UPenn invokes and ignores stated policies, depending primarily on whether invoking or ignoring helps punish or target Jews. They may do this unintentionally, but this is what they do. When a Jewish professor made racist comments, the UPenn administration punished her. When several of their departments sponsored a whole cadre of antisemites for a “festival” on campus, the UPenn administration
For the second time since launching, I have removed two of someone's comments, those of the person anonymously posting as "Hazel-Rah." Because the comments were so filled with ad hominem attacks, personal insults, and vitriol, that it was exactly the type of discourse I do not want around here. I first warned "Hazel-Rah" to cut the crap out, but this evoked more vitriol, which, as promised, I simply deleted.
For now, I am: 1. Leaving the other comments by "Hazel-rah" up for all to see how NOT to behave here; 2. I have informed "Hazel-rah" that he will be banned from commenting altogether if he continues bombing the comments with insults. I hope it does not come to that, but my experience suggests it likely will.
Completely predictably, after my first warning, "Hazel-rah" (in between calling me "emotional and irrational" and telling me to go fuck myself), pled "Free speech!" Yes indeed, free speech. "Hazel-rah" is completely free to stand on a soapbox in Time Square declaring how ridiculous, irrational and stupid we all are and how we should all go fuck ourselves. And probably free to do so on many (social) media platforms too. But "Hazel-rah's" free speech imposes no requirement on me whatsoever to tolerate insults and "fuck yous" in the comments here. In fact, I do give some leeway for some of this, which you can see by virtue of the fact that, for now, I am leaving "Hazel-rah's" comments up. If, as I suspect, this will evoke another tirade, they will all be removed too.
Personally I don’t like a lot of the stuff Amy Wax has said. But free speech seems to start only when Jews complain about virulent anti Semitism. Funny how that works. And why can’t Palestinian writers meet and discuss culture without making it all about destroying Israel? Do they have anything else to add here? I assume they must but they’re not showing it.
Hazel...why have you not commented on the topic of Lee's piece? Despite what you may think...I actually know a great deal about this subject and got to hear Amy Wax discussing her case on FIRE webinar long before this piece was published. My homework is just fine. You, however, have offered nothing but vitriol in response to everyone here. Are you truly that incapable of responding to Lee's well written piece?
Is this not the same UPenn that tells women on the swim team they cannot complain when Lia Thomas walks in and swings his di*k around, because their Title IX rights are "hate speech" now? The one that warned no one on the team, or changed the sign on the door of the locker room to "unisex," and then silenced the swimmers after and told them to seek counseling and educate themselves? All for the Lia Thomas with the Fetlife where his autogynephilia is in the open?
Jews are evil white oppressors aka kulaks who need to be eradicated in the name of Justice; Palestinians are poor brown oppressed victims (the proletariat and/or wretched of the earth) who cannot be held responsible for their actions and who must always be supported even if they put a knife to your throat.
"Everything that allows the triumph of the revolution is moral. Everything that stands in its way is immoral." Sergey Nechayev
We've lived through all this before and the response of American academia is only surprising if you haven't been paying attention.
I agree that UPenn is engaging in utter hypocrisy in using Principle 1 against Amy Wax in some circumstances while following Principle 2 in others. It would help to know what specifically Wax said that is being called "racist" because I suspect Wax's "offense" is not that she made racist statements. As we see in the Nature editorial policies, truthful, data-supported statements relevant to policy or conclusions under discussion can be considered bigoted because they offend the sensibilities or agenda or advocates for a particular group. That does not make them racist. The only test of academic free speech, or free speech generally, should be whether or not the statement is supported by data and is presented honestly and in context.
Example: It is a fact that violent crime rates among African American males are roughly 10 times higher than for white males of the same age. It is also a fact that most of the victims of these crimes are also African American. If a professor like Amy Wax or Heather MacDonald points out this fact as evidence to demonstrate that, contrary to the leftist narrative, African Americans are actually UNDER-policed relative to whites based on actual crime rates, the speaker is NOT being racist against African Americans. They are speaking the truth that must be accounted for in determining how best to address crime. Given that the victims of these crimes tend to be African-American themselves, I would argue that failure to call out these crimes honestly out of fear of offending liberal activists is itself the act of racism and bigotry because it clearly says that the black victims of these crimes aren't important enough for us to speak the truth about those harming them.
