The Saga Continues: Rutgers President Denies Rutgers' Leadership Ever Apologized for Condemning Antisemitism

And the Rutgers Hillel publishes a welcome sharp response.

|

Readers will recall that on Friday, I noted that Rutgers University's New Brunswick chancellor condemned the recent uptick in antisemitic violence and other incidents. He then related this to other social justice issues, and included an aside about the Gaza conflict in which he expressed sympathy for victims on both sides, giving more attention to the greater number of Palestinian victims.

That missive nevertheless offended the campus Students for Justice in Palestine, which criticized the chancellor for talking about antisemitism in the US when he should have, in their opinion, been talking about Palestinian suffering and Israel occupation of "historic Palestine" (i.e., Israel itself and the Territories). Remarkably, that led the chancellor to apologize for being not sufficiently sensitive to the SJP students, who then proceeded to reject the apology because they still thought the chancellor should not talk about antisemitism when he could be talking about their grievances with Israel.

Meanwhile, not surprisingly, there was an international uproar over the fact that the Rutgers chancellor had thought it necessary to apologize for condemning the rise in antisemitic acts. In response, the university president removed both of the chancellor's messages from the university website, replacing them with this message:

On Hatred and Bigotry

May 29, 2021

Rutgers deplores hatred and bigotry in all forms. We have not, nor would we ever, apologize for standing against anti-Semitism.

Neither hatred nor bigotry has a place at Rutgers, nor should they have a place anywhere in the world. At Rutgers we believe that anti-Semitism, anti-Hinduism, Islamophobia and all forms of racism, intolerance and xenophobia are unacceptable wherever and whenever they occur.

Jonathan Holloway
President and University Professor

It's a bit strange that Holloway asserted that the university had not apologized for condemning antisemitism when it obviously had done so. The statement apologizing for it literally had the heading, "An Apology." It included, "We sincerely apologize for the hurt that this message has caused."

Also a bit strange that, as several correspondents pointed out to me, Holloway included "anti-Hinduism" in his message, but did not mention hostility to traditionalist forms Christianity, which seems more familiar to most of us than "anti-Hinduism."

In any event, Rutgers Hillel, the Jewish student organization, just sent out a message in response to the controversy. In my experience writing about incidents of antisemitism on college campuses, many Hillels' leadership turns out to be worse than useless. Students on Hillel student boards have told me that they were "ordered" by the Hillel director not to say anything that would offend either university leadership or the campus groups with which the Hillel director was seeking to form intersectional alliances, or words to that effect. Almost as discouraging as the antisemitism itself was the failure of people hired to be Jewish leaders to lead.

But not all Hillel directors are so cravenly. The Rutgers Hillel statement hits the right notes, in the right way, even if I would have given Holoway someone less credit than they do (emphasis mine):

Statement Regarding the University and Antisemitism

The last few weeks have been exhausting and terrifying for Jews everywhere. We have seen an eruption of violent antisemitism unparalleled in the last 75 years.

Jews have been assaulted on the streets of New York and Los Angeles, synagogues and even Jewish preschools have been vandalized. This week the Governor of New York felt compelled to order state troopers to protect Jewish spaces. According to FBI statistics, 60% of all religion-based hate crimes are against Jews, despite the fact that we are only 2% of the population, a statistic that has remained steady for over 20 years.

Here in New Brunswick in recent weeks, identifiably Jewish students have been verbally assaulted, some report having their car tires slashed. This follows, of course, on the heels of vandalism at the AEPi House, a Jewish fraternity, on Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Memorial Day.

Contributing to feelings of fear and intimidation, the torrent of hatred spewing from social media is unprecedented. It has been called a "social media pogrom." The lack of support from the media, political leaders, celebrity influencers, and our university, has compounded our sense of isolation.

On Wednesday of last week Chancellor Christopher Molloy issued a statement acknowledging "the sharp rise in hostile sentiments and antisemitic violence in the United States" as well as "recent incidents of hate directed toward Jewish members of our community." He went on to connect these to other injustices in America, referencing Asian American Pacific Islanders, Hindus, Muslims, indigenous peoples, and the murder of George Floyd.

