The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
On the Pro-Genocide Rally at George Mason University
Why didn't university president Gregory Washington speak up?
The Hamas massacre in Israel has revealed that the the DEI norms embraced by most American universities don't include protecting Jewish students from intimidation. Every day I hear new stories from friends about their college kids being threatened, ostracized, and bullied, because they object to the glorification of Hamas terrorists by other students. A good friend of mine, for example, has had to hire a civil rights attorney because other students in his daughter's program have taken to referring to her as "the little Jew bitch," and the program's administrators have not done anything about it.
At my own school, George Mason University president Gregory Washington has championed a variety of expensive, time-intensive, DEI measures. The goal, he wrote in an email to the university community in July 2023, is to ensure that "every student, faculty, and staff member is welcomed and respected as a full equal in this community of learning." He has, unfortunately, fallen far short of that lofty goal with regard to Jewish GMU students and faculty.
Just two days after Hamas's genocidal rampage in southern Israel, Mason Students for Justice in Palestine published a statement endorsing the actions of the Hamas terrorists, whom they described as "reclaiming land and seizing settlements considered illegal and a violation of international laws."
SJP then announced that it would be holding a rally on the university's main campus on October 12. In support of "the resistance," i.e., the perpetrators of the massacre, Hamas. SJP Mason also called for the destruction of the State of Israel, the "liberation of our homeland and our people, from the river to the sea. Show up and show out for Palestine, and let GMU know that we will rise against the occupation!" Moreover, SJP Mason suggested that students bring "face coverings or kuffiyehs" to hide their identities.
In short, SJP Mason was proudly organizing a pro-genocide rally, and, like other racist and antisemitic hate groups such as the KKK, sought to mask themselves. I, and I'm sure many others, urged President Washington and other university officials to make a statement condemning a recognized student group being poised to endorse genocidal terrorism, and expressing a commitment to protecting Jewish students' safety. I did not get any responses to my emails, nor did any university official say anything about the rally. Meanwhile, I understand that many Jewish Mason students were too frightened to be on campus during the masked hate-fest.

As of this writing, the only official GMU mention of the pro-genocide rally was an oblique reference in an October 17 email from President Washington, alluding in a morally neutral tone to a "quite visible [gathering], in the middle of the Fairfax Campus, in the middle of a day of classes."
President Washington hid behind the First Amendment in the email, noting that he may not quash student protests. That's true, with two caveats. First, masking at a protest is illegal in Virginia, and the university police have not been enforcing the law despite being alerted to it and urged to enforce it. Second, nothing in the First Amendment prevents Washington from condemning the rally.
I'm in favor of universities following the famous Kalven Report, which recommends that university leaders should rarely if ever opine on controversial matters, including publicly expressed opinions on hot-button issues by faculty and students. But such a policy must be consistently applied, and Kalven has not been George Mason University policy under President Washington. It has been ignored especially when it comes to DEI issues, and in particular when it comes to promoting an inclusive climate on campus.
Washington's silence about a pro-genocide rally on his own campus is in marked contrast to, among other examples, his multiple campus-wide emails in the wake the killing of George Floyd, and launched a flurry of initiatives to overhaul university policy to extirpate "racist vestiges" and "racial inequities." A mandatory DEI training at GMU calls discrimination a form of "violence" – and we can now see that those who call words violence, have no words for violence.
On October 18, sixteen Law School professors sent a letter to President Washington, asking that the university administration reconsider its silence on SJP hate rallies on campus. We have not received a response, or even an acknowledgement.
It seems that when it comes to DEI at GMU, Jews don't count.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
One take-away I get from Prof. Bernstein's many posts is there sure are a lot of people/groups who don't like Israel.
And it seems like the numbers are growing.
You know (((who else))) is widely disliked? But I'm sure you wouldn't consider this as evidence that Jews are bad, would you?
That's an understandable, natural consequence to much of Israel's conduct throughout the past decade or so.
In particular, some people do not wish to subsidize violent, superstition-based, immoral, right-wing belligerence -- at home or anywhere else.
Unless its violent, superstition-based, immoral, right-wing belligerence targeted *toward* Israel, right?
Why would the direction matter?
The hatred goes back 75 years. So no, you cannot blame it on right wing policies in the last decade or so.
I hate to tell you but right wing policies also go back that far.
You mean when Israel was founded and ruled by socialists? What you are saying its that it is Israel itself which is objected to, not some policy of Likud or Netanyahu.
Which precisely refutes RAK's post.
No, I'm saying 'right-wing policies' existed 75 years ago, and long before that, and helped shape the Middle East. People in the Middle East had reason to hate the British, the French, the Germans, the Russians and the Americans long before Israel came along.
Are you trying to absolve Likud And Netanyahu for their recent blunders and failures and subsequent murderous lashing out?
"subsequent murderous lashing out"
Nope, because there is no murderous lashing out
There's a government who so badly failed their citizens that over a thousand were murdered horribly, you think people like that give a shit about anything other than being as brutal as they can to enforce the idea that it's the only possible response?
Yes, I think that people who failed badly care about not repeating the same mistakes that led to that failure.
'Killing lots of Gazan civilians' is a mistake that will come back to haunt them. And they know it.
That's your opinion, others beg to differ.
Killing lots of Germans And Japanese in WWII did not seem to come back to haunt the Allies, and there's no reason to think this case is different.
The killing of Germans and Japanese in WW II came about because of the mass killing WW I came back to haunt Europe, and then the world. It was prevented from further coming back to haunt the world by a massive investment in time, money and resources invested in creating peaceful relations between nations that had killed vast numbers of each others peoples and left each others’ cities in smoking ruins. Invoking WW II, after which somehow European nations found a way not to go to war again after everything they had done to each other, but claiming Israelis and Palestinians cannot do the same in spite of everything, is just stupid. If instead you want to resolve this conflict by killing millions and millions of people and then claim it’s made everything better, you’re beyond help.
Invoking WWII and its mass killing of innocents, which was followed by a period of unprecedented peaceful coexistence is a counterpoint to the idiotic claim that this will "come back to haunt" the bombers. It is not stupid, but a simple exercise of debunking your bullshit arguments , relying on actual history.
I have not claimed it will never be possible for Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace. It took the Germans and the French about a thousand years to get there, and the complete and utter subjugation of Germany in WWII (at a German civilian death toll. estimated at 1.5 million - 3 million) and a subsequent de-Nazification of its civil society. As you put it, it was resolved precisely by 'killing millions and millions of people and then claim it’s made everything better'
Maybe in a few hundred years, and after Gaza is similarly subjugated, unconditionally surrenders and subsequently de-Nazified, Israelis and Gazans will be able to similarly coexist.
I ascribe increasing objections to Israeli conduct — and the corresponding, natural loss of interest in supporting Israel among Americans (especially younger, educated Americans) — to Israel’s disgusting right-wing conduct during the most recent decade or so.
That plenty of right-wingers have tried to make support for Israel’s violent right-wing belligerence and obnoxious superstition-based government policies a left-right divider in American politics has also properly caused many Americans to favor ditching Israel.
If Israel's advocates align with America's culture war losers, they should expect the same treatment that gun nuts and anti-abortion absolutists seem destined to experience.
No free swings, clingers.
What disgusting conduct did Israel have towards Gaza over the last 10 years? Gaza was ruled independently by Hamas, and Israel hasn't had an operation of any scale since 2014.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gazas-centuries-war-brief-history-2023-10-30/
The immoral, violent, disgusting right-wing belligerence of which I am aware has mostly involved the settlements.
The wingnuttery in Israel's government -- Netanyahu, shitty laws and conduct based on religion, indolent religious parasites -- and the efforts to make support of Israeli's right-wing activities a left-right divider in American politics is (and should be) another strike against the Israelis for many Americans. No free swings.
That would be in the West Bank. Gaza has had no settlements since 2006/2007 when all settlers were forcibly removed by Israel.
Netanyahu's attempts to triangulate within American politics was an incredibly dumb and shortsighted activity.
Israelis responded by re-electing Netanyahu, so they can go fuck themselves and operate without American handouts.
Yes, that is an important point -- Israel FORCIBLY REMOVED all of its settlers from Gaza -- with much angst -- trading land for peace.
And didn't get peace.
So now it needs to kill them all -- or enough to get peace.
It goes back a lot longer than 75 years.
But subsidizing violent, superstition-based, immoral, left-wing belligerence is awesoem and wonderful, right Rev?
To which violent, superstition-based, immoral, left-wing belligerence do you refer, clinger?
Spoiler: If you identify such conduct, I will object to it.
Spoiler: If you identify such conduct, I will object to it.
Cheering on Hamas' October 7 barbarous torture and slaughter of Israelis ranging from babies and toddler up to the elderly. How about that, Arthur, you disgusting antisemitic bigot who imagines himself righteous?
No one should be applauding, supporting, or defending Hamas or its atrocious conduct, you bigoted, doomed-to-replacement, worthless, right-wing culture war loser. You will spend the rest of your life complying with the preferences of better Americans, then people like me will piss on the grave of your deplorable political preferences. If Israel does not change course greatly and promptly, we’ll be pushing on your hopes for Israel, too. A right-wing Israel is likely a doomed Israel.
