The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Bill Ackman's Letter to Harvard re Widespread Antisemitism on Campus
It's worth reading the whole thing, but here is a "highlight":
Last Wednesday, I spent seven hours on campus meeting with Jewish, Israeli, and non-Jewish students and faculty at the Law School, at HBS and in a 90-minute town hall in Aldrich 112 with 230 Jewish college students (coincidentally, one for each hostage held by Hamas), research staff, and faculty from the University at large, organized by Harvard Chabad. Over the course of the day, it became clear that the situation at Harvard is dire and getting worse, much worse than I had realized.
Jewish students are being bullied, physically intimidated, spat on, and in several widely-disseminated videos of one such incident, physically assaulted. Student Slack message boards are replete with antisemitic statements, memes, and images. On-campus protesters on the Widener Library steps and elsewhere shout "Intifada! Intifada! Intifada! From the River to the Sea, Palestine Shall Be Free!" as they knowingly call for violent insurrection and use eliminationist language seeking the destruction of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.
When you explained in your October 12th video address that Harvard "embraces a commitment to free expression," you sent a clear message that the eliminationist and antisemitic statements of the protesters are permissible on campus. Putting aside the legal limitations on free speech that include restrictions on fighting words and true threats, "where speakers direct a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death," if Harvard indeed had a strong track record of protecting free speech, many would have taken your support for free speech more seriously. Unfortunately, Harvard has not embraced a serious commitment to free speech, particularly so in recent years.
In The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) Annual College Free Speech Rankings, Harvard has consistently finished in the bottom quartile in each of the past four years, with its ranking deteriorating each year. On September 23rd, just two weeks prior to October 7th, FIRE announced that Harvard achieved its lowest free speech ranking ever for the 2023 academic year, ranking last out of 254 universities, with a rating of 0.00, the only university with an "abysmal" speech climate. See: https://thefire.org/news/harvard-gets-worst-score-ever-fires-college-free-speech-rankingsfor the results of the survey where FIRE cites multiple examples of incidents on the Harvard campus where students and faculty were denied their First Amendment rights. Therefore, when you cite Harvard's "commitment to free expression," in supporting the protesters, it rings false and hypocritical to the university at large and the Jewish community in particular.
Many Jewish students have also recently become afraid to express their concerns. Many have also felt the need to remove their mezuzahs, yarmulkes, Stars of David, and other overt evidence of their religion and heritage on campus and in Cambridge to avoid being exposed to discrimination, bullying or worse.
As for me,
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
Yasher Koach, Bill Ackman. Thank you saying what needed to be said.
The letter was a good read.
This kind of behavior is truly disgusting, but that is what the cancel culture has taught students. Now it is Jews who Harvard students want to cancel wholesale.
You figure the "cancel culture" issue involving Ackman's and Bernstein's rants against expression is that Harvard students want to cancel Jews?
The superstition and partisanship have corroded your synapses.
It sure seems that way RAK. Tell us why you like being hounded off campus just because you are what you are.
Did you read Mr. Ackman's letter? Did you miss his strenuous calls for censorship, punishment for speech, removals from campus, etc.?
Losing the culture war has made many conservatives disaffected, resentful, and reflexive.
RAK, in what fantasy world of yours is physical attack, assault, bullying, spitting on others speech?
compare:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bret_Weinstein#Evergreen_State_College_Day_of_Absence
(Arthur probably liked that one too.)
Don, it's not just cancel culture.
See: https://www.thefp.com/p/tik-tok-young-americans-hamas-mike-gallag
It was indeed a good read.
Ew I made the mistake of reading the letter. Other than the takedown of Harvard's DEI bureaucracy which was great, it's just a bunch of whiny whataboutism more poorly argued than even a below-average VC rant.
Which I suppose is to be expected. You know, every time David or someone says "legitimate criticisms of Israel's policies are ok but..." it rings hollow because Jewish advocacy outfits like the ADL have an explicit strategy of mixing up Middle East politics with antisemitism. They tar any expression of Palistinian solidarity or criticism of Israel as antisemitic and encourage Jews to be pro-Israel. They go around attempting to discredit Palestinian, Muslim, and Arab student groups and celebrate when they succeed in goading a university to say something negative about one.
There's nothing wrong with that, of course. Just don't fall for the con.
So you are ok with physically assaulting Jewish students, spitting on them, painting Stars of David on their dorm room doors. All of which has happened at American universities in the last few weeks. Good to know your position. It's all a plot by the ADL (which takes its instructions from the Elders of Zion, don't you know.)