But Thursday, Chancellor Molloy issued a new statement: what amounted to an apology for having condemned antisemitism, spurred by a campaign by Students For Justice In Palestine. In a six page instagram message, SJP expressed outrage that any acknowledgement of antisemitism could occur without also condemning Israeli policy regarding Palestinians.

Even though his original statement already condemned all forms of bigotry, because it specifically called out antisemitism, the Chancellor chose to apologize for having "failed to communicate support for our Palestinian community members." As if condemnation of antisemitism is some form of anti-Palestinian sentiment.

What SJP and the Chancellor have said, in effect, is that NO condemnation of hatred against Jews, of attacks on Jews, of threats against Jews, is legitimate in and of itself. Such bizarre moral logic is twisted, wrong, and must be condemned.

One only has to compare the University's statement in March, condemning anti-Asian prejudice without qualification or reference to any other minority group, to realize just how grossly prejudiced the University's attitude toward its Jewish community has been.

Taking a positive step, on Saturday President Holloway issued a "Statement on Hatred and Bigotry," affirming that Rutgers "deplores hatred and bigotry in all forms. We have not, nor would we ever, apologize for standing against anti-Semitism."

We welcome this statement as an important first step in rebuilding the trust which is essential and desired by all. But the still relatively new Rutgers Administration needs to face the fact that the University has an established pattern of minimizing antisemitism.

You can read the rest of it here.

 

NEXT: No Sealing in Ex-Record Exec Charlie Walk's Malpractice Lawsuit vs. Trump Lawyer Marc Kasowitz

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. A key difficulty here is that Students for Justice in Palestine is not seeking some sort of territiorial settlement, or voting or economic rights or autonomy. Rather, as Professor Bernstein has explained, the fundamental cause of what it considers injustice is Jewish presence in Palestine. That is, the kind of justice it is seeking in Palestine is the same sort as the kind of Justice Mr. Hitler sought in Europe when he sought a just final resolution of rhe problem Europe was experiencing.

    Its recent statements seem to bs suggesting it is seeking a similar sort of Justice in the United States as well. What other kind of Justice could condemnatikns of attacks against Jews be inconsistent with?

    1. Didn’t the UN partition Palestine back in 1948 — half (Israel) going to the Jews and the other half (Jordan) going to the Arabs?

      1. Which has what to do with anything?

      2. No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

        1. More like stupid questions — as the European powers carved up the middle east, wasn’t Transjordan supposed to be the country for the Palestinians and Israel the one for the Jews?

        2. It’s not “that” stupid.

          There was a UN partition plan in 1947, and it was passed by the general assembly. It wasn’t implimented due to the civil war in 1948. But that’s an easy oversight to make.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine

          1. Yes, but Jordan — called, at that time, TransJordan — was separated from Palestine by the British in 1921; it was not part of the U.N. partition plan in 1947.

            The stupid part of his question wasn’t that the facts were wrong, but that 30 seconds on Google (or Wikipedia) would have answered the question.

    2. Rescind the tax exempt status of this traitor school. Then, the new Trump administration should block all its federal moneys, subsidies, and grants. Shut it down.

    3. A key difficulty here is that Students for Justice in Palestine is not seeking some sort of territiorial settlement, or voting or economic rights or autonomy. Rather, as Professor Bernstein has explained, the fundamental cause of what it considers injustice is Jewish presence in Palestine. That is, the kind of justice it is seeking in Palestine is the same sort as the kind of Justice Mr. Hitler sought in Europe when he sought a just final resolution of rhe problem Europe was experiencing.

      One of the things that makes activism fun for students is that they are bounded by no real world constraints. They can call for abolishing private property, or abolishing the police, or abolishing the Defense Department.

      So of course they call to eliminate Israel. When they graduate and grow up, most of them will also moderate.

      1. We know this. But of what age bracket are the brownshirts formed?

        And other leadership becomes craven in its face?

