others and positive human connection.
The point in the heart is the opposite of our egoistic nature. There are people who host only the negative egoistic force, and there are people who have both the negative egoistic force and the positive altruistic force. When both positive and negative forces coexist in us, then we become called “Jews” or “Israel” according to our inner essence. Likewise, if we solely host the negative egoistic force with no revelation yet of the point in the heart, then we are called “nations of the world” according to that essence.
We underwent several stages of development throughout history. The point in the heart first surfaced throughout human society in ancient Babylon. The Babylonians who felt the inner urge to seek something deeper in life beyond the earthly egoistic desires joined Abraham, who taught a method for how to nurture the point in the heart in order to rise above the ego and positively connect. Abraham organized the Babylonians who wanted to study with him into a group, and he called this group “Israel,” which is made up of the words “Yashar Kel” (“straight to God”), i.e. people who aim themselves directly at the attainment of nature’s upper force of love, bestowal and connection, which is opposed to the force existing in human beings, the force of reception.
Since Abraham’s time, the two groups-Israel and the nations of the world-have undergone much development. Some from the Israel camp left the group to pursue their natural egoistic inclinations, i.e. with an inclination to the nations of the world, while some from the nations of the world felt that they possess a special closeness and connection, which draws them to Israel. In other words, Jews are not a nationality, but they are people who host the point in the heart, which associates them with the positive force of nature, and which is opposite to the egoistic force that we are born and raised with by nature.
The source of antisemitism is in the contrast and conflict between the two opposite desires of our inborn egoism and the point in the heart that can develop our ability to rise above the human ego.
The source of antisemitism is that the russian bolshevic revolution, with the dismantling of institutions etc, was realized by people who were jewish, whereas one would have expected them to be mere russians, and that they were backed by money resources obtained from loans given to them by new york bankers who were jewish, whereas one would have expected them to be impartial mere workers.
You signaled some general reason for antisemitism, when it is in fact a specific action-and-reaction matter. For one, I am very mad that jewish bankers helped jewish vandals (instead of refusing them, like I would have done), and if anyone else is mad about the bolshevic revolution(s), I understand them.
When you have in mind the ”inclination towards to the nations of the world” that jews have, try to explicit them, and see if it is worth by any means to conceal them blandly, like you did.
Otherwise, you do put ideas together quite well, and I may like a discussion with you if we were to meet. But you should be mad about the bolshevic revolution of 1917.
Shameful beyond all recognition of shame
Sounds like they all got together to get their 'answers' 'straight' before questioning. Or they all had the same legal team give them these statements...
This is shameful, they should all resign.
These university presidents are unified in their answer, clarifying the Congresswoman’s broad question.
The key word is ‘calling’.
Does ‘calling for genocide’ express intent and action? Is it a ‘call to action’ or a directive as Ms. Magil states?
Is someone expressing one or more points in a responsible discussion where a ‘call’ to harm or exterminate or anything has been introduced?
Will parody laws protect a comedian or satirist’s call for genocide in a performance?
Can the subject even be discussed at some of our oldest & finest institutions & universities?
According to the Congresswoman, no.
The refusal of a person to even consider another point of view other than their own is the very definition of extremism.
The Congresswomen interrupts each reply because she can’t hear, let alone consider an answer other than one of two she’s determined.
Is genocide wrong? Yes
Is discussing genocide wrong? No
These university presidents are protecting our freedom of speech & right to assemble.
Finally, in a raised voice & combative tone, the Congresswomen says,“Calling for the genocide of Jews is dependent upon context.” 0:40
With her black & white, right or wrong, yes or no answer, she’s wrong.
At least she’ll appear that way when people read her quote in 10 or 20yrs.
If she was back in college, she’d probably be vilified & expelled.
We all know that’s ridiculous because in the context of this video, her statement further clarifies their answers, just as the universities, unitedly answer, clarifying the question.
'Conduct', i.e., actually killing Jews, rather just threating to do so, 'can be' (sic) considered 'bullying and harrasement'. I would like to see the c.vs of these acadmeic imposters. I wouldn't allow to teach at a nursery school.
Everyone needs to be simpler, like the Israelis themselves - they did not shout at all corners about their intentions, but simply took and killed thousands of innocent Palestinians.
Where have I heard the proverb, that - "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me" ?