All "trans" protests, anywhere
Especially any ones targeting "TERFs".
"I feel like a woman, therefore I am one". You can't possibly get more delusional and "superstition-based" than that
You are the Volokh Conspiracy’s kind of bigot.
And therefore destined for replacement. By your betters.
Reminder here while the right is so passionately invoking anti-semitism and the shadow of the Holocaust - trans people were victims of the Holocaust too.
Then they shouldn't be supporting anyone if the problem is subsidizing violence. Weird that you think it only went to Israel.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/10/18/u-s-announcement-of-humanitarian-assistance-to-the-palestinian-people/
https://apnews.com/article/business-middle-east-israel-foreign-aid-gaza-strip-611b2b90c3a211f21185d59f4fae6a90
My take away is that there are many more people who hate Jews than I had previously thought. What else is the ethnic cleansing "from the river to the sea" but an excuse for Judeocide.
This is Bret-esque overtuned finding bad faith.
People can be legit ignorant and not just playacting as an excuse.
Not much better, but it's good to live in the facts.
"...but it’s good to live in the facts."
You should try it sometime.
Try reading Chemerinsky's op ed on the LATimes
Arguably it is only an argument for relocation, not murder -- but then what would be the response to advocating that all the US Blacks be sent back to Africa? Not in a scholarly discussion of 19th Century policies and the founding of Liberia but that each and every Black student on campus be physically deported to Africa.
That wouldn't go over well -- and neither should this.
Never forget that the Holocaust didn't start with death camps -- the Jews were first to be relocated to the east -- and when that became logistically impossible, the mass murder started.
Don Nico, it has started. We are witnesses to what is happening.
You're just using all this fearmongering to justify ethnically cleansing Gaza.
You might try to give that at least a little bit of thought.
You haven't been involved in higher education recently.
What is growing is the number of leftists who no longer even try to hide their anti-semitism.
My take is that there are a lot of Jewish parents who need to hire lawyers. Exactly what is the difference between referring to a student as "the Jewish Bitch" and referring to a different student as "the Nigger"?
Except in the latter case the university would be out 5 figures in a settlement lest half the campus be burnt flat. THAT is the message here and while burning down buildings is reprehensible, suing the bastards is not.
Otherwise, some people have rights and others do not.
Would you be happier if the anti-Jewish terms were used in a more general fashion, as some clingers seem to enjoy doing with vile racial slurs in classrooms?
What if I told you...that they ARE used in more general fashion?
It's weird that you think they aren't.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/05/11/anti-semitism-and-jewish-views-on-discrimination/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/01/12/antisemitism-anti-defamation-league-survey/
You overlooked the vile racial slurs.
At the Volokh Conspiracy?!?
They get used here too, but searching for anything in past comment sections is basically impossible. I'll settle for general public surveys.
This blog has published vile racial slurs during nearly 40 posts and comment sections this year ago. That nearly one a week. And that's not 40 racial slurs -- most of those bigoted exchanges involved multiple racial slurs.
Racial slurs have been a hallmark of this blog for many years.
What’s wrong, Volokh Consoirators and fans? Not one of you has enough courage to try to defend this blog’s vivid record on bigotry? What a bunch of whimpering cowards.
Seems to me making a federal case might not be right approach to every shitty student protest.
Perhaps universities should be consistent in how they follow their policies and rules.
They are, they are consistently the most left-wing supporting they can possibly be.
they are consistently the most left-wing supporting they can possibly be.
This is a failure of imagination.
Where "shitty" = "I don't like Jews"?
I like Jews.
I dislike Israel's current condition, from the right-wing nuttery and superstition-based government to the counterproductive bloodlust, and no longer wish to subsidize it.
When students feel unsafe to be on campus, yes, that's the right approach.
I thought you didn't like DEI.
I don't like DEI. But I like safety. Those are different concepts, in case you haven't noticed.
No, "feeling safe" and "safety" are different concepts. One is a DEI concept, and one is not.
People felt safe or unsafe long before DEI was a thing, it is far from a DEI concept.
It seems to me by "making a federal case" out of this protest and the institution's response, the poster is making at least three valuable points. First, if an educational institution is going to express an opinion on any political issue (and GMU has done so over and over), this would be the one. It ought to condemn those celebrating savagery and confirm that it will protect its students from acts of antisemitism. Second, to the extent there was any doubt, this demonstrates the uselessness of so much of the DEI program. When confronted with the need to protect people and ideas who don't fit the trendy victim classes du jour, the DEI apparatus is worthless. It is purely an instrument for enforcing ideological orthodoxy on campus. Third, the post helpfully points out the particularly sinister practice of protesters concealing their identities (in apparent violation of law) while celebrating horrific acts of violence against a discrete ethnic group. How can any reasonable person not find this troubling?
Given all the trivial nonsense people argue about on college campuses, it is bizarre to complain that this is the thing getting too much attention.
All those who celebrate savagery . . . or do those who support the Israeli settlers get a pass?
The dumbest thing Israel ever did was not unilaterally enforcing the 2008 Annapolis Agreements and declaring a two state solution on it's own.
What do you think is the "right approach" to systemic, organized bias, discrimination and hatred?
And why, precisely, should this example of bigotry and hatred be treated differently from examples on the other side of the ideological spectrum?
I completely agree that anti-Semitism needs to be removed, root & branch.
I am pleased to see that people, like you and Prof. Bernstein, can finally see that systemic bias is a problem. It is ... informative ... that it took this particular issue to get you to notice.
Are you kidding? These losers will go back to coddling and embracing gay-bashers, racists, misogynists, transphobes, and immigrant-haters faster than a Trump lawyer can flip.
Sarcarsto -- would you say that if the Black students were being called "Niggers" with impunity?
Maybe you would --- but I wouldn't, I'd be the first persons telling them to sue the bastards. Same thing here.
What would Todd Schmidt; Artemis Langford; the Laramie Faith Community Church; the University of Wyoming; a federal judge; and a white, male, right-wing blog think of that?
The right-wing blog might be confused, at least for a moment.
Whataboutism can be so confusing - what retarded point is Artie trying to make here?
It's much more pleasant looking at comments if you just block him.
You and your fellow right-wingers are very selective bigots, Prof. Bernstein.
That is unlikely to benefit the causes you wish to advance.
Just realize he's Disgraced former Penn State Foo-Bawl Coach Jerry Sandusky and he's actually sort of entertaining. Entertaining in the way watching a Monkey try to fuck a Football is "Entertaining"
Frank
Let the sun shine in, act as a disinfectant, and identify every one of the little pro-Hamas darlings at GMU. Let the the little darlings loudly and proudly proclaim their beliefs to the world thereby letting the rest of us know who they are.
Hello....Accuracy in Media? Need a truck at GMU. Stat!
Would you object to the same treatment of right-wing bigots, such as Federalist Society members, on a campus?
If the Federalist Society supports Judeocidal terror groups like Hamas, sure. They do not, of course.
When they get arrested, yes.
57 arrests at UMass Amherst and no names released.
Secret arrests?
That should disturb anyone.
Given the side the arrestees are on, hiding their names is to prevent anyone from knowing there is never any punishment.
Do you mean "real" arrests with bookings and whatever else real arrests as opposed to citations of some sort by campus cops? Aren't real arrests a matter of public record unless perhaps records are expunged by a court order.
What were those 37 arrested for? Where those arrests reported by any news organizations, including the school paper?
Why not go with a FOIA request?
Are Federalist Society member lists not already public? I thought they already listed most members on donor lists and event sponsors and such.
They aren't hiding their members.
Not of which I am aware.
So bottom line, those of us who haven't taken "DEI" seriously were right. It's just a shitty fascist ideology masquerading as "tolerance." At least nobody needs to prevaricate anymore. The "anti"racists are the enemy they always seemed to be.
Off the back of that, could you please explain to the class where we ended up on cancel culture and free speech?
Did you not read the post, or were you unable to understand it?
"President Washington hid behind the First Amendment in the email, noting that he may not quash student protests. That's true, with two caveats. ,,,nothing in the First Amendment prevents Washington from condemning the rally."
My question wasn't about the post, but about JohnTheRevelator's views. That's the "you" my comment referred to.
What in JTR's post was about cancel culture or free speech? He's opposed to DEI and says so, and thinks its practitioners are evil ,as his his right. But he did not advocate canceling anyone or preventing them from speaking.
Are you not able to read English at grade school level?
So then what, in your, John, and David’s opinion, is the problem with calling someone a Jew Bitch, such that it that deserves a response from the administration?
Commie pinko fag.
Exactly. How anyone on this blog feels like they have the moral authority to call anyone antisemitic is quite beyond my capacity.
???
So, only persons with “moral authority” may point out that someone is antisemitic? What’s next: when a person with “low moral authority” calls 911 to report a crime, they should hang up on him?
Someone either is a thief / robber / rapist, or not. The observer’s “moral authority” has no bearing on that fact.