        People have spent a wonderful 20 years hating on Israel with a clear conscience, because it’s about what Israel does and not Jews. And people have been warning of this thin veneer in Europe and elsewhere was a cover story for the ugly truth.

        The truth is you have been used, maybe? Politics is the art of lying to get people on your side. You (seemingly) understood this well enough about Trump, yet failed to discern the 1500 year old libel hiding beneath your side’s skin, using you.

        You are shocked, shocked, I’m sure.

      2. Yeah, I heard a lot of that: Sure, they’re being radical in college, but when they get out into the real world, they’ll moderate their views.

        Then last year they demonstrated that wasn’t true, by rioting and looting, really moderate activities.

        Sure, some of them will become more moderate, end up someplace halfway between sane and Marxism. Some of them won’t, and they will be a plague on the nation.

        1. Because they never got real jobs, because they never had real majors.

          1. That’s not necessarily true. Some of them are slacktivists, yes, but a ton of them are in law (the National Lawyers Guild, for example, are all scumbag commie activists with law licenses), a bunch are in tech, and a lot of them are in the NGO grift industry that holds hands with the universities where these people get radicalized to begin with.

            1. Yes, no one who protested in college ever became anything other than a radical.

              1. Yes, no one who protested in college ever became anything other than a radical.

                Sarcastr0 straw man! Everybody drink!!

      3. “So of course they call to eliminate Israel. When they graduate and grow up, most of them will also moderate.”

        Only in what they say — not in what they think.

        1. The more of them there are in society, the less they will moderate either, and far short of a majority they won’t bother moderating at all, because they’ll be used to the notion that an activist minority can dictate the agenda by threatening riots.

      4. So wanting to abolish Jews should be tolerated as just normal student detachment from reality. Fine, then what about students, if any, who want to abolish negroes? Should they get the same amused tolerance and expectation that they will grow up? And when they do grow up, 20 years from now, should all positions and honors be open to them, or should they be barred from some because of the stupid extremist position they took in college? How much “moderating” would you expect from such a position, and why should the same level of “moderating” not be expected from the ones who want to abolish Jews?

        1. [W]hy should the same level of “moderating” not be expected from the ones who want to abolish Jews?

          Someone posted this link just the other day:
          http://www.danielgreenfield.org/2012/08/the-minority-victim-value-index.html

      5. “So of course they call to eliminate Israel. When they graduate and grow up, most of them will also moderate.”

        Unless they become journalists, professors, or teachers, of course.

    4. I mean, no.

      Here’s how the ADL put it:

      Today, SJP chapters are affiliated with NSJP but are autonomous entities. They are united by three “points of unity,” including 1) Ending Israel’s occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall; 2) Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and 3) Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.

      The ADL goes on to criticize individual SJP chapters for opposing what the SJP refers to as “Zionism,” which points to ways in which the SJP’s motivating ideology in some ways over-simplifies and mischaracterizes the relationship of the Jewish people to Israel. That leads to their tolerating speakers and viewpoints that contemplate eliminating the “Jewish presence in Palestine.” So we can see ways in which the SJP flattens and misunderstands the current situation in Israel. But it would be false to say that they are seeking the actual elimination of Israel, or the Jewish presence there.

      Of course, the points outlined above are treated by Israel and the ADL as tantamount to calling for the destruction of Israel, since they are considered incompatible with the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, which is to say, an ethno-nationalist state.

      1. Arab land ruled by Arab dictators. Hooray!

        The dictator looks like me and espouses my religion, from their palaces with many concubines. Hooray!

      2. The ADL is now headed by an Obama agent, elected by German NYC Jews. It is irrelevant to any Jewish affairs.

      3. “All Arab lands” in that statement includes all of Israel. And demanding Israel’s end as a Jewish state is exactly the same as demanding its end altogether, since it would not then be Israel. The whole point of Israel is to be the Jews’ country, just as France is the French people’s country.

  2. I’m not sure why anyone is surprised by this.

  3. “According to FBI statistics, 60% of all religion-based hate crimes are against Jews, despite the fact that we are only 2% of the population, a statistic that has remained steady for over 20 years.”