That part was covered in David’s OP’s excerpt and I already addressed elsewhere. Of course assaults and defacement shouldn’t be tolerated.
"Of course assaults and defacement shouldn’t be tolerated."
So you support suspending or expelling those involved and possibly criminal prosecution?
Sure.
Any bets as to if it will happen?
Of course he is. Just what we have come to expect from a demented troll
I'm sure it's psychologically comforting to call anyone who disagrees with you a demented troll.
Not very intellectually honest though.
You can gauge your reaction by substituting "black students" instead of "jewish students" in Ackman's letter and guess what Harvard's reaction would have been.
Ackman's letter already does that -- it's chock full of whataboutism. But no, I find censorious crybabies pathetic whoever they are. I had the same reaction a couple years ago to traphousegate, for example.
"Whataboutism" is libspeak for "stop calling attention to my double standards."
Even if that were true (it's not), it would be better than what it means for conservatives, which is "I don't have any principles because I don't care what you think."
FIRE, Prof. Bernstein, and the Volokh Conspiracy are -- as is customary -- eager to provide part of the story.
Antisemitic statements permissible on campus? The Volokh Conspiracy, which incessantly defends the rights of right-wing bigots, seems a strange advocate for Mr. Ackman's perspective.
.
Until one considers the lack of self-awareness.
Antisemitism is disgusting, but so is the Volokh Conspiracy's selective, predictable, partisan outrage concerning bigotry.
Carry on, clingers.
It's too bad you aren't articulate. No one actually understands your message. I don't think even you do.
Still no word on your Commutation? pretend you're with Ham-Ass and maybe S-S-S-S-S-S-t-t-t-t-t- uttering J-J-J-J-ohn F-F-F-F-etterman will take another look at your "Package"
Hmm, OTOH, might give him a second stroke, there's only a thread of some Glial cells holding his Neurons together as it is.
And for the gazillionth time, it's "Klinger" as in the German Artist, and MASH Character, get it right!
Frank
Kirkland, I'm going to put this bluntly enough for even you to understand: There is an inherent difference between saying "Niggers Suck" and saying "Kill all Niggers."
The first is vile speech, Constitutionally protected but rightly condemned by all decent persons.
The second is a crime -- called different things depending on which state's laws apply and how they are written -- and while it would be criminal threatening in the context I intended it, possibly not in all so replace "all" with "that" if desired.
If you can't understand the difference between the two, there is no hope for you.
There is always hope for everyone. Even Lucifer. Even Rev. Sandusky.
Ugh, once again you're totally wrong, lucky for you, since otherwise your post would be criminal.
Also ugh, your ulterior motive of finding a reason to rattle off your favorite racial slur in public multiple times is again apparent here.
Also ugh getting back to Rev's point that the VC is totally fine with and cultivates your behavior but gets all upset and ornery about students they merely (and wrongly) perceive to be implying something similar about Jews.
This blog embraces right-wing bigotry and bigots while ranting hysterically about perceived offenses by liberals, libertarians, and moderates.
No wonder movement conservatives are disrespected by the modern mainstream of legal academia.
To some degree that is correct -- but Prof. Eugene Volokh and the Volokh Conspirators are pleased by whatever you say so long as you use a vile racial slur (or otherwise express right-wing bigotry).
The Volokh Conspiracy has published a vile racial slur at least 39 times during 2023 (so far). That's 39 discussions featuring racial slurs, not 39 racial slurs -- many of the relevant exchanges included multiple racial slurs.
(Most of what Ackman is whining about involves opinions he does not like but which fall far short of constituting crimes or unlawful threats. Bernstein amplifies Ackman complaints because he shares Ackman's perspective and Ackman's partisan lack of respect for freedom of expression.)
Not so sure about that, Arthur. Could be creating a hostile environment to make it impossible for Jewish scholars to learn. Title VI violations? Are there contracts involved vis a vis Harvard that were impaired?
Who knows…but what if the Feds decide to investigate? ????
The compliance cost alone to Harvard (and others) for documents, emails and relevant materials would be additional cosmic form of poetic justice.
I am sure about the Volokh Conspiracy's -- operators' and fans' -- fondness for vile racial slurs. The record is vivid.
As did your comments in this thread:
and...
"Antisemitism is disgusting, but..."
Spoken like a true leftist.
I agree, but...
(yeah)
Readers with more intellectual curiosity and/or honesty than David might track down the actual FIRE rankings and read the methodology they employ. They combine objective data drawn from student surveys with several subjective factors that disproportionately penalize universities for actions that the FIRE editors deem to be insufficiently supportive of free speech rights on campus. It's also not that remarkable that a university's ranking might decline over time, because that is built into the methodology itself.