What Lee is pointing out as antisemitism by UPenn is just a specific example of the hypocrisy of academia dominated by progressives who seek to censor and silence ANY opinion that conflicts with their world view. Since Jews are currently defined as "white" and "oppressors" they are inherently unworthy of defense and can be harmed by those identified as "oppressed" or "victims" in the progressive hierarchy with impunity. In this twisted progressive universe, barbaric Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians are justifiable resistance that Israel simply must endure for its crime of existing, while Israeli defensive counterstrikes are considered genocidal acts on the "innocent" Palestinians who are NEVER accountable for anything that is done by any member of their population or by the government officials they elected and acting in their name. This is antisemitic of course. Unfortunately, the same hypocritical argument by progressive academics would be used against men who dare to challenge false accusations of sexual harassment/rape or have the audacity to suggest that due process protections apply in such cases. So...the while there is certainly plenty of antisemitism in academia as seen in the UPenn example, the problem is really with progressive ideology generally.
Your friends are 100% correct. And so are you. It is antisemitism (together with anti-white racism and oppressor/oppressed categorisation -- for the moral mess of the latter over more than 100 years at this point, may I bring forward here our eminent friend Chomsky, our distinguished friend Finkelstein? Both irredeemably Jewish, both still incapable of seeing Jewish victims because Israel-Jews-rich-capitalist monsters-USA Satan).
The way that the narrative about oppressor/oppressed conflates with antisemitism (and racism, and genocide denial -- not just of Jews -- through the creation of 'worthy victims' and 'unworthy victims') is brilliantly explained in this article by a young researcher:
Frankly -- and I've been saying this for a while -- all of the "white supremacy" BS at universities is 1930s Germany, Pol Pott, and Mao all over again. But try conveying this to your brainwashed Democrat-voting Useful Idiots -- even when they're Jewish, they're oblivious, chanting that the nation's biggest threat is "white supremacy." I go blue in the face trying to explain it to people too old or out of the academic / media loop to comprehend. They just rush to judging the messenger as "fascist" and "right wing."
What's going on now is, ironically, the only hope in making them see what's really going on here.
Jews have been called the Canary in the coal mine when it comes to how far gone a nation is when it comes to totalitarianism and genocide. The Canary in the coal mine of the western world is gasping for air right now. Anglo Saxon ethnic European people aka, white people and Christians have been getting the Jewish treatment for a decade from the cultural Marxists of the communist party U.S.A. aka, the democrat party. Now they no longer find the Jewish useful idiots useful and are now openly calling for the genocide of them. A big part of this is related to mass immigration, the communists have made the decision that they have a large enough number of third world immigrants were they can openly cast aside the Jews and make them boogieman for societies ills. This is exactly what Hitler did and what happened in Soviet Russia. It is a tale and strategy used by genocidal madmen for thousands of years.
Brilliant exposure of the hypocrisy. It all tracks with 'social justice' ideology of course. It's a double whammy for Jews because they are not just Jewish, now they are, a la Whoopi Goldberg, 'white' or 'hyper' white. It boggles my mind how thoroughly a simplistic and totalitarian narrative can take over and become so dominant, wiping out thought, common sense, history and basic moral sensibility and reasoning.
First they came for the socialist and I did not speak out because I am not a socialist. Then they came for the unionist but I did not speak out because I am not a unionist. Then they came for the Jews and I did not speakout because I am not a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left tospeak out for me. Martin Niemoller
Cutting the multi million dollar taxpayer funding of these Public Universities would soon focus the administrative blob on the realities of visceral day to day life.