    And I can assure you that it isn’t White rednecks doing this.

    A few obnoxious intemperate comments, yes — but not this stuff…

    This follows, of course, on the heels of vandalism at the AEPi House, a Jewish fraternity, on Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Memorial Day.

    Please don’t ask us to pronounce any of that — but we don’t approve of it.

    1. The vandalism that is.

      1. There is plenty of antisemitism on both the far left and the far right, but the far left tends to live in much closer proximity to Jews than the far right, and so has more opportunities for direct conflict.

        1. a lot of whats termed the ‘far right’, evangelicals specifically, actually like Jews. Certainly quite a bit more than the left does. Which is hilariously and ironically mirrored by the target’s respective dislike for evangelicals, specifically and particularly among secular Jews. Whats even funnier is neither side seems to be aware/care how much they’re liked/hated by the other.

          1. I wouldn’t call evangelicals the far right, I’m talking about Pat Buchanan and rightward on “white nationalism.” I’d call evangelicals “the Christian right.”

            1. It’s always telling when someone labels Christians or Trumpistas “far right” but doesn’t think avowed Marxists are far left.

              1. For a contemporary point of reference, “centrist” is just right of AOC.

                1. That’s ridiculous. A lot more conservatives called Obama a leftist than liberals call AOC just left of centrist.

                  1. The “centrist” term is used in reference to where you are within your party. The conservatives were talking about somebody outside their party, OF COURSE Obama is a leftist from a conservative perspective. Most Democrats are, just as from a left-wing perspective the entire Republican party consists of ‘conservatives’. (Or, interchangeably, “right-wing extremists”, or “white supremacists”.)

                    The question is, how far ‘left’ do you have to be for people within the Democratic party to identify you as a “leftist”? And, yes, you have to be at least as left-wing as AOC, or more so, to be identified as such by a Democrat.

                    That tells us where Democrats think the center of their party is.

  4. I wonder what the president of Rutgers, and everyone who commented on his various statements about anti-Semitism, would make of the fact that Arabs are Semites.

    1. Likely nothing, because he’s literate enough to mean that antisemitism mean “against Jews” not “against Semites.”

  5. Winston Churchill once made a speech about then-Prime Minister Ramsey MacDonald in the House of Commons on 28 Janurary 1931:
    “I remember when I was a child, being taken to the celebrated Barnum’s circus, which contained an exhibition of freaks and monstrosities, but the exhibit…which I most desired to see was the one described as ‘The Boneless Wonder.’ My parents judged that that spectacle would be too revolting and demoralising for my youthful eyes, and I have waited fifty years to see the boneless wonder sitting on the Treasury Bench.”

    When you have no principles, then you spend your life reacting this way and that, hoping that you can say something that will satisfy, or at least not offend, anyone.

  6. The caving to anti-Israel activists regarding the rising tide of anti-Semitism is pathetic at best and alarming at worst.

    1. If there is any position left for modern, reasoning people of good will in the debates concerning the Middle East, it is remarkably well-hidden. There appears to be no Middle Eastern country hospitable to decent people. Is there a Middle Eastern government — Syria, Israel, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, etc. — that deserves anything other than prompt replacement?

      1. Statements like this from Arthur L. Hicklib show just how provincial and ill-educated his kind really are.

  7. Maybe the university should consider that it doesn’t have to take a position on everything. It’s a thought.

  8. “on anything” would be better.

  9. Well I said it last thread about his subject. No company I have ever done business with is glad they took a cause celebre stance on a political issue. Some are in the moment, but live to regret it. And now universities, that used to get away with this kind of stuff, are finding that out too.

    Employees now are wondering why the made up holiday, co-opted by cultural marxists for political purposes, “Juneteenth” isn’t appearing on their annual holiday calendar. And now some are demanding other weird local or niche holidays off for any political reason as a “response to hate.”

    Wonder how many business owners, executives, and the like out there are now learning this lesson the hard way. Also how many are going to jump on the bandwagon next time? My guess is very few now that they realized they were all used like useful idiots by the cultural marxist left.