It's also worth noting that, while David didn't go to Harvard (ranked dead last at #248 by FIRE), he did go to Yale (ranked #234 by FIRE). Perhaps that's where he got his habit for trying to shout down and silence people with whom he disagreed.
Maybe Bernstein didn't read Ackman's call for people who expressed antisemitic views to be disciplined, or Ackman's demands for a list of names, or Ackman's assertion that antisemitic expression should be impermissible on campus, or Ackman's contention that Jewish students should not be forced to sit next to people who have expressed antisemitic views, etc.
Or maybe Bernstein has forgotten that he voluntarily and regularly associates with a blog that cultivates an audience of racists, gay-bashers, Islamophobes, misogynists, immigrant-haters, and other right-wing bigots;
that his blog regularly publishes vile racial slurs, graphic and disgusting calls for violence against liberals, and nearly incessant bigoted content;
that his blog has been an ardent defender of the rights of bigots to express their bigotry or act on it;
and that his ideological allies are superstitious gay-bashers, race-targeting vote suppressors, old-timey misogynists, Christian nationalists, obsolete xenophobes, white supremacists, un-American insurrectionists, ardent censors and boycotters, half-educated Islamophobes, and other examples of deplorable culture war roadkill.
Readers not as Simple as Simon might want to reflect on the fact that the head of FIRE is a practicing Buddhist, and that they support free speech of all stripes -- including some that probably ought not be protected.
FIRE is just another separatist right-wing organization aniimated by partisanship rather than principle.
FIRE pulls its punches with respect to conservative-controlled campuses, for example, to flatter the right-wing donors on whom it relies for cash.
What does that have to do with anything I've said?
I don’t know about the rankings, but FIRE’s take on free speech seems pretty right to me.
For instance, they’re anti-Ackman:
I agree that FIRE is more likely to come out on the right side of "free speech" rights than hedge fund billionaires are likely to.
I got into Harvard but turned them down and went elsewhere. No fooling. It wasn't for a very good reason - many people I know in high school went to Harvard, and I kind of wanted to get away from them, but the fact remains. They punished me when I applied to grad school, though - they were the only ones who turned me down.
I got into Harvard Law and didn't go. Harvard is a great degree, obviously, but going to a T14 state school for free is a better value. That my alma matter is lower profile is a blessing in disguise, I'm sure the student groups are idiots too but the media doesn't care about the non-Ivy's so it isn't really covered. And we even have a real football team.
In this thread: bragging about credentials we never earned.
Nobody's bragging, a law degree isn't much of an accomplishment regardless of who sold it to you. I do sometimes brag that I started with nothing and now have millions, but the law degree was merely a means to an end.
Bragging about "millions" we haven't earned, now.
I don't know if you understand the readership of this blog, which is more educated, more affluent, and older than your average comment thread. Eight years in biglaw and then a decade in-house, being a millionaire is pretty much inevitable, it would be hard to earn that much money during a historic bull market and not end up with at least that much. I keep ping-ponging between being above and below a net worth of two million depending on what the stock market is doing and how reliable Zillow's estimate of the worth of my house is. Yeah, millions. And to tie things back, a big part of that is I had very little student loan debt to worry about because I chose the state school free ride over paying sticker at Harvard. I got to start saving intensely almost as soon as I graduated.
...and a million bucks isn't what it used to be. Work hard, buy a nice home on your way and in many areas of the country you've got your first million.
…and a million bucks isn’t what it used to be. Work hard, buy a nice home on your way and in many areas of the country you’ve got your first million.
Yeah, six figure job and millionaire are terms that have retained their cachet even though they don't mean nearly as much as they used to.
SimonP, you've completely misunderstood the situation, to the extent that I think you're projecting your own issues on others. It's funny that you spun your own fantasy about my motivations when accusing others of fantastical and conspiratal thinking. I don't know what difference it makes, but the state school is Michigan which at the time was rated IIRC 6. I'm in my 40's and hovering at two million, with about 800,000 liquid. 3.5-4 million is a realistic projection by the time I'm ready to retire. This is all factual, and I consider it a good result considering I started with nothing. I don't flaunt this, and I believe this is the only time I've ever mentioned it in the comments. It's just naturally relevant when discussing the choice of where to go to school. You may want to consult a therapist about whatever issues you have, because you've clearly built this bizarre narrative and it makes me wonder what other disordered thinking you have. Best of luck on getting better.