If you go around chanting “Gas the Jews!,” you’re an antisemite, and anyone is free to call you such, just like they can call water wet and call the sky blue.
Hypocrisy is the concept you're missing.
Calling someone a "jew Bitch', like calling someone a 'nigger' is offensive, and offensive things should be condemned, This is not a difficult concept for most people.
You think university administrators should condemn and "do something about" any student who says anything “offensive?”
That’s the most overbearing interpretation of “free speech” I’ve heard in a long time, left or right!
There are degrees, of course, but generally, yes. One time occurrences, maybe not, but repeated offensive behavior, most certainly. It is a CIvil Rights Violation in the US.
Condemning someone's offensive behavior is not an infringement of their free speech. Perhaps the issue igere is that you have no concept of what "free speech" means.
You seem to be drawing an awfully fine line between condemnation and cancellation.
No I am not, point to anything I've written that calls for cancellation
Randal, a-holedom is a concept you seem to be missing, though you need only look in a mirror to see it exemplified.
Ed like typing detected.
All slurs are bad, but not all slurs are the same.
Well, I seem to recall a big bunch of people blabbering about how speech isn't free from consequences. Now that they're the ones getting some consequences for their awful speech, they have rediscovered the Skokie-era ACLU. They're morons, and free speech isn't really what they care about.
Who's saying that speech shouldn't have consequences, other than the people here arguing in favor of racial slurs and misgendering?
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/10/29/chemerinsky-nothing-has-prepared-me-for-the-antisemitism-i-see-on-college-campuses-now/?comments=true#comment-10296159
Indeed.
"He has, unfortunately, fallen far short of that lofty goal with regard to Jewish GMU students and faculty."
The reason DIE reliably falls short of that lofty goal, is that DIE never had that lofty goal to begin with. It really is time to stop pretending it ever did.
Anyone generalizing based on DEI or anti-immigration or anti-higher ed regarding anti-Israel protests is more interested in partisan warfare than the actual issue of antisemitism in America.
I guess th irony of starting a sentence with "anyone" to complain about generalization sailed over you head.
It's more an issue of implementation than it is being inherently bad.
DEI on it's face is a general good. Most large entities would benefit from a group that acts as a check against overt or inherent bias and discrimination. The problems arise when DEI steps out of the realm of working towards general inclusion to specifying who should and shouldn't be included, or what is and isn't correct.
Thought bubble: why DEI is bad, even if you like diversity, equity and inclusion
"So, if you are thinking “whatever can be wrong with asking academics to tolerate diversity, or to be inclusive towards different groups?” then let me give you a helpful parable. Imagine that academic politics is rather different — perhaps in the US, Ron DeSantis has become President — and that when you apply for your next job, you are asked to provide a statement of Freedom, Tradition and Patriotism (FTP)."
Right, that's a use of DEI outside the scope of what it should be used for. I'm not arguing that such a requirement is good.
LOL so in your mind it's good but becomes bad the moment it's actually implemented with any authority at all. Talk about doublespeak.
Jews don't count - excellent book
Everybody needs to define themselves by grievance in today's America.
Still not very good at describing opposing views, I see.
Still not very good at rebutting anything, I see.
If you think that a headline that describes something as a "pro-genocide rally" needs rebutting, I really don't know how to help you.
It doesn't so much "need" rebutting, as its incapable of being rebutted, because they're literally rallying in favor of genocide.
Ah no, many of those wielding that hateful cudgel and their apologists will tell you they are not calling for anything like genocide, they really want everyone to live harmoniously in one state, even though actual genocidaires and would be genocidaires would be among them. Whats the matter, you don't take them at their word? Be ware, you are incriminating your self as the worst of the worst, an IslamoPhobe.
See, there you go again, assuming that the world needs your help. Yes, you, enlightened you, were born just to help the less-enlightened. What a cross to bare for the world to see.
I think a lot of Professor Bernstein's rhetoric is pretty breathless, but in this case it does seem like there's some real pro-genocide sentiment at this rally.
Grow up, David.
What a convincing counter-argument. Your best one yet.
At least it's short.
I'm not going to spend an hour and a half combing through David's post in order to explain its various equivocations, obfuscations, mischaracterizations, and outright lies, or to criticize his childish petulance over being ignored like the insignificant blowhard that he is. Not when I've done so on various previous occasions.
And who are you? You're just one of the resident trolls here. Why should I give a fuck what you have to say about the quality of my comments?
I am a commenter, like you. But unlike you, I try to use real arguments. You apparently care enough about my comments to pen an 80 word reply, but could not muster any real argument to the OP.
Like I wrote, childish name calling is the best you can do.
You're not interested in "real arguments," not even hypothetically. Your only contribution to this thread is to take me to task for not producing a 1000-word response to the OP upon demand. And I have explained why I do not intend to do so - I've done so before, and have found that it takes an inordinate amount of time. Time that I simply don't have today.
It's much easier, and quicker, to shoot off these replies to you. I don't have to quote text, I don't need to double-check factual assertions, I don't have to think all that hard about conveying a clear point. I can just point out that you're a known dick that I don't give a shit about. So ta ta!
You don't give a shit about it so much, and have so little time, that you penned yet another response, twice as long, and still couldn't come up with any argument.
I'll wait for the third installment 🙂
You should meet SimonP and his ridiculous responses with the schoolyard taunt, "I'm rubber, you're glue; eveything you say bounces off me and sticks to you." If you reply to him thusly, you will engage with him on his own intellectual level rather than confound him with a challenge to his mental capacities and moral standards.
I refuse.
So Democrat clients and organizations are virulently racist (SPJ & KKK) and this shocks you? Kinda seems the point of DEI and the rest of critical theory in all it's forms. Sorry prof but you and your allies aligned with genocidal monsters, you need to deal with them not lamely "both sides" the issue without evidence to avoid just what you all have fostered on your own.
Except what David’s complaining about here is the inadequacy of DEI programs to properly protect Jewish students. He wants more DEI.
And he does his complaining at a blog whose bigotry has become its signature element.
Which is great, because that bigotry will take the rest of the right-wing agenda down with it as better Americans continue to shape our national progress against the wishes and efforts of our vestigial right-wing culture war casualties.
The KKK is a Democrat group now? What?
Always have been or did you miss that?
Have the little darlings read this:
https://yediot.webflow.io/7days/nir-oz-community-chat
These are the chat messages of Israelis frantically texting each other during the Simchat Torah pogrom.
You took a moment from your own advocacy of hatred and genocide to appeal to emotion?
How adorable!
If I were in Bernstein’s position, I would want to take this moment - the most significant and consequential time in the Israel-Palestine conflict in decades - to engage with some of the arguments put forth by the leading experts on the pro-Palestinian side. That’s what an interested party who was nonetheless a real scholar would do. Instead of doing that, he’s chosen to go Karen mode on a small group of 19-year-olds for exercising their First Amendment rights. That approach really says a lot about his character and intellect (or rather lack thereof).
"a small group of 19-year-olds"
It's just a bunch of college kids; they'll grow out of it.
Like the Ayatollah Khomeni did
I doubt they grow out of it, especially as the general population is currently shifting rapidly in favor of the Palestinians. My comment is on Bernstein’s cowardice in trying to cancel these kids instead of engaging with experts on the subject.
You spooks should realize the A-rabs really don't like you. They really don't like the Homos and Trannies (of any background). With your predisposition for killing your own kind, it's a marriage made in Paradise!
Yeah, no. You wish.
They may or they may not grow out of something. They seem less significant as a group than, say, Proud Boys, Boogaloo Boys and other heavily-armed paramilitary types.
Yes, I would like that too. It would be illuminating. And it would get boring and repetitive, and reduce engagement. Imagine a debate with one of these leading pro-palestinian experts (read: likely pro-Hamas terror sympathizer). I will illustrate.
Moderator to leading pro-palestinian expert: Mr. Expert, can you give us a little background on [insert topic]? Tell us your thoughts.
leading pro-palestinian expert: I just want to kill the Jews.
Moderator to leading pro-palestinian expert: Mr. Expert, I am not sure you actually meant that you want to kill all the Jews, so getting back to the question, could you give us a little background on [insert topic]? Tell us your thoughts.
leading pro-palestinian expert: I just want to kill the Jews.
Rinse and repeat. It is always the same, sad-ass song with you people.
The debate in my mind is what to do with an entire people marinated in a toxic homegrown brew of Judeocide. That is the big question, post-war. When Hamas is obliterated, then what.
An excellent illustration of how craven most of Israel’s defenders are. You cannot even imagine even engaging with an actual argument in favor of Palestinian rights. Nothing but ridiculous strawmen. Sad really.
But that’s ok, you just stay right here in your echo chamber, mouthing platitudes, as your side continues to bleed support with the general public.
Ham-Ass, Al-Kaida, Moose-lum Brotherhood, Jizz-Boola, Ear-Ron, ISIS have the same rights the Nazis did, to get butchered in bushels until they're not a problem anymore.
Frank
"an actual argument in favor of Palestinian rights"
Not with their righteous arguments in favor of their right to kill Jews. (see the jubilant celebrations by Hamas of the October 7 mass murder of Jews)
You aren't 'debating' anything in your mind about any Palestinian.