    1. “why the made up holiday, co-opted by cultural marxists for political purposes, “Juneteenth” ”

      Don’t compound your ridiculousness.

      1. Technically, I suppose all holidays are “made up” on some level. Some are entirely fictional, like Kwanza, invented by a criminal. (Why is it the left keeps falling in love with vicious criminals?) Others spent a century or more obscure, and are suddenly made prominent by some political movement, or being referenced in a popular book. That would be “Juneteenth”, celebrated almost nowhere until the early 90’s, and really not in very many places until just recently.

        1. Do you regard Christmas and Easter as “entirely fictional?”

          1. In some sense, sure, in as much as the date of the holiday actually has no calendar relationship to the event they commemorate. Any theologian will candidly admit that, it even gets discussed in homilies. The dates were chosen to assimilate pagan holidays.

            Kwanza was fictional in the sense that it purported to be a traditional African holiday, but wasn’t. Juneteenth actually is a legit holiday with a history going back to the Civil war, but never really caught on until recently. It’s only fictional to the extent people pretend it had been celebrated all along.

            1. Kwanza was fictional in the sense that it purported to be a traditional African holiday,

              It did not.

              Karenga did not pretend that there was an actual holiday of Kwanzaa ever celebrated in Africa. He did claim to derive it from various African end-of-year festivals, but he was always clear that it was a new, composite, holiday.

    2. I believe very few of those businesses were “glad” to comment about political issues. To the contrary, they did so out of fear of the punishment that would come from the vindictive social justice warriors who demanded that they speak up. (You know…the “truth to power” trope.)

      But they are indeed finding that their demonstrations of fealty come with the cost of offending a potentially broader, if quieter and less vindictive, constituency. So they will try to bury themselves more quietly and fearfully in the corners of their offices, perhaps employing prayer as their best and only strategy to avoid punishment. (I was never one to find prayer to be a particularly helpful strategy in business.)

      Then, with their silence, the only voices we’ll hear will be the roar of the vindictive minority, and of the people who benefit from their punishing system of rewards. And in our learned silence we will know this as tyranny, and that its face could be so easily painted on a mob of fools who know little of the meaning of tyranny, or of caring, or of self.

    3. Juneteenth isn’t made up, but it’s a Texas holiday, and it makes no sense for anyone outside that state to celebrate it.

  10. Teaching opportunity!

    David, a few days ago, you posted something about how the NYTimes was an “untrustworthy” news source. In order to support this characterization, you focused on a throwaway comment about American anti-semitism being historically a right-wing phenomenon (in contrast with recent attacks, where anti-semitic acts seemed to be coming from left-wing Palestinian supporters, which is what the piece was primarily about). That might have been a false, or at least sloppy, claim – which you felt indicted the NYTimes’s reporting as a whole. Fair enough, let’s stipulate.

    In a similar fashion, I know from past experience not to trust anything you report at its face value. Here, you claimed that the “Rutgers chancellor had thought it necessary to apologize for condemning the rise in antisemitic acts,” though you did not bother to link to, cite, or quote the actual “apology” in question. It turns out not to be so easy to track down the original texts in question, but the truth, as it turns out, is a bit more nuanced than you allow.

    Here’s how the Times of Israel reported on it:

    On Wednesday, the chancellor of Rutgers University-New Brunswick, Christopher J. Molloy, released a statement condemning antisemitism, which spiked across the country during and after the recent fighting in Israel and Gaza. The statement also condemned “all forms of bigotry, prejudice, discrimination, xenophobia, and oppression, in whatever ways they may be expressed” and told students who have been affected by antisemitism or discrimination to contact the university administration.

    “We are saddened by and greatly concerned about the sharp rise in hostile sentiments and anti-Semitic violence in the United States,” said the statement, which was also signed by Provost Francine Conway. “Recent incidents of hate directed toward Jewish members of our community again remind us of what history has to teach us.”

    The statement also mentioned “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.”