SimonP, you’ve completely misunderstood the situation, to the extent that I think you’re projecting your own issues on others. It’s funny that you spun your own fantasy about my motivations when accusing others of fantastical and conspiratal thinking.
Projection? All I came to this thread to do was to mock you for humblebragging over being admitted to Harvard Law. Your response was to shift to humblebragging over having acquired “millions.” When I claimed you probably fabricated that assertion, you followed up with more details to try to bolster it – only revealing the ways in which the initial assertion was equivocal. Then I mocked that response, and you’re just providing more details presented in a way to exaggerate their significance.
(And you’re saying you don’t “flaunt” it, though upthread you admitted to “bragging” about reaching your current position from a position of “nothing.”)
If I’m guilty of “projecting” anything, it’s really just the trend line that I’ve established over years of interacting with a declining quality of VC commenters. We’re still well within a single standard of deviation here.
(And Michigan hasn’t been T6 since 1992. It was supplanted by NYU in 1993 and hasn’t been above #7 since.)
I don’t know if you understand the readership of this blog,...
Well, I don't know much about the readership of the blog, and I'll wager you don't either. Rather, I have over time gathered a few things about its commenters, who primarily seem to consist of white, later-to-middle aged, and generally aggrieved men prone to conspiracy and fantasy and not at all above lying to other commenters about their "successes" in life.
And your comment fits the pattern. "Millions" apparently only ever meant "more than one, on a good day anyway" and probably includes the value of investments locked away in a retirement account and home equity; the state school that granted you a full ride remains unnamed; and you continue to humblebrag about being admitted to Harvard. You apparently have some deep-seated insecurity over your choice to attend the state school; the fact that you received a full ride to attend and graduated debt-free can't, for whatever reason, be sufficient in itself.
The people who have the time to comment here have, evidently, over their six+ decades, accumulated some manner of wealth. I won't deny it. I just wonder why any one of them would "brag" about having saved for retirement and bought a home, or drop having done so casually in a comment-chain as some kind of remarkable accomplishment.
I don't try to lord my own accomplishments here, personally, because I know that I am unwilling to "prove" any of my assertions to the satisfaction of any commenters here. It's all immaterial to anything I'd want to say, anyway. That said, I recognize the temptation to do so. Which is why I'm mocking you for giving in to it.
I accidently replied to your comment in the comment above and rather than copy/paste, will direct you there should you care to read it.
I hate to say this, but a lot of people did very well in the 1920s, and then weren't doing so well later....
I hate to say this, but a lot of people did very well in the 1920s, and then weren’t doing so well later….
Those were mostly people who were engaging in short-term profit-making based on excessively risky speculation. Those who were more conservative and invested for the long-term fared much better.
"45"'s Moose-lum "Ban" doesn't seem so bad now, does it? (Only thing bad about it was not going far enough) With 4 million Moose-lums currently in Amurica if only 1/1,000 is a terrorist, that's 4,000 Moe-hammads just waiting to earn their 70 virgin boys. Don't worry about the Ham-ass Sympathizers, it's just the current fad, I'm sure that Pat Dai a-hole is enjoying his jail time.
Frank "Let's take the "i'" out of "Shi'ite"
You are the supporter and defender David Bernstein defends, Frank Drackman.
And a reason he is destined to be just another (unusually loud but equally inconsequential) culture war casualty in modern, improving America.
Teacher says every time Jerry says "Frank Drackman" a Ham-Ass Terrorist gets his wings!
...and 72 virgins.
72 Virginians...
Who's kidding whom here? If it were some other disfavored group (say MAGA or anti-abortionists), Ackman would be silent and the Harvard Jewish students at the forefront of the cancellation. Would Harvard administration be as progressive today without the tacit approval of big donors and famous alumni like Ackman and his peers?
Like with most people, it needs to hit home before they are moved to speak out.
The Gaza war will be over, and the Harvard Jewish students will be back cancelling the MAGA, anti-abortionists, etc.
"Stand with anybody that stands right, stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong." - Abraham Lincoln
In this case, first they stood to the left of free speech, then they stood to the right. I prefer someone who stands with free speech the whole time.
Big leftist, that Bill Ackman.
Ackman probably exists in more than 1 dimension.
Good thing you seem to know them all.
Is that your defense of the hooligans?
Rather the opposite, if you could be bothered to read.
Harvard is a creepy place. But nothing in the letter other than the physical assault (which should of course be prosecuted) struck me as over the line.
