Rutgers University Chancellor Christopher J. Molloy Condemns the Rise in Antisemitic Violence; and then Apologizes for Doing So

Molloy winds up implicitly endorsing the argument that criticizing antisemitism in the United States is anti-Palestinian.

|

On Wednesday, the chancellor and provost sent out the statement below. It had some All Lives Matter aspects to it, and it included an irrelevant aside on the conflict in Gaza, but it did begin with a forthright denunciation of antisemitism:

We are saddened by and greatly concerned about the sharp rise in hostile sentiments and anti-Semitic violence in the United States. Recent incidents of hate directed toward Jewish members of our community again remind us of what history has to teach us. Tragically, in the last century alone, acts of prejudice and hatred left unaddressed have served as the foundation for many atrocities against targeted groups around the world.

Last year's murder of George Floyd brought into sharp focus the racial injustices that continue to plague our country, and over the past year there has been attacks on our Asian American Pacific Islander citizens, the spaces of Indigenous peoples defiled, and targeted oppression and other assaults against Hindus and Muslims.

Although it has been nearly two decades since the U.S. Congress approved the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act, the upward trend of anti-Semitism continues. We have also been witnesses to the increasing violence between Israeli forces and Hamas in the Middle East leading to the deaths of children and adults and mass displacement of citizens in the Gaza region and the loss of lives in Israel.

At a time when the ravages of the pandemic and the proliferation of global conflict are leading to death, destruction, and ethnic strife, the university stands as a beacon of hope for our community. We have the opportunity amidst the turmoil to serve as a model for institutions that respect and value the dignity of every human being.

This recent resurgence of anti-Semitism demands that we again call out and denounce acts of hate and prejudice against members of the Jewish community and any other targeted and oppressed groups on our campus and in our community.

Our commitment to creating a safe learning environment that is inclusive of difference requires that we hold ourselves and each other accountable for our behaviors.

Therefore:

  • We call out all forms of bigotry, prejudice, discrimination, xenophobia, and oppression, in whatever ways they may be expressed.
  • We condemn any vile acts of hate against members of our community designed to generate fear, devalue, demonize, or dehumanize.
  • We embrace and affirm the value and dignity of each member of our Rutgers community regardless of religion, race, ethnic background, sexual orientation, gender, and ability.

If you have been adversely impacted by anti-Semitic or any other discriminatory incidents in our community, please do not hesitate to reach out to our counseling and other support services on campus. Our behavioral health team stands ready to support you through these challenging times. In addition, our Student Affairs Office is already working in close partnership with leaders of the Rutgers Jewish community, and meetings have been held with students to assess and respond to their needs. If you are aware of hate incidents on campuses or places that have been made unsafe due to expressed bigotry and other unacceptable and insensitive acts, please report them using the bias reporting system.

Although we face many challenges and may have differing perspectives, we must condemn acts of violence and all forms of bigotry. We will continually strive to realize the aspiration embodied in President Holloway's articulation of a vision for Rutgers as a 'beloved community'—a community where we welcome and affirm humanity and find strength in our diversity.

Sincerely,

Christopher J. Molloy
Chancellor

Francine Conway
Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor for Research and Academic Affairs

This milquetoast statement, however, was too much for Rutgers Students for Justice in Palestine, which seems to argue that antisemitism in the United States for some reason should not be addressed until SJP's grievances with Israel are addressed.

Unbelievably (and really, this shocked me), this led the Chancellor to apologize for his initial condemnation of antisemitism:

An Apology

May 27, 2021

Dear Members of the Rutgers–New Brunswick Community,

We are writing today as a follow-up to the message sent on Wednesday, May 26th to the university community. We understand that intent and impact are two different things, and while the intent of our message was to affirm that Rutgers–New Brunswick is a place where all identities can feel validated and supported, the impact of the message fell short of that intention. In hindsight, it is clear to us that the message failed to communicate support for our Palestinian community members. We sincerely apologize for the hurt that this message has caused.

Rutgers University–New Brunswick is a community that is enriched by our vibrant diversity. However, our diversity must be supported by equity, inclusion, antiracism, and the condemnation of all forms of bigotry and hatred, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. As we grow in our personal and institutional understanding, we will take the lesson learned here to heart, and pledge our commitment to doing better. We will work to regain your trust, and make sure that our communications going forward are much more sensitive and balanced.