All,
For the second time since launching, I have removed two of someone's comments, those of the person anonymously posting as "Hazel-Rah." Because the comments were so filled with ad hominem attacks, personal insults, and vitriol, that it was exactly the type of discourse I do not want around here. I first warned "Hazel-Rah" to cut the crap out, but this evoked more vitriol, which, as promised, I simply deleted.
For now, I am: 1. Leaving the other comments by "Hazel-rah" up for all to see how NOT to behave here; 2. I have informed "Hazel-rah" that he will be banned from commenting altogether if he continues bombing the comments with insults. I hope it does not come to that, but my experience suggests it likely will.
Completely predictably, after my first warning, "Hazel-rah" (in between calling me "emotional and irrational" and telling me to go fuck myself), pled "Free speech!" Yes indeed, free speech. "Hazel-rah" is completely free to stand on a soapbox in Time Square declaring how ridiculous, irrational and stupid we all are and how we should all go fuck ourselves. And probably free to do so on many (social) media platforms too. But "Hazel-rah's" free speech imposes no requirement on me whatsoever to tolerate insults and "fuck yous" in the comments here. In fact, I do give some leeway for some of this, which you can see by virtue of the fact that, for now, I am leaving "Hazel-rah's" comments up. If, as I suspect, this will evoke another tirade, they will all be removed too.
Personally I don’t like a lot of the stuff Amy Wax has said. But free speech seems to start only when Jews complain about virulent anti Semitism. Funny how that works. And why can’t Palestinian writers meet and discuss culture without making it all about destroying Israel? Do they have anything else to add here? I assume they must but they’re not showing it.
Hazel...why have you not commented on the topic of Lee's piece? Despite what you may think...I actually know a great deal about this subject and got to hear Amy Wax discussing her case on FIRE webinar long before this piece was published. My homework is just fine. You, however, have offered nothing but vitriol in response to everyone here. Are you truly that incapable of responding to Lee's well written piece?
Is this not the same UPenn that tells women on the swim team they cannot complain when Lia Thomas walks in and swings his di*k around, because their Title IX rights are "hate speech" now? The one that warned no one on the team, or changed the sign on the door of the locker room to "unisex," and then silenced the swimmers after and told them to seek counseling and educate themselves? All for the Lia Thomas with the Fetlife where his autogynephilia is in the open?
I sense a brand new "defund" movement coming.
cmon man, you've been doing this long enough now:
Left morality is always WHO/WHOM.
Jews are evil white oppressors aka kulaks who need to be eradicated in the name of Justice; Palestinians are poor brown oppressed victims (the proletariat and/or wretched of the earth) who cannot be held responsible for their actions and who must always be supported even if they put a knife to your throat.
"Everything that allows the triumph of the revolution is moral. Everything that stands in its way is immoral." Sergey Nechayev
We've lived through all this before and the response of American academia is only surprising if you haven't been paying attention.
I agree that UPenn is engaging in utter hypocrisy in using Principle 1 against Amy Wax in some circumstances while following Principle 2 in others. It would help to know what specifically Wax said that is being called "racist" because I suspect Wax's "offense" is not that she made racist statements. As we see in the Nature editorial policies, truthful, data-supported statements relevant to policy or conclusions under discussion can be considered bigoted because they offend the sensibilities or agenda or advocates for a particular group. That does not make them racist. The only test of academic free speech, or free speech generally, should be whether or not the statement is supported by data and is presented honestly and in context.
Example: It is a fact that violent crime rates among African American males are roughly 10 times higher than for white males of the same age. It is also a fact that most of the victims of these crimes are also African American. If a professor like Amy Wax or Heather MacDonald points out this fact as evidence to demonstrate that, contrary to the leftist narrative, African Americans are actually UNDER-policed relative to whites based on actual crime rates, the speaker is NOT being racist against African Americans. They are speaking the truth that must be accounted for in determining how best to address crime. Given that the victims of these crimes tend to be African-American themselves, I would argue that failure to call out these crimes honestly out of fear of offending liberal activists is itself the act of racism and bigotry because it clearly says that the black victims of these crimes aren't important enough for us to speak the truth about those harming them.