Speaking of FIRE, here's Alex Morey talking about how Harvard should absolutely not do what Ackman is suggesting and take Israel's side against Harvard's own pro-Palestinian students.
https://www.vox.com/2023/11/5/23944007/free-speech-israel-palestine-college-universities-campus-protests
It's good to hear reaction to hate groups harboring the intent to inflict violence on innocents. Why, just this morning, the Times of Israel reports that the Israeli Defense Force has disavowed the remarks of a office in its ranks who stated “Another thing we are making clear these days, something more important than anything else: this land is ours. All of it. Including Gaza. Including Lebanon. The entire Promised Land. We’re going to come back big time.”
https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-disavows-comments-by-military-rabbi-calling-for-conquering-gaza-and-lebanon
The comments by the IDF officer, himself a Rabbi, come after a member of the Israeli legislature called for the nuclear annihilation of all the region's non-Jewish inhabitants. The legislator has been denounced (and, at this point, suspended) by the Israeli Prime Minister -- but not by others in the legislature.
Israeli Jews just trying to defend themselves?! Hogwash!! It is not anti-Semitic to rightly denounce Jews who engage in or advocate genocide.
Your comment failed to mention the 1400 killed by Hamas's initial attack and the 200+ they took hostage, or to denounce Hamas's actions. Therefore, your comment is antisemitic.
This episode has been obscene from start (Hamas' unjustified, despicable slaughter) to wherever it stands now (Israeli bombing of refugee camps, bombing of locations to which civilians were directed, etc.).
The finish is nowhere in sight . . . but is unlikely to be favorable to anyone. Those who believe they are going to "win" are delusional, perhaps because of blinding grief, perhaps because of silly superstition, or perhaps because of bigotry.
It's people like you, for example, who pretend there are serious players in this conflict who think they're going to "win," who are delusional. Try to catch up to what real people are actually thinking and feeling.
Why such a cipher? Well whaddya think people are actually thinking and feeling? A delusional fear of losing?
Key difference: both statements were immediately disavowed by the Israeli government.
Find me an example of a Palestinian spokesman or protester disavowing "From the river to the sea," and I will grant your moral equivalence. Might be difficult though: it was the lead-off chant at this weekend's march on Washington.
Until then, all you've done is confirmed that one side has a few crazies and the other side is all crazies.
Will any of the people who finally noticed this stuff still remember it in 3 years? Or will they keep going through life being surprised every time the same bad people in the same environment that rewards bad behavior turn out to do the same bad things?
You had since the early 1990s to see it. Now it’s too late to solve it without drastic changes that you’re probably too timid to accomplish.
BTW: Obama called for an end to "the occupation". In exchange Israel gets campaign promises or something.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-calls-end-occupation-security-israel-state-palestinians.amp
It seems that, with his calls for censoring anti-Semitic speech, Ackman is against academic freedom as traditionally understood.
But then, Harvard and many other universities are against academic freedom as traditionally understood. Academic freedom is in fact the minority position, advocated by FIRE and similar holdouts – (I’ll grant that academic freedom may turn out to be enforceable at state schools, with much effort in the courts, but Harvard won’t reap the benefit).
Right now, the difference between Ackman and Harvard (and many other universities) consists in the groups on whose behalf they want censorship exercised. I therefore question Harvard’s standing to preach free speech for its anti-Jewish students.
More broadly, anti-Semitism (whether it’s covered by academic freedom or not) has certainly reared its head in many places, Harvard included. I note with interest this paragraph in Ackman’s letter:
“History has taught us that when the sparks and initial flames of antisemitism emerge, we must promptly put out the flames before a conflagration begins. It is therefore critically important you act with alacrity in addressing these issues. I encourage you to act boldly and promptly to eliminate this scourge at Harvard.”
OK, basically I agree, but I would prefer to say that when the sparks and initial flames of *racism* first emerged, *then* would have been the time to call in the firefighters. Antiwhite (and to an extent anti-Asian) racism has been burning for some time with an inadequate number firemen trying to put it out. Just saying, “promise you won’t be antisemitic any more and you can continue to bash other racial groups” is not only morally wrong, it is folly. The ideology won’t spare Jews, who are considered white and Western, and who are opposed to the Palestinian activists.
The Volokh Conspiracy: Official "Legal" Blog of White Grievance
Will you promise to stop referring to people as “human residue”? That’s an example of the kind of “grievance” I have.
And of course, in the mindset of people like you, Asians are basically tainted with whiteness. What about Jews?
Some people are a depleted residue. Bright flight -- especially after generations on the wrong side of it -- has consequences.