Freedom of speech doesnt stop just because you dont like what the person is saying. Simply saying something is not enough. You must also ACT in order to break the law.
The Code of Conduct is not law.
You can't be that uneducated, yes you can. If you say a fire is in a theater and there is non, that's not free speech and you'd get arrested
If you call for the killing if Jews, that's HATE SPEECH, ADOLPH AND ITS NAZI SPEECH
@CodyFlood123 passing codes of conduct that violate constitutional rights isn't exactly a winning strategy either.
Whatever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"? Unless it moves beyond mere words, what has actually been violated?
Many of these schools have internal policy that allow for things normally not allowed in the city, state, country. For an example 'Title IX', largely because the college campus is Private Property. This is more likely akin to grilling your neighbor if they are committing hate acts inside their house or beating their wife etc.
@shoopddawhooped and perhaps any school that doesnt specifically abide by the constitution in their internal policy shouldnt be recieving government grants or tax breaks of any sort. You dont get to take in 10s of billions in tax payers money to provide education to the public while making your own kangaroo courts and attempting to rewrite the constitution on your grounds to favor a more authortarian environment.
We're not allowed to criticize those people.
You mean black people? Muslims? What?
The answer should be: "No. Calling for genocide for all ethnicity and religion is against policy." Simple.
This is VILE
How can we allow colleges to be centers for free thinkers? McCarthy would never have put up with this.
Eugene or Joe?
@@themudsnarkchannel8237 nope, Joe and Kevin
@@Mark-hg5uf or Gene! Guessing you weren't around in '68.
Unbelievable! Plainly flabbergasting…these people have zero shame! Resignation is not adequate… fire them and then prosecute them for hate crimes! Where the hell is the DOJ!?!?
This is so unsettling.
Oh my and these people are leading our schools
These are the same people who would tell you that not using someone's preferred prounoun "is" bullying and harassment.
My GOD how in the word this stupid racist biased people manage to be at the head of such of prestigious institutions. what is going on in the US ? Donors should ask for their immediate resignation
The only person who should've been asked to resign is Stefanik. If anyone's harassing and bullying, it's her. Her question is also vague. "Calling" where? Online? Face-to-face with a Jewish student? This entire hearing was politically motivated. Meanwhile not a tear shed by the likes of Stefanik for the genocide in Gaza.
The smirk says it all
"Is the calling for genocide of black Americans against your code of conduct?" Answers on a postcard as to how they would have responded.
These "scholars" tried to sound sophisticated and it backfired big time..
Creepy smiles all round…
Imagine if she asked this question but switched Jews for Trans people or Black people. Would be a very differnt answer
Jewish hatred needs verbal circus as defense !
😮
Only the English-speaking countries HAVE this definition problem all because of Israel-Hamas war.
I'd love to hear more about her context depended decision.
It has been one day and Liz Magill at Penn resigned. Claudine Gay in Harvard has *already* cost the endowment no less than 100 Million from Jewish donors pulling funds.
The question for Harvard then is just how much money is it worth to continue having, specifically, Dr. Gay as representation for the campus culture?
There are multitudes of possible and instant replacements of any equal opportunity category, so what makes Claudine so special that she can cost the University more than *she could possibly make for Harvard in her entire life* ?
The problem isn’t about the Jews by the way; it’s about the brutality of the 🇮🇱 regime against innocent civilians in 🇵🇸
Not sure if I’m the only one that noticed this, but when dr gay is talking the guy behind her is nodding his head with her words. Probably showing he told her the exact words to say.
I can bet that Elise Stenfak knows nothing about the history of Palestine; nor anything at all on the history of the Arabs and on Islam as a religion and as an Islamic world. I can bet that this overzealous MP knows absolutely nothing about international politics and I'm pretty sure she doesn't know the names of Arab countries or the geography of the Arab-Muslim world. She is there carrying out the plans and programs of her masters who placed her there. I take her as an example but she is not the only one in the American Congress to act like programmed robots, real parrots and real puppets in the pay of the international economic cartel led by imperialist America.
Unbelievably outrageous
00:30, 02:28 When Magill said context, a fellow up question might have been, "Can you give me an example of what Context?"
Horrendous....this is not going to end up right
damn she doesnt likr latinos
The real question is whether receiving Qatari money is also "context dependent".