You've made it clear that they can all die as far as you're concerned and you wouldn't lose a moment of sleep over the matter.
Your views are no less genocidal than those of Hamas. The only real difference between you and them, is that you're thankfully a coward unwilling to act on your convictions beyond spewing your pathetic prejudice online anonymously like a bitch.
Josh's recent post claiming that CLT and CRT scholars don't talk about antisemitism enough displayed a similar profound lack of intellectual curiosity. It blows my mind that these people, whose whole job is to study, learn, and develop knowledge and understanding, and at public institutions, can't bring themselves to engage in the apparently overwhelmingly burdensome task of opening a book.
These people have been granted such an enormous opportunity, to live a life of the mind, and they just squander it on shitposts.
The Palestinian position can be summarized as follows:
1. It's all ours.
2. The Jews stole it.
3. We will never compromise or give up one square centimeter.
4. We are entitled to wage war and terrorism to achieve return of every square centimeter, and ignore every law of war. We can target civilians, children and the elderly, hijack planes, rape women, lie, and do whatever advances our cause.
5. We will do all of the above even if it means a century of abject misery for our Palestinian cause.
Is that an actual quote? From all Palestinians?
Do you know what the word "summarized" means? Look it up.
Oh, of course, it means you made it up.
Don't forget the part where Israel is obligated to generate electricity and provide water, up until the moment Palestine finishes killing every last Israeli. Presumably they'll kill the power plant workers last, but if the flow of electricity stops before that point, it's a war crime.
Or the unspoken part: They just want us Jews to die quietly, without protest in service of their warped, perverse and amoral ideology.
Unless the argument is "The 2008 Annapolis Accords, which demarcate a two state solution along the 1967 borders with land swaps to ensure continuity and a capital in east Jerusalem for Palestine should be adopted" then I don't know what there would be to discuss (which was soundly rejected by Hamas and Fatah, by the way).
After Israel has rooted out Hamas from Gaza, it should unilaterally impose the two state solution in accordance with the 2008 Annapolis Accords (although I doubt they will still give a capital in East Jerusalem or a land corridor between Gaza and the West Bank).
Without the removal of Hamas a two state solution isn't possible. If the argument is that Israel should be removed and Palestine should get all of Israel, then it isn't a good faith argument. The Arab nations tried for that 3 times (48, 67, 73) and lost in War, they don't get to make it again.
Maybe Washington is taking Bernstein's advice re. the Charlotteville neo-Nazis and is choosing to "ignore them."
The whataboutism is getting confusing today. Did the rightists at Charlottesville take a detour and march through George Mason?
Yes.
It just took six years for them to get there.
So have you quit in protest and withdrawn all financial support?
Why didn't university president Gregory Washington speak up?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Washington#/media/File:NCNR_Tour_(7337862202).jpg
There's your answer
Frank
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/10/29/chemerinsky-nothing-has-prepared-me-for-the-antisemitism-i-see-on-college-campuses-now/?comments=true#comment-10296649
I have long said that the public will reject higher education when they realize what it really has become -- and they are now realizing.
Weirdly, I have said something similar!
I have long said that the public will reject doctorate programs when they peruse any given number of comments by "Dr." Ed 2.
Free speech is glorious. Nothing works better than to just let people tell you who they REALLY are in their own words.
I only hope that the Jewish students are listening. Stop ignoring the warning signs. Believe what people do more than the nice-sounding platitudes they say. Stop voting for political parties who don't respect your right to exist.
Its simple, follow the money.
$2,015,000 from Qatar and a whopping $22,781,435 in 2021/2022 according to the US Dept. of Education College Foreign Gift and Contract Report. Zero from Israel.
25 mil buys a lot of weak statements.
I'm not sure any supporter of the killing of thousands of civilians in a bombing campaign has the moral authority to accuse anyone else of being 'pro-genocide.'
Also, a whole lot of wokeness in the comments from unusual quarters.
(Unless the Prof has expressed opposition to Netanyahu's regime and policies in which case, objection withdrawn.)
You said above it was 75 years? Netanyahu was not PM (he was not even born) 75 years ago.
Once more, caught up in your own contradictions.
I said what was 75 years? You are extremely confused.
"any supporter of the killing of thousands of civilians in a bombing campaign"
Like Churchill, FDR, Ike, George Marshall etc. etc.?
Hamas can release its hostages and surrender but you don't talk about that.
Sure, like those guys who engaged in all-out war with other fully militarised industrial nations, as opposed to a narrow strip of land that barely has a government, doesn't have a military, struggles to provide itsef with basic infrastructure and has a population that's nearly 50% children.
Its true none of you talk about the hostages, except early on when they were given up for dead because tough guys don't care about hostages.
One would think such a weak country would choose a government dedicated to improving the lot of its citizens, rather than waging war.
But, heck, brown people have no agency and should be treated like little children. That's your position.
One would think so many innocent unarmed civilian men women and children wouldn’t pose a threat to a nuclear power such that so many of them have to die.
'treated like little children.'
Which, in this case, means getting vaporised by bombs.
Yes, invading a country and slaughtering people is not a threat.
Really, you are either an idiot or obtuse.
Let's be clear: Israel is in no way targeting civilians. It is attacking a quasi-government that has sworn to and has waged war on Israel, ignoring all the laws of war, including using civilians as human shields. Itself a war crime. Israel is entitled to wage war on that quasi-government, and any collateral damage that is necessary to achieve that aim is permitted, even if lamentable. The blame for every single Palestinian death is with the quasi-government that choose the path of war and war crimes.
'Yes, invading a country and slaughtering people is not a threat.'
It certainly is. It's weird, though, how often the very real threats that arise from letting appalling situations fester for decades get ignored.
'Israel is in no way targeting civilians'
So? Their civilian body count will still be orders of magnitude greater than Hamas'.
'The blame for every single Palestinian death is with the quasi-government that choose the path of war and war crimes.'
And so you see sometimes the killing of children is justified.
"And so you see sometimes the killing of children is justified."
Right. When Israel targets terrorist, and warns civilians to get away, and some of them can't because the terrorists shoot them for leaving, and continue to use them as human shields, then it's justified.
When Hamas enters Israel with the express intent of slaughtering civilians, raping them, and taking hostages, it's not.
See how easy that is?
'then it’s justified'
'See how easy that is?'
Yes, I see it's very easy for people who claim to be outraged over the murder of children to justify the murder of children.
If Israeli troops set out to deliberately kill children for the sick fun of killing children, that would be murder, and that would be wrong.
If Hamas "fighters" hide behind children, and in the course of Israel killing those fighters some of hte children get hurt / killed, then to the extent that those children are "murdered", it's Hamas doing the murdering, not Israel.
I note the YOU appear to have absolutely no problem with Hamas murdering those Palestinian kids, and other Palestinian civilians.
it's almost like you're so much of a Jew hating genocidal monster that you don't care how many Palestinians get killed, just so long as Jews get killed, too
In other words, you have no response to logic, so you resort to name-calling and emotion.
Sorry, what you are proposing -- do nothing in the face of a massacre on your people, because the massacre perps are hiding behind children -- has not been adhered to by any country on earth. That you seek to impose that on Israel only reveals what a sick puppy you really are.
'I note the YOU appear to have absolutely no problem with Hamas murdering those Palestinian kids,'
No, you do not note that, you made it up because you don't like being told you support killing children, even though you do.
'do nothing in the face of a massacre on your people, because the massacre perps are hiding behind children'
I wouldn't keep claiming that the perps are hiding behind children so it's okay to kill children because we can think of literally nothing else to do, because honstly it just sounds like you want to kill children.
‘I note the YOU appear to have absolutely no problem with Hamas murdering those Palestinian kids,’
No, you do not note that, you made it up because you don’t like being told you support killing children, even though you do.
Are you demanding that Hamas unconditionally surrender?
Are you attacking Hamas for hiding behind kids? For putting their command post under a hospital? For preventing civilians from leaving the parts of Gaza that Israel is attacking?
No, you aren't, because you're a genocidal JHew hating piece of sh!t
If Hamas were to fight in a "law of war following" manner, Israel would quickly destroy them. So your options are three:
1: Demand that Hamas stop waging war against Israel
2: Demand that Hamas behave in ways that quickly lead to its total destruction
3: Support their desire to murder all the Jews by attacking Israel for Hamas's war crimes
You're doing #3. So GFY
See? When the right gloms onto something it instantly goes from zero to ridculous but dangerous fanatcism that's more about trying to advance terrible policy goals through shouting and intimidation than whatever it is they claim to be fired up about.
'Hamas killing kids bad (true) IDF killing kids good (not true!) Agree or be besmirched!' It's an old schtick.
https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2023/11/01/hamas-official-we-will-repeat-the-october-7-attack-time-and-again-n4923514
When you call for a ceasefire, or do anything else to try to damage Israel's response to Hamas, you are fighting for Hamas.
You are fighting for the genocide of all the Jews.