Our goal of creating a beloved community will not be easy, and while we may make mistakes along the way; we hope we can all learn from them as we continue this vital work together.

Sincerely,

Christopher J. Molloy
Chancellor, Rutgers University–New Brunswick

Francine Conway
Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor for Research and Academic Affairs
Rutgers University–New Brunswick

If a condemnation of antisemitism in the U.S. because of a recent upsurge in violence, threats, and vandalism, combined with a condemnation of all other forms of bigotry, triggers Students for Justice in Palestine, the chancellor's response could have taken many forms, including silence. The one response that's completely unacceptable is to endorse SJP's view that condemning antisemitism in the United States makes you anti-Palestinian, or indeed reflects any view on the Arab-Israeli conflict at all.

NEXT: Sixth Circuit Enjoins Use of Race and Sex Preferences for Coronavirus Relief Funding

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So the screencap is just 1/6 of what this student group had to say. For those interested, I’d encourage you to go to insta and read the whole thing, because it’s actually even crazier: https://www.instagram.com/p/CPYayWbjVQi/

    In particularly, 3/6 makes it clear they’re irate that George Floyd was even mentioned– apparently their grievances are special. And 4/6 makes it clear that the statement is also an issue because it doesn’t use the word “Palestine”– e.g., they won’t be happy unless the university openly advocates for a two state solution (and not even then).

    As always, there’s no point in placating this student group. Every concession is just going to lead to more demands. Eventually university administrations will ignore this and, if students are really unhappy, they can drop out or transfer.

    1. “As always, there’s no point in placating this student group. Every concession is just going to lead to more demands. Eventually university administrations will ignore this…”

      No administrator is going to ever stand up to this cadre — state legislatures might but university administrations never will.

      And people tend to forget that there is a coalition for all good things. Only the name “Antifa” is new, the tightly-networked coalition has been around for 30+ years and has always been virulently Anti-Jew.

      1. Is this another one of the groups that is about to rise up in open rebellion like you keep warning us?

  2. The administration wishes it to be known that those responsible for sacking the people who made the original responsibility, have been sacked.

    A møøse micrøaggressed against mi sister ønce…

  3. “It had some All Lives Matter aspects to it”

    It’s a seriously bad idea to humor the idea that this is actually a valid criticism. All lives DO matter. The objection to this phrase from BLM stems directly from their denial of that.

    1. In this case, it’s relevant, because one can’t argue that the chancellor and provost were excluding others from their concern, which makes the complaint by SJP that much more absurd. Otherwise, it’s generally a point about hypocrisy; those who say “All Lives Matter” is racist then go around All Lives Mattering antisemitic violence.

      1. ALM, as a response to specific racism, _is_ racist. Just like in this case.

    2. No, BLM does not dispute that all lives matter. But since there has never been any serious dispute that white lives matter, the point of BLM is to point out that black lives matter too.

      1. But since there has never been any serious dispute that white lives matter

        Nor is there any serious dispute that black (or any other demographic) lives matter.

        1. I take it you don’t read the comments here.

          1. So comments on this board constitute serious dispute in your view? Why do you insist on being laughed at?

          2. I take it you don’t read the comments here.

            Are you under the impression that your “The fetus is a trespasser” stupidity wasn’t sufficient to cement your status as a clown?

            1. Calm down. You can both be clowns.

              1. You want credit for getting there first? No problem. So conceded.

      2. Let’s see how BLM reacts when Jews start using “Jewish Lives Matter”.

        1. Pfft…

          https://alldogsmatter.co.uk/

          (The charity with that name has been around longer. Otherwise it would be in very poor taste, at best.)

      3. “But since there has never been any dispute that white lives matter”

        Lol. The families of Daniel Shaver and Carolyn Small would not agree with that statement. Just to name a couple.

        You don’t even know who they are, which fact totally belies your point.

        1. They act like no white is ever shot by police. Ever.

          1. Whites are shot by the police, but where is the bigger problem?

            1. The bigger problem? Every non-threatening individual shot by the police is the bigger problem. Every single fucking one.