The question "Is calling for the genocide of jews bullying and harassment" is a dumb question. It is neither bullying nor harassment. That doesn't mean it doesn't violate another policy. If asked, "Is theft bullying and harassment" you would surely say no. That doesn't mean you endorse theft, that just means that it does violate that policy. This question is specifically asked that way because any intelligent person with a knowledge of the policy would say no, but most of the braindead people who watch the video or read the headline will think that she is endorsing "calling for the genocide of jews."
Theft is harassment and bullying
I dont understand this at all because Palestinians are Semites too
Semite: name given in the 19th century to a member of any people who speak one of the Semitic languages, a family of languages spoken primarily in parts of western Asia and Africa. The term therefore came to include Arabs, Akkadians, Canaanites, Hebrews, some Ethiopians (including the Amhara and the Tigrayans), and Aramaean tribes. Although Mesopotamia, the western coast of the Mediterranean, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Horn of Africa have all been proposed as possible sites for the prehistoric origins of Semitic-speaking populations, there remains no archaeological or scientific evidence of a common Semitic people. Because Semitic-speaking peoples do not share any traits aside from language, use of the term “Semite” to refer to the broad range of Semitic-speaking peoples has fallen out of favour.
In fact, by 2500 BCE Semitic-speaking peoples had already become widely dispersed throughout western Asia. In Phoenicia they became seafarers. In Mesopotamia they blended with the civilization of Sumer. The Hebrews settled with other Semitic-speaking peoples in Palestine.
in knowing that what they were asking in the context - I understand why the presidents answered as they did
it appears the court of opinion is where they are actually attempting to be tried.
Shapiro is right is SHOULD NOT BE HARd to condemn genocide YET the US will actively engage in genocide in order to secure mineral, oil, and gas or now carbon credit rights in black and brown countries.
THE US has a hard time owning up to it's part in persistent active genocide of NATIve americans for corp interests or things like eminent domain. sounds good in practice there is a lot of area that if too dark a shade of grey it falls out of focus
all we hear about is war in middle east when there is ACTIVE GENOCIDE IN VARIOus countries across AFRICA with MILLIONS DEAD and DYING - why is that not in the news? Maybe because the US is busy VETOING UN policy to help these countries or sanctioning these countries because they support those with similar interests - LIKE FREEDOM from colonial rule? THERE is more going on than just this
What you expect them to say when their boss is Qatar the country who funds Hamas
Qatar must have had scholarships in these schools, Money, school sustainability.
Intifada means risings up. Where did the genocide of jews definition come from ?. The original chant was " There is only one solution it further revolution " . Intifada , rising up or revolution are interchangeable.
It doesn't matter what's the meaning of the word, What matters is what the Intifada IS.
The intifada was a period of 5 years in which palestinian terrorists daily murdered jews in horrifying terror attacks.
Palestinian suicide bombers regularly exploded in busses, restaurants, clubs etc.
Calling for "globalizing the Intifada" is the same as calling for the genocide of the Jews
Is a mind blowing how this president got elected. Resignation is a must.
These three presidents should resign for their incompetent leadership in academic sphere.
What the, what?!?!?! It it turns into action? Bruh these times are crazy
So what she says that its a violation only when targeted against specific people.
If its just a general calls for genocide, seems to be a-ok then
What took them so long to resign? What an outrage!
This didn't happen during the BLM etc .. but Congress hearing happend quickly when there's campus support of movement against genocide in Palestine/gaza???
The term Semites include Arabs, Akkadians, Canaanites, Hebrews, some Ethiopians (including the Amhara and the Tigrayans), and Aramaean tribes.
Waiting on Gay and Kornbluth to resign, as well.
Since they clearly colluded in lock-step on their responses, they are equally culpable.
Calling for the Genocide of any ppls is bullying too right?
Like Afro-American, they went through worst-case than any nation?
The smirk on the Penn president says it all. What a snot.
Ugh...
It's OK though because they've done the woman thing and apologised for their testimony.
They think that apologising makes it OK in their fluffy, leftist, addled brains.
Get them back in there since their "apology" and keep asking them the same questions.
They still wouldn't be able to offer a concrete answer...
Really. Apologizing is admitting they did it an opens the door to lawsuits and persecution. They should not have said anything. What fools!
This is purely bizarre. Has the world gone mad?
The by race and by gender have gone too far to give them the jobs! It’s a national shame!