If you honestly didn't know that before, then, well, you're a moron.
But now you know
So all the Jewish people, many of them Israeli, calling for a ceasefire, are worse than Hamas?
After failing to prevent one attack are the current Israeli leadership admitting they couldn't stop another one?
So all the Jewish people, many of them Israeli, calling for a ceasefire, are worse than Hamas?
You really are just very stupid, aren't you
Every single person calling for a ceasefire is a Hamas supporter. To quote the Democrats winning argument in yesterday's KY Gov race "skinfolk aint always kinfolk"
They're not "worse than Hamas", they're just as bad
As are you
"doesn’t have a military"
That's not true. Hamas and several other "militant" groups have "fighters". Estimates range from 15,000 to 50,000 under arms.
They have launched 5,000 to 7,000 unguided rockets and missiles at civilian areas. You don't ever mention that.
I know I don't. There's lots of other facts not in dispute that I don't mention. The Israeli government have been content to let Hamas shoot missiles at them for over a decade now, just so long as they can get in their retaliation, this is just that scaled up, business as usual, despite the fact that business as usual dd nothing but lead to this.
They don't have an organised military, there is a militia, funded and supported by external actors, which includes Netanyahu himself, precisely so they will be more powerful than any other group in Gaza.
You've picked your side, yes.
A militia can be "organized" of course. Hamas has a chain of command, it divides its "fighters" into units.
You picked your side when you supported torture. I'm definitely never on that side.
Nige, just curious. How do you square your support for a people who are transphobic and homophobic (palestinians in Judea, Samaria and Gaza)?
Really, do you ever experience cognitive dissonance trying to reconcile the anti-trans, anti-gay agenda of Hamas (with a helping of Judeocide on the side), with your own stated beliefs?
The contortion is amusing, to say the least.
The cognitive dissonance is yours. You seem to think I want people like that dead, or that I'd be happy to stand by while they were killed. I don't. To say nothing of the lgtbq Palestinians.
It's all about "whose ox is getting gored." Human rights for those I like and only for them!
How do you defend your support for the Republican Party and movement conservatism, natural home to gay-bashing assholes, white supremacists, transphobic jerks, half-educated Islamophobes, backwater misogynists, and our vestigial racists?
You uh....don't think that Hamas tortures people?
I'm sure they do. Bob likes it, too.
I'm really confused on what your position is?
You talk earlier about letting the problem fester, but an essentially complete two state solution was proposed by Ehud Barak in 2008 (Annapolis Accords) that gave the Palestinians 99% of what they had previously requested (including a capital in east Jerusalem and land corridor between Gaza and the West Bank) was rejected. Letting the problem fester was not a problem of Israel's making.
Hamas continues to launch rockets into Israel. They invaded Israel and killed ~1,400 people and kidnapped ~200.
Israel could propose the Annapolis agreement again and it would still be rejected. The destruction of Hamas is probably the only thing that has a chance to lead to a functional two state solution (which will, incredibly sadly, lead to civilian deaths as Hamas is refusing to allow evacuations). Long term, the destruction of Hamas is probably worth it for the future of the Palestinian people, as it may (should?) lead to the reintroduction of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza and a two state solution.
The alternative is the status quo (aka the conditions that existed from 2008 - 2023). Which seems worse.
Is there any alternative to the above that you think is preferred or otherwise workable?
'Letting the problem fester was not a problem of Israel’s making.
Netanyahu supported Hamas for his own political ends. So, yes, the problem is partly Israel's making.
'Long term, the destruction of Hamas is probably worth it for the future of the Palestinian people'
Long term you're creating Hamas 2.
The fact that agreements have come so close to being sealed shows that it can be done.
The Israeli ambassador to the UN gave an interesting speech yesterday. He suggested if this were WWII, people would be squeaking Britain should limit its attacks to proportionality to the deaths caused by Germany in the Blitz.
Asymmetric warfare doesn't make mass murder noble, and doesn't turn defense against it into murder. Deaths are unfortunate, but are on the heads of Hamas, just like they were on Germany.
I see you are still abysmally ignorant about the definition of genocide. And the laws of war.
Too bad you were not around in WWII, or some of us would be saluting the Nazi flag (others of us, the Jewish ones, would be dead.)
Like all you right-wing anti-immigrant nationalists wouldn't have either demanded the US remain out of the war or actually joined the German-American Bund.
Hah, hah, hah. You really are a clueless idiot.
Here's a clue. I would no more be welcome at the Bund than a plate of gefilte fish. (Jarred gefilte fish, which is an abomination.)
You wouldn't have been much more welcome in any right wing political organisation of the time, either.
If you had been there, watch out for bullets from my dad's uncle, who killed Nazis in the Battle of the Bulge.
My Grandfather was shooting at them in North Africa, my great-uncles and cousins charged the beach on D-Day.
Looks like even Nige-bots aren't immune from stolen valor claims
I agree = Jarred gefilte fish, which is an abomination
Sadly, I have no 'go to' recipe.
Use the frozen loaves and cook them in a pot of water. Much, much better than jarred.
Nige, do you understand what a war is?
Do you know the last time there was a war in which no civilians were killed?
Do you have any comprehension who started this war on Oct 7?
Yeah, I know exactly what war is which is why it's best to do everything in your power to stay out of one, avoid one, de-escalate one, end one. Wars make everything worse, whoever starts them.
"Wars make everything worse, whoever starts them."
Wrong. WWII made things much better than if the Allies simply laid down and let the Nazis take over the world (or most of it).
Probably.
But Amtrak would run on time, and the middle east would be peacefully all Arab.
World War II gave us million and millions of dead people and massive destruction and suffering all across the world. Just because we mythologise it as the 'good' war doesn't mean it made anything better. Just because the Nazis winning would have been worse doesn't mean the war itself made anything better. How is the occurence of the Holocaust 'better?' WW II came about largely because the Allies fucked up the post-war settlements after WW I, itself another massive waste of life, which also made everything worse, and one of the ways it made everything worse was by laying the seeds for WW II.
I have concluded. You are truly a fool who does not understand basic logic.
If one outcome is worse than the other, that means the other is better. Even if the other has many problems and does not lead to utopia.
And if you think the Holocaust would not have happened had the Allies not fought against the Nazis, then you are a complete fool.
Who has now earned muting from me.
'that means the other is better.'
One being better just means less worse.
'And if you think the Holocaust would not have happened had the Allies not fought against the Nazis, then you are a complete fool.'
The Allies fighting did not save six million Jews. The world is worse off.
'Who has now earned muting from me.'
Too bad, I was going to ask about more recent wars and how come they never come up. You wouldn't have liked that.
No, it saved three million Jews (though that was not actually their war aim).
"Just because the Nazis winning would have been worse doesn’t mean the war itself made anything better. "
Any guy who says that is just not intelligent enough to bother conversing with.
Bye bye Nige.
Infantile.
Well, it would have solved the problem of anti-Semitism.
This is a rather extremist position on war. What you've said is true for aggressor nations (they should do everything to stay out of of one, avoid one, de-escalate one, not start one).
But for nations on the defensive, such actions don't apply. Take Ukraine, for example. The only way for them to avoid one would have been full capitulation to an external actor and existence as either a vassal state or as a state in the Russian republic. For a nation facing an aggressor, de-escalation and avoidance have almost never worked.
It is extreme. I can support Ukraine because they are defending their own country in their own country. If they started bombing Russian cities I would definitely change my view. In this case I feel the only viable form of self-defense is to find some way to a political framework for a long-term peaceful resolution. Anything else is tacit acceptance of further tragedy and slaughter. The existence of Hamas will obviously be a huge obstacle that will require some sort of military intervention. Bombing Gaza like this is not that.
Has such long term political framework ever worked without the completion of the war for one side or the other? I can't recall an instance in the last 50 years where an aggressor state already engaged in war agreed to a political solution prior to losing militarily.
I guess you could argue that the decolonization of the British and French colonies applies? But even then it was a complete military victory that just became morally unacceptable to the home populace more than actual military defeat.
This is more akin to an insurgency than a conventional war. That's exactly the kind of conflict that can only be ended through negotation and agreement. Even then you'll have die-hard extremists who'll try to carry it on and bugger it up all over again. Like I keep saying, it's not the easy route, it's just the one that offers any actual hope.
re: Why didn't university president Gregory Washington speak up?
In a recent column, Bret Stephens called out "university presidents who stand for free speech when it comes to antisemitism but become notably censorious when it comes to other forms of controversial speech."
compare: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/10/29/chemerinsky-nothing-has-prepared-me-for-the-antisemitism-i-see-on-college-campuses-now/?comments=true#comment-10296294
The inescapable conclusion is that Jews are not a group favored by university presidents (but their detractors are!).
My conclusion is that socialists are anti-semitic as well as racist.
David, you really think that a University administrator advocating for an inclusive campus culture is in violation of Kalven?
The intellectual dishonesty is ridiculous.
Antisemitism is obnoxious.
I wonder, though, whether Prof. Bernstein and other right-wingers are prepared to accept the same treatment for gay-bashing bigots that they seem to crave for antisemites (and, sadly, for at least some people who object to Israel's violent, immoral right-wing belligerence).