    The next day, the school’s Students for Justice in Palestine group released a lengthy statement condemning the chancellor’s statement.

    SJP said the statement “conveniently ignores the extent to which Palestinians have been brutalized by Israel’s occupation and bombing of Gaza,” and “cannot be separated from widespread attempts to conflate antizionism with antisemitism and derail Palestinian voices and activism.”

    “The statement released by Chancellor Molloy and Provost Conway thus cannot be interpreted as anything other than a deflection from Rutgers University’s role in financially supporting the Israeli state, and thus its human rights abuses and occupation of Palestine, by direct or indirect means,” the SJP statement said.

    [The SJP statement, which can still be found on their Instagram page, makes a more nuanced criticism of Molloy’s statement than the Times bothers to report, specifically insofar as the way it erases Palestinian identity and portrays the conflict in Gaza as between two equal powers, which have been typical ways in which American media have mischaracterized the conflict. The Times also omits mention of the SJP’s admonition that, “If the Chancellor and the Provost were truly committed to creating ‘a safe learning environment that is inclusive of difference’ as claimed in their statement, they would stand in active support of the Rutgers New Brunswick Palestinian population as well as its Jewish population, instead of regurgitating empty platitudes via email every few months.” To be fair, the SJP also purports to criticize Molloy’s statement as irrelevant in light of the lack of sufficiently recent anti-semitic attacks in the Rutgers community, which strikes me as juvenile hair-splitting.]

    Later that day, Molloy and Conway released a second statement apologizing for the first, and promising to “make sure that our communications going forward are much more sensitive and balanced.”

    “In hindsight, it is clear to us that the message failed to communicate support for our Palestinian community members,” the apology said. “We sincerely apologize for the hurt that this message has caused.”

    So, I think any fair reading of the events in question here is that the Chancellor was not apologizing for condemning anti-semitism, as you and countless other right-wing outlets seem to be reporting. He was apologizing for issuing a statement condemning anti-semitism while omitting mention of the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe that is the siege and regular bombardment of Gaza.

    Certainly, we can and should condemn both. And it is not particularly unreasonable to notice how a public discourse that chooses to focus on the former, while omitting mention of the latter, tends to serve a particular narrative about the events in Gaza. The purpose being to distract from, minimize, and ignore the suffering of Palestinians, who can do little about the rocket attacks that have brought Israel’s heavy-handed response. So it seems that the SJP’s criticism was appropriate, as was Molloy’s apparent “apology.”

    Or, if one is not willing to go so far, it seems clear that your characterization of the series of events, David, is not exactly accurate. You have once again demonstrated that you are not a trustworthy source.

    1. Bah. I went back and found your earlier post on this, David. You’ve done much of what I’ve criticized you for not doing; I’d delete the comment, if I could. Apologies.

    2. The citizens of a country are not independent of its army. That’s why Dresden was burned, Hiroshima was nuked, and Russian soldiers raped German women as WWII was ending. If you are not fighting against your country’s armed forces, then you are fighting for them. You don’t get to disclaim responsibility and thereby demand impunity.

      1. No.

        Dresden was a legitimate military target for three reasons.

        First, it was a major rail hub with lines running to Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Munich, Breslau, Leipzig, and Hamburg — a chokepoint through which badly needed supplies must travel enroute to the Eastern Front, where logistics was always the Nazi’s greatest weakness. There was at least one ammunition depot in Dresden and the Wehrmacht’s headquarters had been relocated there.

        Second, Dresden and the surrounding area was home to 127 factories that manufactured everything from rifles and machine guns to artillery pieces, aircraft components, precision optical devices, and poison gas (the latter manufactured by Chemische Fabrik Goye, GmbH).

        Third, Stalin (at Yalta) had requested allied assistance in taking the pressure off his advancing army — it may have been an ethically questionable tactic, but clogging the roads with refugees served to further screw up Nazi logistics.

        Hiroshima was a major port city with large depots of military supplies with both Army and Marine units headquarted there. It also was a major manufacturing center, except the problem in Japan was that residential and industrial areas were commingled in a way they weren’t in the West.