What Lee is pointing out as antisemitism by UPenn is just a specific example of the hypocrisy of academia dominated by progressives who seek to censor and silence ANY opinion that conflicts with their world view. Since Jews are currently defined as "white" and "oppressors" they are inherently unworthy of defense and can be harmed by those identified as "oppressed" or "victims" in the progressive hierarchy with impunity. In this twisted progressive universe, barbaric Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians are justifiable resistance that Israel simply must endure for its crime of existing, while Israeli defensive counterstrikes are considered genocidal acts on the "innocent" Palestinians who are NEVER accountable for anything that is done by any member of their population or by the government officials they elected and acting in their name. This is antisemitic of course. Unfortunately, the same hypocritical argument by progressive academics would be used against men who dare to challenge false accusations of sexual harassment/rape or have the audacity to suggest that due process protections apply in such cases. So...the while there is certainly plenty of antisemitism in academia as seen in the UPenn example, the problem is really with progressive ideology generally.
Your friends are 100% correct. And so are you. It is antisemitism (together with anti-white racism and oppressor/oppressed categorisation -- for the moral mess of the latter over more than 100 years at this point, may I bring forward here our eminent friend Chomsky, our distinguished friend Finkelstein? Both irredeemably Jewish, both still incapable of seeing Jewish victims because Israel-Jews-rich-capitalist monsters-USA Satan).
The way that the narrative about oppressor/oppressed conflates with antisemitism (and racism, and genocide denial -- not just of Jews -- through the creation of 'worthy victims' and 'unworthy victims') is brilliantly explained in this article by a young researcher:
https://forward.com/opinion/393107/how-anti-semitisms-true-origin-makes-it-invisible-to-the-left/
My apologies if I have posted it before, my ability to keep track is reduced.
Frankly -- and I've been saying this for a while -- all of the "white supremacy" BS at universities is 1930s Germany, Pol Pott, and Mao all over again. But try conveying this to your brainwashed Democrat-voting Useful Idiots -- even when they're Jewish, they're oblivious, chanting that the nation's biggest threat is "white supremacy." I go blue in the face trying to explain it to people too old or out of the academic / media loop to comprehend. They just rush to judging the messenger as "fascist" and "right wing."
What's going on now is, ironically, the only hope in making them see what's really going on here.
Jews have been called the Canary in the coal mine when it comes to how far gone a nation is when it comes to totalitarianism and genocide. The Canary in the coal mine of the western world is gasping for air right now. Anglo Saxon ethnic European people aka, white people and Christians have been getting the Jewish treatment for a decade from the cultural Marxists of the communist party U.S.A. aka, the democrat party. Now they no longer find the Jewish useful idiots useful and are now openly calling for the genocide of them. A big part of this is related to mass immigration, the communists have made the decision that they have a large enough number of third world immigrants were they can openly cast aside the Jews and make them boogieman for societies ills. This is exactly what Hitler did and what happened in Soviet Russia. It is a tale and strategy used by genocidal madmen for thousands of years.
Yes, UPenn are being grossly and ridiculously hypocritical.
No, condemning Israel for their actions is not antisemitism, and anyone trying to equate the two is engaging in pathetic, MAGAt-level BS.
Brilliant exposure of the hypocrisy. It all tracks with 'social justice' ideology of course. It's a double whammy for Jews because they are not just Jewish, now they are, a la Whoopi Goldberg, 'white' or 'hyper' white. It boggles my mind how thoroughly a simplistic and totalitarian narrative can take over and become so dominant, wiping out thought, common sense, history and basic moral sensibility and reasoning.
First they came for the socialist and I did not speak out because I am not a socialist. Then they came for the unionist but I did not speak out because I am not a unionist. Then they came for the Jews and I did not speakout because I am not a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left tospeak out for me. Martin Niemoller
Cutting the multi million dollar taxpayer funding of these Public Universities would soon focus the administrative blob on the realities of visceral day to day life.
Excellent article.
Between this and their cheating at swimming with Lia Thomas, I'm done with that school.