              More whites are shot than blacks by absolute number. Blacks are shot disproportionately. But that fact is zero comfort to the loved ones of non blacks shot by the police. Glad you can be so cavalier about it.

              1. Which is all the more reason to adopt the sort of police accountability reforms urged by BLM.

                1. All the less reason, since the people police shoot are virtually always criminals preying on the law abiding.

                  BLM actually took a stab at ginning up riots over Ma’Khia Bryant being killed.

                  1. I very much doubt that Daniel Shaver and Carolyn Small were preying on the law abiding, any more so than Eric Garner or George Floyd were. Even if they were, criminals still have rights in this country.

                    1. George Floyd absolutely was preying on the law abiding. He was passing counterfeit currency. Not a violent crime, but still a way of robbing people.

                      And it didn’t come out of the blue, he had a long and violent record.

                      Anyway, I said “virtually”, there are occasional exceptions, but that’s what they are: Exceptions.

                    2. “George Floyd absolutely was preying on the law abiding. He was passing counterfeit currency. Not a violent crime, but still a way of robbing people.”

                      You’re conveniently ignoring the possibility that Floyd had counterfeit currency but didn’t know it was counterfeit. What would you expect someone to do if they were a victim of counterfeit currency? I’d expect them to try to spend it, or maybe try to deposit it in a bank.
                      Usually, we don’t assume that a single incident of funny-money indicates that we’ve caught the ringleader. You at least consider the chance that you’ve “caught” a prior victim. But no,
                      Floyd was a black man, so you went straight to the conclusion that he is the source of the counterfeiting.

                      In any case, counterfeiting isn’t a crime whose sentence is summary execution.

                    3. Mr. Pollock,

                      WHERE, exactly, in Brett’s response, did he state that George Floyd was the statement that George Floyd was the “ringleader” of a counterfeiting ring?? As for “summary execution” (a tad hyperbolic, there, aren’t we??), it is an unfortunately common result of resisting arrest . . . which the various videos make it clear he did.

                      Not saying his death was justified (they rarely are, IMHO), but Chris Rock rather effectively called bulls*** on that particular argument. Don’t want to die? Don’t resist arrest. Kinda stupid to pick a fight with guys with guns, batons, tasers, and a radio to call a hundred or so of their buddies.

              2. Every death is a tragedy, but when a white person is shot by a cop, racism usually had nothing to do with it.

                1. When a black guy is shot by a cop, racism usually has nothing to do with it.

                  Just because two people of different races have a dispute does that mean it’s racism? If a black robber shoots a white guy, is that racism?

                  Aunt Teefah – I agree reform is needed, although some of those urged by BLM might be excessive.

                  1. “When a black guy is shot by a cop, racism usually has nothing to do with it. ”

                    This is what the racists usually say. They don’t cite any proof of the statement, either.

                    “Just because two people of different races have a dispute does that mean it’s racism?”

                    ” If a black robber shoots a white guy, is that racism?”
                    could be.

                    Maybe, maybe not.

                    It should be non-controversial to say that police officers should not kill unarmed people, even if the unarmed person is guilty of committing a crime.

                    1. Yeah that should be uncontroversial. Which is why I said exactly that in this very thread.

                      And if you’re calling me racist for pointing out a basic obvious point, then fuck off. People like you are a huge part of the problem. And your CRT cousins are among the most racist groups around.

                    2. ” if you’re calling me racist for […]”

                      Don’t recall calling you racist. did the shoe fit, and now you’re wearing it?

                    3. Pollock,

                      “This is what the racists usually say. They don’t cite any proof of the statement, either.”

                      Yeah, you DID call him a racist, right there. Please, if you’re going to be a tendentious @$$, at least have the honesty to own your BS. Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt.

                2. “when a white person is shot by a cop, racism usually had nothing to do with it”

                  How do you know that?

                  No black or Latino officers ever shot a white because of race?. Or are you one of those people who think only whites can be racist?

                  1. Bob, the problem is that even ‘black’ cops believe the racism and shoot more black people. The effect is even worse with security guards.