You persist in using this bigoted term. Don't turn around too suddenly, or the plank in your eye might hit someone.
Somewhere Over the Discourse
Cracker, don’t be a snowflake,
You are fine.
There’s a way to be righteous by
Trying not to whine.
Cracker, don’t be a snowflake,
You’re ok.
Culture wars can’t be won or lost,
They just cause dismay.
No one is coming to replace
You, take your money or erase
Your culture.
The country's big, there’s lots of room.
Blacks and chicks and gays won’t doom
Your family’s future.
Cracker, don’t be a snowflake,
Just be cool.
Be cool, don’t be a snowflake,
That is the golden rule.
If crackers chill out and be cool,
With no more snowflakes,
‘Mer-i-ca would rule!
Don't quit yor day job.
But you haven't even heard me sing it yet!
The antisemitism we’re seeing is the logical consequence of preaching race-hatred against other groups.
Are the Jews snowflakes, and if so, what derogatory name would you use to describe them?
Are Asians snowflakes, and do you have any creative insults to lob at them?
I don’t accept the attitude that if I complain about racism against whites, Asians and Jews, it’s because I’m a snowflake who should just put up with it. You case can't be very good, since you bolstered your "argument" with a straw-man parody of what I said.
Who on earth knows what the racists will do in carrying out their principles to their logical conclusion? We’ve seen what they’ve done with Jews. Will they give gentler treatment to whites and asians? I don’t know and neither do you.
But I know that without double standards, you’d have no standards at all. If blacks got racially insulted, you wouldn’t be calling them snowflakes or assuring them that whites wouldn’t replace them. That’s because you think some forms of racism should be tolerated, and some should not.
What happened to the American spirit which objected even to a small stamp tax – not burdensome at all! Sure, it was taxation without representation, but why raise a fuss, it’s not as if George III would do anything worse just because he was able to get away with it this one time!
Oh, there are certainly snowflakes in other identity-based enclaves. But white grievance is the speciality of this blog.
Sure would, and do. There's a safe space in my ass for anyone, Black or white, Muslim or Jew, queer or breeder, who makes everything about themselves and their persecution complexes.
If you want to remove any legitimate cause of "white grievance," stop discriminating against them, and stop demonizing them with denunciations of "whiteness."
"Gosh, what are you complaining about? It's not a big deal." If it's not a big deal, stop racist insults and bullying against whites (and Asians, who are whites by proxy, I guess). But if you yourself think it's important to do these things, then it is a big deal.
You and the Volokh Conspirators will continue to be rejected and discredited by the modern American mainstream, but you will have each other -- until replacement.
That’s not how it works. Black people looking out for themselves aren’t anti-white. Palestinians looking out for themselves aren’t antisemitic. White people taking advantage of some residual structural advantages aren’t racist.
If someone disagrees with you, it’s probably because they actually disagree with you, not because of your race or your identity. Your instant leap to label people who disagree with you as anti-white and antisemitic is what makes you a snowflake. And it's basically just a dodge anyway, to avoid any substantive engagement on the issues.
Some people are going to not like you because of your beliefs, and that’s legitimate. Get over it.
Don't gaslight me while pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining. This is about racism, not disagreement:
"Critics are blasting a Berkeley professor after a video of him lecturing about the abolishment of “whiteness” and “white people” resurfaced this week.
"“To abolish whiteness is to abolish white people,” Professor Zeus Leonardo, an associate dean at Berkeley’s Graduate School of Education, can be heard saying in the video. “That's very uncomfortable perhaps, but it asks about our definitions of what race is and what racial justice might mean.”"
https://katv.com/news/nation-world/stigmatized-not-subsidized-educator-slammed-for-suggesting-abolishment-of-white-people-berkely-zeus-leonardo-professor-christopher-rufo-critical-race-theory
Does anyone know the screen name Mark McNamara uses when commenting at the Volokh Conspiracy?
"One would have better luck taking wetness away from water – at least you can freeze it – than to rip the racism out of whiteness....
"But what set Ignatiev apart from his colleagues was his belief – no doubt drawn from his years as an activist rather than just an academic – that the construct of whiteness not only should, but could be done away with.
"It was not the kind of neoliberal “post-racial” society imagined at the start of the Obama era that he sought, but the emergence of a truly progressive set of identities that would enable the alliances necessary to fight against the larger capitalist system that required whiteness as its cornerstone ideology.
"These arguments are laid out by [Noel] Ignatiev and other like-minded scholars in the journal Race Traitor, established in 1993 “to run the film backwards, to explore how people who had been brought up as white might become unwhite”.