(Whether gay-bashing tries to hide behind a cloak of religion is irrelevant to me; if clingers want to try to argue that superstition improves bigotry or transforms it into anything other than bigotry, I would welcome the attempt.)
Does hiring an antisemite differ from hiring a gay-basher? I think not, but let's hear those opinions!
The fact that one strongly favors or disfavors a cause doesn’t change the legal categories or boundaries.
Advocating the destruction of Israel and the mass deportation or killing of all its inhabitants is, like it or not, protected by the First Amendment, and is no more discrimination on the basis of race or religion than advocating absorption of Vatican City into Italy or, for that matter, opposing creation of an or advocating defeat of the Islamic State.
Repeatedly calling a specific individual in a school program a “dirty little girl Jew bitch” is discrimination and, I think, is not protected by the First Amendment when said in the context of a school program, even a college one.
Not everything is about legal categories. Condemnation and social ostracism can apply to speech that is protected by the First Amendment. In fact, condemnation and social ostracism are themselves protected by the First Amendment.
Leftists have long hated Jews, and leftist secular Jews hate Jews the most.
I am not sure I see the relevance of this comment to OP. It's not like either the GMU president or the genocidal protesters are Jewish.
But, on its own, the comment is onto something.
Q: Whom do "self-loathing" Jews really hate?
A: Normal (i.e., non-self-loathing) Jews.
Q: Whom do "self-loathing" whites / Americans (e.g., those who participate in Black Lives Matter protests, those who promoted the 1619 Project, those who want Critical Race Theory taught in schools, etc.) really hate?
A: Normal (i.e., non-self-loathing) whites / Americans.
‘Bad’ Jews and ‘bad’ whites. Now what’s that leading to? It's like they're 'traitors' to their 'races.' Why does that sound familiar?
leftist secular Jews hate Jews the most
Pushing a negative stereotype about a group of Jews.
There is a name for this...
I'm old enough to remember the Entebbe Hostage Rescue Raid (July 4, 1976, coincidentally my 14th birthday, do you need any more evidence of the existence of Jay-Hey?)
and that the UN Security Counsel convened to discuss condemning Israel (for yes, the Temerity to rescue their own Hostages)
Even the Secretary General got in on it...
UN Secretary General Kurt Waldheim told the Security Council that the raid was "a serious violation of the sovereignty of a Member State of the United Nations"
Yeah, fucking Kurt Waldheim, which is why I don't really give a fuck about what the International Community thinks.
Frank "Kinder and Gentler can wait"
SJP then announced that it would be holding a rally on the university's main campus on October 12. In support of "the resistance," i.e., the perpetrators of the massacre, Hamas.
Hamas's murder of civilians is horrific and unjustified, and anyone who attempts to justify it should be heavily criticized.
SJP Mason also called for the destruction of the State of Israel, the "liberation of our homeland and our people, from the river to the sea. Show up and show out for Palestine, and let GMU know that we will rise against the occupation!"
I find this view very problematic, however, I'll leave whether it qualifies as genocide up to you.
Note that "from the river to the sea" doesn't sound that different from the current Israeli's government long term plan for the West Bank. Namely, to forcibly expel Palestinians from their land and build settlements in their place. So if a plan to take all the land "from the river to the sea" qualifies as genocide then both the Israeli government and Hamas are guilty.
Why would anyone -- let alone a law professor -- choose to advance this argument at a blog that has been dedicated for years to creating safe spaces for bigots?
Only certain bigots, it turns out, are the snowflakes the Volokh Conspirators are looking for.
Carry on, clingers. So far as your shitty right-wing ideas could carry anyone in modern, improving-against-your-preferences America, that is.
You still think DB's not next on the list for forced professional relocation?
I thought about this a few hours ago. You may be right.
Then Professor Williamson can regale us with another blog post on the importance of academic freedom.
Academic freedom for professors, students, both, or neither?
This blog is highly selective with respect to academic freedom. That may be among the reasons mainstream modern academia disrespects the Volokh Conspiracy.
Be careful what you wish for there "Coach", the Moose-lums hate Pedofiles even more than most peoples hate Pedofiles, I think it's that whole "Self Hating" thang, you know, your Pedofilia reminds them of their Pedofilia. When your next Cell-mate unpacks his Prayer Rug, might want to find a reason to get put in the "Special Custody Unit"
Frank
It seems that when it comes to DEI at GMU, Jews don't count.
You're only figuring that out now?
DEI stands for Discrimination, Exclusion, and Intolerance
Always has
Great point, especially when made at the Official Legal Blog of America's Vestigial Gay-Bashers, Transphobes, Racial Slur-Lovers, Immigrant-Haters, Misogynists, Islamophobes, and Racists.
I always thought that DEI stood for Doublespeak, Elitism, and Indoctrination. Huh.
The Jew-baiters want to shift the letters in “DEI” around to put the “I” before the “E.”
What can a civil rights attorney do if the student in question actually is a "little Jew bitch"?
Unless she is actually a female dog, the lawyer has not much to worry about.
You think this is about a dog?
Here is a rare version.
Good luck with that "bitch means a female dog and nothing else" argument.
It doesn't require mind reading to determine real goals from what people actually do. If somebody walked up to you and started beating you with a lead pipe, you'd totally ignore their protestations that they just wanted to give you a massage, and correctly deduce that they were trying to cripple or kill you. And no mind reading would be required.
If DIE on rare occasions resulted in pathological results, you might think their declared motives deserved to be taken seriously. But it doesn't, the pathological results are almost uniform. So we have to take the results to be what is actually intended, and treat the protested motives as nothing but dissembling.
I see; we’ve really gone quite a distance down the rabbit hole when referring to a biological male as a male is considered equivalent to referring to a Jewish student as a bitch.
Sounds like the difference between a situation coming under the "fighting words" doctrine...and a situation which *doesn't* come under the "fighting words" doctrine.
Lmao
“Hoisted by MY OWN petard?? No thank you!”
It's so obvious that David is just looking for a legal hook to ban speech he disagrees with, it's painful. Title VI! Face-covering laws! Yet not a word about the harms those laws were intended to address. Is he concerned about harassment on the basis of race/ethnicity that rises to the level of denying Jewish students equal access to education? Is he worried that student groups wearing face coverings to protests are going to engage in violence? No. He's complaining about rhetoric he doesn't think should be allowed - "pro-genocide" rallies, racially-charged insults.
David should talk to Eugene. As Eugene can explain, if students should have to tolerate being singled out for public abuse if their identity somehow amounts to a "matter of public concern," then Jewish students aren't entitled to a greater level of protection. This is the libertarian utopia the VCers all want.
FTR, I've always maintained that harassment directed at an individual student is not constitutionally protected speech, and I guarantee you won't find anything in the book or in any of my other writings to the contrary.
re: "DEI is an incredibly broad trend/movement with lots of diverse goals and results"
Objection - assumes facts not in evidence. Among the counter-evidence is the notable lack of objections by otherwise-outspoken DEI proponents to the current round of, as Brett says, "pathological results".
I understand their perspective, which is why I realize it’s wrong.
You might contemplate why some people are offended at biological males joining sororities and women’s sports teams – and as the icing on the cake, how it’s offensive for people with objections to such things to be called phobes.
And you might consider how some Jews would be offended at the idea that referring to biological males as males is just like anti-semitism.
It's how political correctness was dismissed in the 90s.
Sometimes people grow out of what they were at 19, sometimes they grow into it. A lot of the problems we're seeing today are a result of assuming that an earlier generation of college students would 'grow out of it", rather than moving into positions of authority and treating the larger world the same way.
You yourself noted that "from the river to the sea" encompasses all of Israel. So, yes, they are rallying for genocide.
You think it's a narrow well-coordinated program?
"Jewish Bitch" is every bit as offensive as "Nigger" -- and yet only one will get the rapid response and action.
Why is that???
It's at times like this I think people need to be reminded that trans people were also victims of the Holocaust.
It appears conservatives still feel comfortable with bigotry toward gays, and especially toward transgenders. Also with most racism, at least if it is practiced with plausible deniability.
Antisemitism, though, still seems to have become a conspicuous target for some conservatives, especially recently.
Help me out will you... Of what concern to non-members of the sorority is the gender identity of those the sorority has accepted as members? I don't get it.
Perhaps that's why colleges are so careful not to do anything which might offend Catholics, evangelicals, and others?
When's the last time a Catholic chopped off somebody's head for drawing a picture of Hey-Zeuss??
Brett with yet another conclusion pulled straight out of his ass.
A lot of the problems we’re seeing today are a result of assuming that an earlier generation of college students would ‘grow out of it”,
Love when conservatives say 'everyone would agree with us if it weren't for all this school they go to!'
Y'all are telling on yourself and don't even realize it.
Too true. In a similar fashion, "a lot of the problems we're seeing today," in terms of the national debt, political extremism, hollowing out of the middle class, etc., are a result of allowing people in your generation to pass into middle age while financing your future with the expropriated wealth of the young.