                    No, nothing stops people being racist. Not even usually being the target of the exact form of racism they’re copying.

                    1. Davedave,

                      So, you have the ability to see into the minds of people you’ve never met, who are thousands of miles away, and determine their thoughts and motivation? Wow, cool trick! Or, just perhaps, lots of things get labeled ‘racism’ that aren’t anything of the sort?? And I particularly love how you can understand and attribute motives to POC police. Feel free to spare me your complicated “explanation” for how you know this. I’ve just eaten breakfast, and I don’t think my digestion could handle it.

              3. ” Every non-threatening individual shot by the police is the bigger problem.”

                30-50 people a year. All the other shootings are justifed.

                1. If your numbers are right, then we’ve got 30-50 problems a year. Plus you need to add o the guys the cops best the shit out of for no reason.

                2. What. The other thousand?

                3. “30-50 people a year.”

                  1 is too many.

                  1. Pollock,

                    Can’t WAIT to see your reaction to the approximately 250,000 people killed by medical malpractice in the US every year. People are human. Humans make mistakes (kinda one of the attributes of being “human”; otherwise, we’d be gods). Not every mistake is from malice, racism, or bad intentions. Sometimes (mostly), they are just . . . mistakes.

          2. I’m trying to post a link showing blacks are the ethnic group most likely to be killed by police but there seems to be a technical glitch. I’ll try again later.

            1. They also are the ethnic group most likely to “homicide” a cop — that’s a FBI stat and I use the category they do.

              1. Sounds like BOTH sides need to de-escalate.

            2. They’re the ethnic group most likely to NEED to be killed by police, that’s why. Making blacks actually the greatest beneficiaries of police killing people.

              1. “They’re the ethnic group most likely to NEED to be killed by police, that’s why.”

                Nothing racist here. Don’t know why you keep drawing that label.

            3. blacks are the ethnic group most likely to commit murders.

              blacks are the ethnic group most likely to commit other crimes

      4. BLM doesn’t even show any evidence of thinking all black lives matter, given their indifference to the huge increase in murder rates in black communities their efforts to expel the police have generated.

        Granted, Black Criminal Lives Ended By Police Matter would make for an unwieldy acronym, for all that it would more accurately describe the organization. Their primary goal appears to be depriving black communities of police protection using rare police shootings as an excuse.

  4. Gee, too bad nobody could have possibly predicted that labeling anything even vaguely critical of Israeli government policy as “antisemitic” might cost you allies against the actual antisemites.

    1. Every group out there has members or organizations who at times exaggerates charges of bigogry for political effect. But on the left, it’s only Jews for whom this discredits allegations, even when there is no plausible means of disputing the allegation, as when roving gangs look for Jews to beat up. But I’m sure, James, in your case you can point me to lots of comments you’ve made about how blacks, Asians, gays, Hispanics, and so on deserve to lose allies because some members of their groups sometimes are overly prone to accuse others of bigotry. Right? I’ll wait for the examples.

      1. I hope you are patient.

      2. “Every group out there has members or organizations who at times exaggerates charges of bigogry for political effect.”

        No, and it’s only with Jewish people where that’s literally an antisemitic conspiracy theory Hitler used.

        You’re not an anti-antisemite, Dave. You don’t know enough about this fight.

      3. “But I’m sure, James, in your case you can point me to lots of comments you’ve made about how blacks, Asians, gays, Hispanics, and so on deserve to lose allies because some members of their groups sometimes are overly prone to accuse others of bigotry. Right?”

        Right. No, I’m not going to take your invitation to walk down the “stupid” path, and instead, I’m going to wait for YOU to point me to lots of comments I’ve made about how ANYONE “deserves” to lose allies.

        1. “Gee, too bad nobody could have possibly predicted that labeling anything even vaguely critical of Israeli government policy as “antisemitic” might cost you allies against the actual antisemites.”

          You have a rather short memory….

          1. ” I’m going to wait for YOU to point me to lots of comments I’ve made about how ANYONE “deserves” to lose allies.”

            I can wait as long as it takes.

            1. Self-awareness isn’t your strong suit, is it???

    2. Gosh, James, is beating the hell out of Jews in NYC a just another protest of Israeli government behavior?

      Does that make beating the hell out of a Korean in NYC just another protest of Chinese government behavior? Or are your principles just situational?