"With a masthead that declared “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity”, and whose first words in its first issue urged readers to “Abolish the white race – by any means necessary”, it was obvious what the political and scholarly aim of Race Traitor would be."
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/11/17/abolishing-whiteness-has-never-been-more-urgent/
Oh you've got to be kidding. You've just exposed yourself as a retarded snowflake.
Ignatiev agrees with your essential premise. He's not suggesting we kill all the white people, you absolute dolt. He's saying we need to do away with the concept of "whiteness," which is the same thing you're saying, in order to have a less race-conscious society, again, exactly what you're advocating for.
What a maroon. Get yourself together, your need for grievance is so overwhelming you can't even tell when someone is agreeing with you!
"He’s not suggesting we kill all the white people, you absolute dolt."
Once again, you have to construct a straw man to bolster your position. What does that say about the strength of your position?
That’s not a warm summer shower I’m feeling on my leg, and don’t try to pretend otherwise.
I happen to have read Ignatiev’s key work about the Irish becoming white. I think I know a thing or two about how his mind works. Which of his works have *you* read?
You knuckle-dragging baboon, if he wanted to get rid of race consciousness, he would be calling for the abolition of blackness, of asianness, and of pacific islanderness, as well as whiteness.
If you want “a less race-conscious society,” you don’t call for the abolition of a specific race above others.
Again, let me shove your face in this: “It was not the kind of neoliberal “post-racial” society imagined at the start of the Obama era that he sought, but the emergence of a truly progressive set of identities that would enable the alliances necessary to fight against the larger capitalist system that required whiteness as its cornerstone ideology.”
You’d be able to recognize a racist if he said that blackness was the cornerstone of crime, or that Jewishness was the cornerstone of an oppressive financial system. Yet you can’t seem to recognize certain forms of racism when they’re in front of your very nose.
Drooling imbecile.
Yeah no doi. Because that Obama vision is essentially "let's make everyone white." Like the Irish.
Ignatiev is saying, maybe we should coverage on something other than "whiteness for everybody." It does seem a little white-supremacish to say, "you can be white, and you can be white, and you too can be white... we're all white!"
I happen to think Ignatiev is wrong, but he's not racist or anti-white-people.
You and he are both on the same mission of erasing racial boundaries. The difference is you want to use whiteness as the baseline and he doesn't. Between the two of you, his way seems like the more purely race-neutral one.
"you want to use whiteness as the baseline"
If you'll pardon the mixed metaphor, you keep going back to the well to draw out a straw man. Again, the fact that you *repeatedly* come up with straw men indicates that you're not able to defend your own position on the merits, but have to argue against imaginary positions instead.
Ignatiev wants to abolish whiteness but not blackness, asianness, or pacific-island-ness. That's because he's a racist who demonizes whites.
I don't want any group to oppress or put down another, but that doesn't mean that all differences are invalid. Different races are identical in rights, in intelligence, and in potential, but they're different in tastes, cultural history, etc. When the different cultures in American aren't fighting each other, they're contributing fruitfully to our multiracial republic. To give one seemingly small, but actually significant, example, we can think about the growth of American music, and how that music would be a totally different entity if it was developed simply by one group.
You can't seriously look at American music and say it has a white baseline. Once again, you don't seem to know what you're talking about.
I'm glad you're more on my side than Ignatiev's. But that's not really the point.
No it's not. This is a perfect example of you being a grievance-mongering snowflake. You're doing exactly what I warned against: dismissing people you disagree with as racist and evil as a way to avoid engaging with their ideas and to justify cancelling them.
Friends don't let friends be snowflakes.
Calling a racist a racist isn’t being a snowflake. Saying whiteness, but not asian-ness, should be abolished, is racist. That is, it is racial prejudice or discrimination, the definition even Merriam-Webster used before going woke.
To defend your position, you find it necessary to engage in straw-manning, to deny obvious facts, and of course to mind-read about why I’m mentioning facts which are embarrassing to your cause.
These are all little hints that your position is wrong.
He probably does want to abolish "Asianness" for the same reasons as David Bernstein: it's artificially generic.
"Whiteness" is the most generic of all. He just doesn't think everyone should aspire to one master race, which is what happens with "whiteness." So no, he's not racist against white people, he just wants them to identify as Irish (or whatever).
Anyway, believe that or don't, I don't care. You're the one who's engaging in mind-reading, of Ignatiev. You haven't quoted or linked a single racist utterance. You're just assuming it's the explanation for an idea you don't like.