You are raising your son to inherit a nation you helped to build, but until your dying breath you will continue to blame his generation for ruining it.
So were Soviet POWs and political Commissars from the Red Army.
IIRC the murder of political commissars was an important part of the case against the Nazis at Nuremberg. And rightly so! Although I don't see how it makes it OK to have political commissars.
Not overblown then and not overblown now.
True, but it is also fighting fire with fire. Hoisted by his own petard? He is certainly trying to get them hoisted by their own cancel culture petard.
'Their' cancel culture? From the Budweiser babies and the Libsoftiktok crowd?
Not everyone you disagree with is part of "cancel culture."
In any event, are you able to see the distinction between a disruptive protest of a campus speaker and throwing protesters in jail (or getting them blacklisted)?
Does that comparison, borderline justification, also apply to the Jews?
‘You thought it was a good idea to signal your agreement with trans people by bringing up nazis.’
No, I reminded you that trans people were also victims of the Holocaust. You decided they were lesser victims, like political commisars.
‘You think it’s *so unfair* that I would mention nazis’
I think your fantasies about executing them and expecting trans people to be grateful for those fantasies are a bit weird, but not unfair, no.
‘now that it turns out that you would spare the lives of murderers,’
No, I’m pretty sure I’m ok with opposing the death penalty for Nazis.
‘Again, I showed your defective logic that you have to agree with whoever the nazis tried to kill’
At no point did I say you should agree with anyone, Gentile, Jew, Trans person or political commisar.
‘By that logic,’
Gonna stop you there. You have gone so far round the twist with your fake version of ‘my logic’ it’s gone surreal.
‘Maybe you shouldn’t have Godwinized the discussion in the first place, if you couldn’t handle the blowback.’
Are you kidding? You have literally exploded like a deep sea creature on the surface trying to dodge and justify your grading of Holocaust victims because you want to support Israel but persecute trans people. It’s amazing.
As usual, you enjoy making up stuff about lesser victims and other straw-man positions.
I didn't "grad[e]" Holocaust victims. On the contrary, I'd want their murderers hanged *equally.* I simply showed your defects in logic of saying we have to agree with people today because of what people like themselves suffered in the Holocaust.
Yes, you want me to agree with trans activists politically because of the Holocaust.
Yet the fact remains that you wish the Allies hadn’t hanged all those poor, poor nazis.
“persecute trans people”
It shows some loss of perspective that you classify the alleged improper use of pronouns as a form of persecution, and then invoke Holocaust comparisons.
Borderline justification?
Can’t you walk and chew gum at the same time? Can’t you be against murder without assuming that a political commissar who was murdered was a role model? What’s needed is to hang the murderer, not pretend the victim was an angel.
(I’m sorry, I forgot that the death penalty is always and everywhere barbaric. So I suppose you’d be out in the streets protesting the execution of a nazi for murdering a transgender?)
As to the murder of Jews, if you want to suggest I’m comparing them to commissars you can piss up a rope.
Oh, so you were just classing trans folk and political commisars together as a class of ‘lesser victim’ of the Nazis, such that the signifigance of trans persecution in the Holocaust can be diminished, thereby justifying modern persecution of one group of Holocaust victims while engaging in performative support for another group of Holocaust victims because you approve of Israel’s bombing campaign of Gaza.
If the comparison of Jews with political commisars is so offensive, why did you use them to make a comparison with anyone?
I was trying to deal with your bad logic – Hitler tried to kill them, so everything they do must be good.
Did my point about the death penalty hit you in a sore spot? I think the Allies were right to hang nazi murderers – do you believe so, too?
'Hitler tried to kill them, so everything they do must be good.'
You really have tied yourself in a knot trying to avoid my actual point, haven't you? Trans people are bad, like commisars, they deserved to be killed!
You're comparing trans people to political commisars in order to exclude them from the same empathy and grief that Jews receive over their persecution in the Holocaust. You can't justify the comparison in any way shape or form, you just think it's distasteful to point out that trans people were victims of the Holocaust when you're busily trying to persecute trans people and performatively support Israel by accusing critics of anti-semitism.
You're really trying to avoid discussing my remark that nazi murderers should be *hanged,* and this includes murderers of communists and trans.
There are the people I said ought to be killed: nazi murderers.
Do *you* think nazi murderers should be killed?
I somehow doubt it, otherwise you would have affirmed it by now.
So I'm going to throw it in your face - I believe nazis should have hanged for killing trans people, and you believe they ought to have been treated more mercifully.
Of course you’re trying to chasge the subject – you think trans people who were victims of the Holocaust are somehow lesser than other victims of the Holocaust. ‘Bad’ victims of the Holocaust.
'So I’m going to throw it in your face'
Pay attention to my distraction!
I oppose the death penalty, even for Nazi scum.
“I oppose the death penalty, even for Nazi scum.”
It certainly took a while to extract that concession out of you.
I, on the other hand, support the hanging of nazi murderers from the Holocaust. That would include the murderers of trans people.
I suppose that's part of my persecution of trans people - wanting to see their murderers hanged (or fried, etc., though hanging is an oldie but goodie).
So your gesture of solidarity with trans people is to agree with them on pronouns, but to let their murderers live. Even if the murderers are nazi perpetrators of the Holocaust.
Why are you against hanging nazi murderers? Would it sully our humanity? Did the Israelis commit a human rights violation by hanging Eichmann?
'It certainly took a while to extract that concession out of you'
Jesus you're transparent. All because you slipped up and tried to argue that trans people were less worthy victims of the Holocaust, that they are 'bad' in spite of being victims of the Holocaust, that it's okay to persecute them again, even as you invoke the Holocaust to justify the bombing. So, like supporting bombing civilians you're being performatively tough about dead Nazis.
You Godwinized the discussion, but although you can dish it out, you can’t take it.
You thought it was a good idea to signal your agreement with trans people by bringing up nazis. But that’s not performative at all, of course.
You think it’s *so unfair* that I would mention nazis – just because you brought them up.
Maybe bringing up nazis wasn’t such a bright idea, now that it turns out that you would spare the lives of murderers, even nazis, who kill trans people.
"tried to argue that trans people were less worthy victims of the Holocaust"
Again, I showed your defective logic that you have to agree with whoever the nazis tried to kill.
By that logic, Americans should have refused to engage in military service because nazis tried to kill Jehovah's Witnesses (who refused military service, too).
Or maybe it's wrong to have a fixed abode, because the nazis murdered Roma who often didn't have a fixed abode (except when they went to the death camps).
You can't handle the boomerang effect of your own retarded logic and soft-on-nazi positions, so all that's left is for you to make up accusations.
Maybe you shouldn't have Godwinized the discussion in the first place, if you couldn't handle the blowback.
But if one thinks trans people are wrong, one doesn't think those folks are misgendering them at all, no?
Especially if you think they're a valid target for bullying.
I think it's a broad movement, but it's not the broad movement it would rather people thought it was.
They've gotten a long ways deceptively describing what they're doing, but this last week has really blown their cover.
No, "explicitly" would be "we call for the genocide of the Jews". "Literally" just requires that they call for something that IS the genocide of the Jews. Rather than just calling for something somebody might compare to genocide in an overwrought metaphor, which would be "figuratively".
If schools didn't change what people thought, there wouldn't be any point to them.
Sure. As I cannot tell which side is which in your comparison, well, it's all awful behavior.
Meanwhile, in the real world, there is one entity that is actually formulating plans to carry out ethnic cleansing between the river and the sea - not just chanting about it. It's the Israeli government:
"Expel all Palestinians from Gaza, recommends Israeli gov’t ministry"
https://www.972mag.com/intelligence-ministry-gaza-population-transfer/
But they'll turn right around and call you antisemitic if you criticize Israel I'll betcha.
That is the kind of bigotry for which the Volokh Conspiracy is primarily known.
A highly selective and partisan bigotry, of course.
There's nothing to Frank Drackman's claim that "deviants" are harshly persecuted by their fellow Palestinians? You really believe Hamas is so tolerant? (BTW, if FT says that sun may be expected to rise in the East tomorrow, that doesn't mean it won't.)
You can literally call for something using a euphemism, because euphemism doesn't change the meaning of what you're saying, it is just an attempt to give that meaning a better sound.
"Literally" is about denotation, euphemism about connotation.
While figurative and literal differ in denotation.
So, if I say, "I will hit him over the head with a hammer", and I actually mean to apply hammer to head, that's explicit.
If I say, "I will percussively reboot his brain.", and I mean by that hit him over the head with a hammer, that's euphemism.
Whereas, if I say, "I will hit him over the head with a hammer", but what I mean is that I'm going to upset his preconceptions with some startling news, THAT would be "figurative".
Hamas supporters are literally, but not explicitly, calling for genocide, because their denotation actually does mean a genocidal act.
Bullshit. If you asked them if they intend to kill all the Jews from the river to the sea, they would say “obviously not.”
That is enough to show that they aren’t literally calling for genocide.
The Jews could either relocate or live in Palestine, in theory. Your argument (also David's argument and may other people's here) is that that's impractical. That requires a whole analysis that might be right, but isn't necessarily a premise shared by the protesters.