      1. Or are your principles just situational?

        You’re assuming he has principles?

        1. I was working under that hypothesis.

      2. “Gosh, James, is beating the hell out of Jews in NYC a just another protest of Israeli government behavior?”

        No, but apparently you missed the part where I pointed out that these are wildly different things.

        “Does that make beating the hell out of a Korean in NYC just another protest of Chinese government behavior?”

        No, it’s still just stupid. So knock it off.

        1. Yeah I missed that part because you didn’t say it. The Chancellor’s first release was specific to violence against Jews here and gave zero support to the Israeli government.

          He was still compelled to apologize and withdraw his condemnation of violence against Jews because….well shit I don’t know.

          And you bring the Israeli government in. It’s laughable that you call anyone a racist.

          1. “And you bring the Israeli government in. It’s laughable that you call anyone a racist.”

            “Israeli government” is a race now?

          2. “Yeah I missed that part because you didn’t say it. The Chancellor’s first release was specific to violence against Jews here and gave zero support to the Israeli government. ”

            So, you missed what I said because you were confused by what the Chancellor said?

    3. Gee, too bad nobody could have possibly predicted that an anti-Semite would ignore all the accusations of anti-Semitism that have nothing to do with Israel.

      1. Was there a witty point hidden under all this crap?

        1. Yeah, there was, Pollock – you’ra a bigot, straight out. You just excuse it, because you only hate the “right” people, in your book. But just keep on keepin’ on; we enjoy your lack of self-awareness. It gives us something to chuckle about.

  5. This post is silly. The “apology” literally calls for “the condemnation of all forms of bigotry and hatred, including anti-Semitism”.

    1. My fault for neglecting to reprint that part, which I’ve now corrected, but you put apology” in quotation marks, but the heading for the letter is “An Apology.”

    2. So, acc. to you, if one group is attacked, you can’t condemn that unless you condemn “all forms” of bigotry? And you are willing to apply that principle across the board?

      Or is it only when Jews are attacked that we conveniently pull that principle out of the drawer?

    3. This post is silly. The “apology” literally calls for “the condemnation of all forms of bigotry and hatred, including anti-Semitism”.

      So we can assume that you favor “All Lives Matter” as a counter to the “Black Lives Matter” mantra?

      1. “So we can assume that you favor “All Lives Matter” as a counter to the “Black Lives Matter” mantra?”

        Why does the “Black Lives Matter” mantra need a counter? I don’t think that it does. “Black Lives Matter” is literally a way of saying “all lives matter” to someone who does not believe that they do.

        1. Just keep polishing up your bigotry. When you’re done with that, I’ve got a pig that needs lipstick.

    4. So does the original letter. So, what are they apologizing for?

  6. Wait, I thought they were only anti-Zionist, not anti-Jewish? So what is the objection to condemning anti-Jewish violence in North America, thousands of miles away from Israel?

    Another lie exposed.

    (BTW, I am sure some Rutgers bureaucrat issued condemnations of anti-black violence that did not mention the Palesitinians. Did this group object then?)

  7. I think it shows just how virulently Anti-Jew these Palestinian/Moslem student groups are — something that some of us have known for30 years.

    1. 30 years ago? You must have been just a foal!

    2. “I think it shows just how virulently Anti-Jew these Palestinian/Moslem student groups are”

      At best, it shows that some Palestinian/Muslim student groups are anti-Jew. Strictly speaking, it only says anything about ONE Palestinian student group, which may or may not be made up of Muslims.

      1. I’m sure the Mufti of Palestine would be interested to learn that the vast majority of “Palestinians” aren’t Muslims. Quite a revelation. And I’m equally sure a majority of Israelis aren’t Jewish, too.

        Do you ever listen to yourself, like . . . when you speak (type)???? “cause ya kinda sound st****, a lot of the time. Work on it, will ya?

  8. They website of the parent organization of this student group (sounds like they are a local chapter), states:

    The student movement for the liberation of Palestine first began in the 1950s through the formation of the General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS). From the U.S. to Palestine, GUPS chapters galvanized thousands of students towards a liberated Palestine.