That's all the evidence I need to conclude that you're a snowflake. That's the definition. There's no mind-reading or strawmen involved. It's a simple logical progression.
'The antisemitism we’re seeing is the logical consequence of preaching race-hatred against other groups.'
Anti-semitism is the only real bigotry recognised by the right, apart from the eternal ongoing bigotry against white people, and only in the context of not supporting the current Israeli far right government and its bombing campaign killing thousands of civilians. Other people experienceing bigotry is the cause of this specfic bigotry, by the way. Aslo, them Gazan children are steeped in genocide.
"Ackman is against academic freedom as traditionally understood."
Physical intimidation, threats, being spat on, physical assaults are NOT academic freedom, not ever.
Such behavior is gross hooliganism and to the extent that the University allows it on campus, the University may be complicit in violation of civil rights law.
Yes, and if that were all or even mainly what he was complaining about, you might have a somewhat reasonable rebuttal going on here.
Read Ackman's letter, dumbass.
It depends on the character of the antisemitic speech.
A hostile environment environment based on religion is just as forbidden as creating a hostile environment based on sex or race.
Harassing someone because of a yarmulke I'd just as problematic as harassing a Muslim women for wearing a hijab, or a Sikh for wearing a turban.
And I think we know how fast someone would be expelled at Harvard for engaging in "islamaphobic" harassment of Muslim students.
There isn't any difference.
Speaking of antisemitic tropes, I would advise organizations sympathetic to Israel against implementing a litmus test for new hires based on their views of Israel v Palestine. It’s a little too on the nose.
Certainly, someone who believes the Israelis aren’t doing right by the Palestinian and should work out a situation where the two communities can live as equals – most likely with two viable states alongside each other – then that shouldn’t be an obstacle to employment.
But if local laws allow it, I would say go ahead and discriminate against the river-to-the-sea people, since those folks have gone into antisemitic territory by saying that the Jewish state, as opposed the Serbian state or any of the Arab states, should be destroyed as a state, which raises the strong suspicion that they are against the Jewish state because it’s Jewish.
Or maybe because it's white.
Are you suggesting that being in favor of the two-state solution is the only legitimate opinion someone can have? That still seems like an inadvisable litmus test to me.
Do you not see any other reasons why someone might choose Israel as the deadlock victim other than its Jewish nature or racial make-up?
I hypothesized “someone who believes the Israelis aren’t doing right by the Palestinian[s].”
That’s different from wanting to destroy a country because it’s ruled by the “wrong” race – Jewish or white, in this case.
However, I am aware of the states Prof. Volokh listed with their laws against political discrimination in employment, so in the case of a corporation with branches in lots of states (the kind of corporation which might be interested in Harvard graduates), they might want to go easy on the political blacklists.
Couldn't someone who believes that Israel isn't doing right by the Palestinians and that there's no hope for a two-state solution conclude, without reference to race or creed, that Israel's just gotta go?
I don't endorse that position myself, but it seems at least rational if naive.
"... that Israel’s just gotta go?"
Go where?
Oklahoma?
I'm sure such a person could theoretically exist, but the chants don't seem all that nuanced on the subject.
Oh please. You haven't heard any chants, you're just manufacturing a grievance based on what your cohorts in the right-wing blogosphere are sensationalizing.
Why don't you reach out to an "eliminationist" or two and see what their motivations actually are?
The right-wing blogosphere - you mean NBC news?
"The Gaza crisis is stoking antisemitism in the U.S."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gaza-crisis-antisemitism-us-hamas-israel-palestine-rcna123163
Someone who celebrated the 10/7 attacks isn't just "anti-Zionist"; they're evil. Why would anyone want them for an employee?!
Killing civilians is (sometimes) evil.
Ackman is trying to have it both ways. You can't slam Harvard for punishing antagonistic speech toward certain minorities, which it has, then demand that it also punish antagonistic speech toward Jews.
Contrariwise, Harvard can't violate free speech and then proclaim its devotion to free speech.
Seems that you missed the parts about verbal and physical assaults.
I don't know what makes you think that.
I will not speak for Mr. Ackman. I would say: If you're going to "punish antagonistic speech toward certain minorities," it is unseemly to blatantly refuse to do anything about much more "antagonistic" speech (and even some acts!) against certain other minorities.
(Of course, Harvard being a private entity, I'd let them do as they like -- I don't think the government ought to be involved, as long as no criminal laws are being broken.)
Well, the government IS involved; to the tune of billions of dollars in grants and contracts.