        Furthermore, Hiroshima was warned — on August 1st, five days before it was nuked, the LeMay Bombing Leaflet was dropped by over 100 B-29s throughout Japan, explicitly warning that named cities (including both Hiroshima and Nagasaki) would be destroyed and that civilians should leave.

        See: https://sciencemuseumofvirginia.blogspot.com/2011/01/lemay-bombing-leaflet.html

        And as to rape, I’m not saying it didn’t happen, but the US Army (which then included the USAF) executed 147 soldiers for it during WWII.

        Furthermore, on August 1st

        1. Clarification — for rape and/or murder.

        2. “Hiroshima was a major port city with large depots of military supplies”
          Ed,
          Once again you demonstrate how little you know. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were deliberately NOT bombed earlier in the war despite there military value. They were spared because the US Army preferred to have “virgin targets” on which to assess the effects of nuclear weapons.
          By the time these “virgin targets” were nuked, the Japanese had already effectively last the war. Their military value was nil.

          1. That’s B.S. While we may in retrospect, say that Japan had already lost the war, Japan didn’t concede that, and didn’t stop fighting.

            The military value of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to get Japan to stop fighting!

            1. Japan did not surrender because of the loss of productive facilities in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

              1. No, they surrendered because Hiroshima and Nagasaki made the threat of utterly obliterating Japan, not just defeating it, psychologically credible. As a result the Japanese gave up on the idea of fighting for every foot of the island.

                1. You’re right about the psychological — we actually were doing more damage with runs of up to a thousand B-29s dropping incendiaries, the prior March we’d taken out 16 square miles of Toyko — the psychological was a thousand B-29s, *each* dropping an atomic bomb, every night.

                  The Japanese neither knew that we didn’t have any more, nor that they couldn’t be dropped simultaneously like conventional ordinance. And even then, they almost didn’t surrender…

          2. Nagasaki was the secondary target — Kokura wasn’t visible due to clouds & smoke. Nagasaki had been bombed before.

            Also, who in the USAAF even knew that the atomic bomb existed and when did they know it?

  11. To look for a silver lining, perhaps what the Rutgers president meant by “We have not, nor would we ever, apologize for standing against anti-Semitism.” is that the chancellor did not speak for Rutgers. But I would only believe this if the statement was accompanies by the chancellor’s resignation.

  12. What if DB followed Baude’s admonition of ‘Steelmanning’ those he disagreed with here?

    1. Baude, of course, posts as a scholar, DB, of course, posts as as an avocate for a side (he says re Israel he imagines his kids saying ‘where were you…’)

  13. “But not all Hillel directors are so cravenly.”

    “Cravenly” is an adverb. You want “craven”, the adjective. Perhaps that started out as a different sentence, and you didn’t go back to revise it properly? I’ve had that happen to me.

    1. Again, I am forced to agree with Brett.
      The Hillel directors are craven or they act cravenly.

  14. “Also a bit strange that, as several correspondents pointed out to me, Holloway included “anti-Hinduism” in his message, but did not mention hostility to traditionalist forms Christianity, which seems more familiar to most of us than “anti-Hinduism.””

    I don’t see the problem. Hinduism is colorful and exotic, traditional Christianity is the basis for homophobic and other forms of oppression. Who ever heard of Hinduism being used to justify oppression?

    /sarc

  15. “AN APOLOGY

    “From time to time, we will issue statements which provoke criticism from the Woke-American community. To save time, we apologize in advance for each and every one of these future statements.”

  16. I often find Bernstein’s posts a bit overwrought, but this one seems quite reasonable. Surely one can condemn anti-Semitism in the US without mentioning any other events that may be happening in the world, whether or not those events involves Jews. College leadership being blown hither and yon by the winds of wokeness is a rather pathetic sight.

  17. Regardless of intent, Rutgers’ statement experienced by many as an apology for condemning antisemitism caused pain.

    They should apologize.

    What kind of monster doesn’t apologize when they’ve offended someone, even unintentionally?

Please to post comments