    Now anyone want to guess what the borders of Israel were in the 1950s? (Hint, the so-called occupied territories were not occupied until the 1967 war).

    1. Well, technically you could argue that they’re talking about the territory lost in the First Arab-Israeli war. But that would be pretty clearly disingenuous.

      1. They are a “river to sea” organization, like Hamas.

    2. It’s possible they started as republican Jordanians.

      1. It’s possible they started as raving xenophobes. that doesn’t mean the ones who joined after the occupied territories became occupied don’t have a valid complaint regarding the continuing occupation. And any of the members who are less than 55 years old were born after the occupation started. College students younger than 55, what a wacky notion!

  9. I suggest that corporations, schools, churches, charitable organizations, any organization, restrict themselves to their mission. Politics is adversarial, and involvement is not useful to their mission. No matter the position, it will anger half the population, and interfere with the mission. This official is incompetent if he does not understand this self evident fact. He needs to resign for the trouble he has brought on his school. Future statements should be limited to educational remarks.

    The involvement of schools in politics is Chinese Commie bullshit, like the students in the Cultural Revolution. Zero tolerance for Chinese Commie bullshit. If the school does not limit itself to education, shut the Chinese Commie traitors down.

    1. The denial of standing to the taxpayer is yet another lawyer dunderhead fiction. Taxpayers should be allowed to sue the school for a tax refund for all political activity, a form of conversion of tax funds. This lawyer profession must be crushed to save our nation.

      1. You want a tax refund for all the money a non-profit organization didn’t pay in taxes? Sure thing, where do we mail your check for $0.00?

    2. “The involvement of schools in politics is Chinese Commie bullshit”

      Was this true prior to the 1940’s, when there weren’t yet any Chinese Commies? Or have they ALWAYS be the prime mover of schools and students being interested in political affairs?

  10. Delicious irony. Bernstein, the biggest peddler of the criticizing- Israel-is-antisemitism notion on VC, whines when someone else plays his game.

    1. The original statement from Rutgers was critical of violence against Jews here. Was the supporting Israel’s government by making the statement? Of course not.

      But apparently the Palestinian student group (and you) consider beating Jews here to be a-ok because a sovereign government somewhere else is doing bad things. That’s why you’re pulling out the “criticizing the Israeli government” trope on a story that has no connection to the Israeli government.

    2. “the biggest peddler of the criticizing- Israel-is-antisemitism notion on VC”

      Can you link to where he said that, because I seem to recall him saying the opposite.

      1. He may have denied that as part of the old motte-and- bailey technique, but making bad faith accusations of antisemitism against left wingers based on nothing more than their criticism is Israel is pretty much his stock-in-trade. He’s even slandered Bernie Sanders – the most popular and significant Jewish politician in US history – as an antisemite. Obviously Sanders has never said or done anything actually antisemitic. He has, however, advocated for the rights of Palestinians vis-a-vis Israel, which was apparently enough.

        1. I’ve never called Bernie Sanders an antisemite, you fabulist.

  11. “In hindsight, it is clear to us that the message failed to communicate support for our Palestinian community members.”

    The Rutgers believes that all “Palestinian community members” are Jew hating bigoted monsters?

    That’s rather bigoted of them.

    It’s too bad Trump isn’t President, huh David?

  12. This is the left’s version of “All Lives Matter”. Yes, the plight of Palestinians matter. Islamophobia is bad. But right now there are people going around looking to beat up Jews at alarming rates. When there is a spike in Islamophobic attacks, we’ll talk about it then.

  13. “Although it has been nearly two decades since the U.S. Congress approved the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act, the upward trend of anti-Semitism continues.”

    So not only are they anti-Semites, they’re disrespecting a clear mandate of Congress to…review anti-Semitism.

    And suppose Congress had never passed an Anti-Semitism Review Act, would that be a mitigating circumstance vis-a-vis the anti-Semites? Hardly.

    Truly a milquetoast statement, but apparently not grovelling enough.

  14. OK, I’m trying to see it from the Palestinian group’s viewpoint, The original statement did in fact mention the Israel/Hamas conflict, so they “opened the door” to discussing the Middle East, even in the context of a condemnation of American anti-Semitism.