Indoctrination is exactly why we have government schools, and why the left is so hostile to alternatives to government schools. it is merely among the capabilities of higher education.
No one said "anything goes." That's a straw man.
What is being asserted is that, if necessary, very strong action, which may result in massive collateral damage, is permitted. Which is what international law provides.
The dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan ended the war early and saved millions of lives, on both sides. Yes, the people who experienced it suffered horrifically. But it was no war crime.
Yeah, Prof. Volokh wishes you would have kept that one to yourself.
Peoples are afraid of Niggers, with good reason.
Wait, how so exactly? Because of the name-calling?
I’m sorry, but your fantasies notwithstanding, universities don’t act on every utterance of the n word on campus.
It seems to me like you guys are discovering the value in DEI, now that some people you have sympathy for are… omg… being lightly taunted. You just don’t care when it’s Black and trans people getting harassed.
Conservative Moose-lums maybe.
Bigotry in all forms is bad.
It is OK to welcome a correct position on one issue and still advocate for improvement on others.
Come on Brett, this seems more like a literal call for genocide, no? What say you?
That explains your comment with respect to the Wyoming bigotry case that Prof. Volokh highlighted recently, I suppose?
Or was that not part of "always"?
Self-loathing Jews are not a new concept. When I was in college 30 years ago, pretty much all the pro-Palestinian students were rich Jewish stoners trying to piss off their parents.
"I’m sorry, but your fantasies notwithstanding, universities don’t act on every utterance of the n word on campus."
???
Are you kidding?! They're actually going after people who are not using the word to insult anyone, like professors exploring the word's history, or commenting on a literary passage. I'm pretty sure I heard of a professor who got in trouble for using a Chinese word that sounded like the N-word.
Yeah, we weren't talking about professors.
Law is all about fine lines. The key word is "necessary." Gratuitous killing of civilians is a war crime. Collateral damage that you tried to avoid but couldn't is not. No country on earth has ever acted otherwise.
And I understood what you were arguing. I said it's beating up on a straw man. And it still is.
Profs. Bernstein and Volokh, especially, thank you for your continuing contributions to this blog, Frank Drackman, and welcome you (and those who resemble you) as their target audience.
OK, evil.
Let's see the right-wing law professors at this blog disavow the equally evil bigots -- a collection of gay-haters, racists, immigrant-haters, racists, misogynists, white nationalists, Islamophobes, transphobes (the Volokh Conspiracy's latest fixation), white supremacists, etc. -- they embrace as colleagues and a target audience.
Homophobia is equally as bad as antisemitism. Both groups have faced incredible discrimination (including murder) throughout history and until recently (for both groups!) were not granted equal treatment (which is still only granted in select countries).
Legally? Yeah, literal AND explicit.
Same thing I said when our resident far left loon posted it in another thread. The Israeli government is doing no such thing, as that article itself makes clear. (For those who don't know, 972 magazine is essentially the Israeli version of The Nation. So when even they admit that a smear against the Israeli government isn't accurate, you know it isn't.)
(I'd also add that the reason people invented the words "ethnic cleansing" is because they describe a different phenomenon than "genocide.")
I was advocating for privatizing social security. I got out-voted.
Do you hate everyone who believes in Jesus?
No, that would be silly, nobody would equate disagreement with hatred!
You realize that in its present definition, "hatred" includes even *thinking* something like "Bruce Jenner is a man." Even if you don't harass anyone with your beliefs, you're still guilty of wrongthink and need to be re-educated, until you at least give lip service to the correct kind of thinking.
Christ can you imagine?
Perhaps, but complaining about generalizations using generalizations is ironic.
I don't know who said that.
It's their fault, because they use their own people as human shields, commit atrocious massacres, and then when there is a response, seek to blame someone else.
Take the recent hospital which was reported to have been bombed by Israel (which many in the press dutifully reported from Hamas), but then turned out to be a Hamas rocket which went awry and slammed into a hospital. Which rocket, BTW, Hamas aimed at Tel Aviv and Haifa.
Why was there an explosion? Because Hamas located a rocket next to a hospital, as well as an ammo dump which had secondary explosions.
Suppose it turned out Israel had taken out that rocket. IMO, that would have been perfectly legitimate -- to take out a rocket aimed and about to be launched at its own cities. Any harm to the hospital would have been 100% the fault of Hamas.
Yet many would so, no, Israel should do nothing, just let rockets rain down on its cities, because there is a hospital nearby.
IMO, that position is basically affirming that use of human shields is legitimate and immunizes the aggressors from any response. Which is 180 degrees removed from the actual law of war, and the actual behavior of every country on the planet.
It is nihilism, QA. Both groups of people are nihilists. That is what Ed is saying, I think. There is certainly a strong aspect of nihilism.
I didn't make any comment, haven't been following the case.
'As usual, you enjoy making up stuff about lesser victims and other straw-man positions.'
Ah, perhaps you can elucidate the curious comparison you made, then.
'The fact remains that you wish the Allies hadn’t hanged all those poor, poor nazis.'
Yes.
'It shows some loss of perspective that you classify the alleged improper use of pronouns as a form of persecution'
What, like a few casual anti-semitic slurs wouldn't have been a form of persecution, a few laws passed against them, endless lies about how they're threats to children and deceny, bomb threats and death threats aimed at the if they come to prominent attention, even if it's a school or a hospital being targeted, how they are somehow all-powerful enough to victimise you but also too weak to stand up to real manly cis heterosexuality, none of that sounds like persecution at all.
“‘The fact remains that you wish the Allies hadn’t hanged all those poor, poor nazis.’
“Yes.”
Truly an abominable violation of human rights. /sarc
Looking at my commissar remark, I said the prosecution at Nuremberg "rightly" used the murder of the commissars in their case against the defendants. You'd have to go really out of your way to misunderstand that.
'Truly an abominable violation of human rights. /sarc'
Oh, you're so brave and tough against those dead Nazis!
'You’d have to go really out of your way to misunderstand that.'
Still seems like an extremely odd emphasis. 'Look, I think it's even wrong to murder commisars! AND trans people! Because the Nazis murdered bad people too! Like commisars! And trans people!'
I’m not claiming credit on behalf of the Allies for hanging the nazis; I’m mocking your solicitude for nazis while you’re simultaneously engaged in full-on Godwinizing.
Your Godwinizing was an attempt to close off criticism of trans beliefs – I gave you a gentle nudge down your own slippery slope and showed where you ended up.
'I’m mocking your solicitude for nazis'
I know, you're doing a loud fake laugh thing to cover up what you were actually suggesting.
'I gave you a gentle nudge down your own slippery slope'
A slippery slope that applies only to trans people, not Jews. because they are lesser victims of the Holocaust and most of the same people doing performative anti-semitism here are also busy persecuting trans people.
If you think I *over*generalized, then you might have a point.
When was the last time Prof. Bernstein -- or any Volokh Conspirator -- objected to any of the right-wing bigotry that is an incessant stream at their blog?
These guys target bigots as their audience. They cultivate and lather the bigots. They censor the people who question the bigots -- but not the bigots.
That makes them poor candidates to talk about anyone else's bigotry, especially when they claim any objection to Israel's constant right-wing shittiness constitutes bigotry.
At this blog, though, the homophobia and transphobia are baked in. The Volokh Conspirators are dedicated to creating safe spaces for right-wing bigots. The professors would like people to overlook that as they climb on their high horses when they finally encounter a flavor of bigotry they don't like.
Yup, you missed the irony, No surprise.
Not at this blog. This blog attracts, flatters, lathers, defends, and embraces bigots. Just about daily. Bigotty, bigoted bigots.
No, Nige is pretty clearly saying that Israel should not be engaging in this war at all, and is worse than Hamas for so doing so.
Remember "Piss Christ"?
If someone spent two months screaming every day that an election was stolen and that he was the rightful winner and that everyone — judge, media outlet, expert, state official, Attorney General — who said otherwise was corrupt, and organized an attempt to forge votes, and threatened to prosecute people who didn't "find" votes for him, and called for all his supporters to be at a rally on the day the votes were to be counted that would "be wild," and had his henchmen at the rally scream about "fighting like hell" to "stop the steal," and then sent the attendees to the place where the votes were being counted, and then refused — despite begging from his allies — to do anything to stop a violent assault on the vote counting, you'd totally ignore their protestations that they just wanted to peacefully express an opinion, and correctly deduce that they were trying an insurrection.
And as I pointed out on that other thread, you’re wrong. The Israel defense establishment isn’t formally contemplating ethnic cleansing — yet — but the Israeli government is, specifically the intelligence wing.
Funny you should mention this, since you misuse "genocide" in this way constantly.
Its body count is now far, far higher than Hamas'. How is that ok?
Professor Bernstain told you he hasn't commented on the case you are alluding to but you choose to ignore his flat out denial. Arthur, why don't you do the decent thing and admit that you are wrong or come back with a citation (date of relevant post) to prove him other than truthful. Don't leave us to conclude that you are simply without honor or hopelessly deranged.