    The Palestinian outfit walked through the opened door by disputing the university’s description of the Israel/Hamas events, especially it’s omission of the term “Palestine” and the failure to be more denunciatory of Israel.

    So it’s not as if they were simply triggered by a mention of domestic anti-Semitism into ranting about the Israelis. The University brought up Israel – unwisely, I think. But there it is.

    1. “it’s” should be “its”

    2. Bullshit. Hamas’s charter explicitly calls for the extermination of Israel, and arguably for the genocide of all Jews living there. Thus, any conflict with Hamas has sweet fuck all to do with any possible two state solution.

    3. I agree that the university wisely brought up Israel. And SJP could reasonably complain once they do so that they didn’t take SJP’s line (even though that line is itself unreasonable). But SJP didn’t frame it that way, that framed it as complaining about Rutgers’ administration denouncing antisemitism.

      1. unwisely, not wisely.

        1. Unwise on principle, and it didn’t even have the appeasing effect they were looking for, quite the opposite!

          Normally I wouldn’t presume to criticize one of our distinguished liberal/libertarian institutions of higher learning [/sarc], but they’re criticizing themselves now, so I may as well pile on.

  15. Why don’t academics just tag on an apology for the pain their words cause onto every statement they make. Seems like it would save a lot of time.

    Or better yet, stop running around condemning and denouncing shit that everybody agrees is bad anyway and focus on actual teaching.

    1. OR maybe take the position that you don’t have to apologize for everyone’s hurt feelings. If someone is offended at “don’t assault Jews,” then maybe the response should be, “I don’t give a blank about your feelings.”

      1. It’s student politics. They need to keep the whining shits happy so mummy and daddy pay the bills.

        1. I wish I’d lived in a time when mummy and daddy paid the bills for college.

          1. Gee, Pollock, isn’t that interesting. I have two kids graduated from private college, and two more in the process. Two of the four went to private colleges. Their mother and I paid EVERY CENT of their tuition, room, board, books and fees.

            Once again, you prove yourself deeply unserious.

  16. More whites are shot than blacks by absolute number.

    But don’t forget, according to our esteemed ex-President, 81% of those white murder victims are killed by blacks.

    1. There was supposed to be a link. Let’s try again.

      (Link)

  17. So glad that someone remembered to bring the obligatory Trump reference to this conversation. It was almost left out!

  18. I think we are pretty close to the “hey, it’s OK to hate those people” phase of Democrat party evolution.

    Save time and just admit that racism is gets votes — it is the Democrat way.

    1. Watching Republicans and Israel pay a severe price for choosing the wrong sides of history and the American culture war should be quite satisfying.

      1. You are the epitome of intolerance and bigotry in the pursuit of what you mistakenly bleat as a pursuit of tolerance. The person you profess to criticize is staring at you when you look in a mirror.

      2. People who read about controversy over antisemitic attacks on American Jews and think “*Israel* is paying a severe price” may have a problem, and it rhymes with shantibemitism.

      3. So you think that cruising the town to look for Jews to assault is a justifiable result of Republicans and Israel “choosing the wrong side of history.” And you find that spectacle “quite satisfying.”

        Good to know what a low worm you are. Keep posting. We need more honesty from the leftists. They usually just try to lie to cover up their maliciousness.

    2. “Save time and just admit that racism is gets votes — it is the Democrat way.”

      Won’t the R’s complain about somebody else cutting in on their shtick?

  19. Just sad. Whatever happened to the notion of freedom of speech in a world obsessed with cancel culture thought police? Are there no adults left on campus?

  20. Israel is to be condemned, and all Jews deserve to be targeted without restraint. They have the misguided idea that they have a right to defend themselves against attacks by a terrorist group and its sympathizers. How dare they respond in kind, albeit more humanely, to the murderous terrorist organization that exists for the purpose of exterminating them worldwide? I can conjure up zero sympathy or even empathy for people who choose to be represented on the world stage by a terrorist organization.

  21. So, in your estimation, they’re responding in kind to an organization that wants to kill civilians and commit genocide? And you support this?

Please to post comments