The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
MIT President's Statement on the Anti-Israel Students' Encampment
Here's the transcript; on balance, the message seems to me to be correct (though I would be inclined to say that such encampments, if they violate content-neutral rules—as they usually do—should be removed more promptly):
Hello, everyone.
As you surely know, campus communities across the country are struggling to cope with strongly contending views on the war in the Middle East – and MIT is too.
So I want to let you know what I see here, and what I believe is at a stake.
Last Sunday night, 30 or so students set up around 15 tents on the Kresge lawn. They also put up signs – some deeply critical of Israel, some expressing their support for the Palestinian people and their demands that MIT cut research ties with Israel. They have repeatedly stated their commitment to these views.
From the start, this encampment has been a clear violation of our procedures for registering and reserving space for campus demonstrations – rules that are independent of content – rules that help make sure that everyone can have freedom of speech.
Over the course of the week, several more tents have been added. The students have sometimes been noisy – but the situation has so far been peaceful. For instance, after the first day, the demonstrators agreed not make noise after 7:30 pm, as students across campus are focused on end-of-semester assignments.
That said, there have been rallies that include bullhorns and loud chanting. Some of these chants are heard by members of our community as calling for the elimination of the state of Israel. More pointed chants have been added that I find quite disturbing.
I believe these chants are protected speech, under our principles of free expression. But as I've said many times, there's a distinction between what we can say – what we have a right to say – and what we should say as members of one community.
But this is what makes this situation different from past protest movements, and uniquely difficult: the fact of two opposing groups on campus, both grieving, – and both painfully at odds with each another. These opposing allegiances extend to faculty and staff as well.
As you'd expect, to avoid any further escalation, we're working closely and constantly with our Student Life team, the faculty members who are advising the students, and our own campus police. Out of an abundance of caution, at my direction, the MITPD is on the scene 24 hours a day.
The situation is not static, of course, but that's the current picture.
I and other senior leaders have also spent hours in intense meetings with people across a broad range of views. We've received scores of messages from students, alumni, parents, faculty, and staff.We are being pressed to take sides – and we're being accused of taking sides. We've been told that the encampment must be torn down immediately, and that it must be allowed to stay; that discipline is not the answer, and that it is the only answer.
I can only describe the range of views as irreconcilable.
Under the circumstances, what I must continue to do, here on our campus, is to take every step in my power to protect the physical safety of our community – and to strive to make sure everyone at MIT feels free to do the work they came here for.
In support of that goal, I want to be clear about certain aspects of how we operate at MIT, and about guardrails that will allow us to live together.
- First: I appreciate very much that the situation has so far been peaceful. But this has not been the case at several schools across the country where different groups have clashed.
To be clear to everyone concerned: violence and threats of violence on our campus are utterly unacceptable. Anyone who breaks that trust should expect serious consequences.- Second: Rules have already been broken. Those who break our rules – including rules around the time, place and manner of protest – will face disciplinary action.
- Third: I am not going to compromise the academic freedom of our faculty, in any field of study. Our faculty represent a wide range of viewpoints that are appropriately expressed in a university dedicated to broadening our students' minds. And faculty routinely work with colleagues around the world, including in Israel – and all sponsored research on our campus is openly shared, publishable, and freely available to investigators everywhere.
MIT relies on rigorous processes to ensure that all funded research complies with MIT policies and with US law. Within those standards, MIT faculty have the fundamental academic freedom to pursue funding for research of interest in their fields.
In an open academic community, it is certainly acceptable to ask questions about someone's research and funding sources. But that should never rise to the level of intimidation or harassment.
- Fourth and finally, I want to speak directly about the encampment.
We have heard the views of our protesting students. The grief and pain over the terrible loss of life and suffering in Gaza are palpable.
Out of respect for the principles of free expression, we have not interfered with the encampment.
But it is creating a potential magnet for disruptive outside protestors.
It is commandeering space that was properly reserved by other members of our community.
And keeping the encampment safe and secure for this set of students is diverting hundreds of staff hours, around the clock, away from other essential duties.
We have a responsibility to the entire MIT community – and it is not possible to safely sustain this level of effort.
We are open to further discussion about the means of ending the encampment.
But this particular form of expression needs to end soon.
For why I think that such encampments should generally not be viewed as protected free speech, at public universities or private ones, see this post.
Disclosure: One of my sons is an MIT student, but is not involved in the Israeli-Palestinian debate, so I don't think my judgment about this is being affected by his being on campus.
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
Meh
Cambridge Community College - I expected nothing from them, and consistently receive it
Internet rando picking a fight with MIT, I don’t think the one that ends up coming off badly is MIT.
I think MIT has plenty of issues, but they are not a do-nothing campus.
And is you don't like the statement talk about the statement.
You calling anyone an internet rando is rich.
Oh I'm a rando as well. I just don't say 'well well, MIT has never met my expectations' like I'm some grand high poohbah.
I got a graduate degree in mathematics from Caltech. MIT is nothing to me
Caltech. Nice!
Scrappy rivalry is fun and all.
Thinking it has any relation to reality is dumb, though.
MIT graduated my former advisor.
As far as I'm concerned they're war criminals.
I will. The student morons ignorantly siding with the Hamas animals should be not appeased. They should be thrown off any campus they pitch their little Soros sponsored pup tents.
“Anyone here five minutes from now won’t be here tomorrow.”
MIT’s Dean, Kenneth Wadleigh, speaking to a group of activists occupying an office in 1968
We sure have gone down hill since then.
And his approach WORKED....
We need more people like him.
'Soros sponsored pup tents'
Anti-semitic conspiracy theories in support of defending Israel!
Soros sponsored pup tents.
Why not just change your handle to "antisemitic jackass?"
Soros is a Nazi supporting Nazis-Hamas. Fuck Soros, and fuck you and your bullshit Nazi propaganda.
Worst for Jews in country.
https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-796539
Snowplows....
“Snowplows”
Tom Cotton— is that you?
Someone should dredge the clingerverse for conservatives' opinions when virus-flouting hayseeds and superstitious scolds were flouting public comment and other established rules and policies at school board and local government meetings to rant about horse paste, bleach injections, books that mention anything gay or sacrilegious, public health measures, vaccinations, etc.
Buy a new thesaurus, Rev.
NPCs aren't capable of generating independent comments.
The time to get rid of the encampments was the moment they were discovered.
They’re removing the encampments, ffs.
You’re just committed to staying mad, eh?
Are you sure your standards are not viewpoint-based? As for me, the resource argument is what hits home. You don’t use a hammer on students; zero tolerance has a history of being counterproductive in all sorts of contexts, be especially in schools.
Especially if you consider yourself libertarian.
Narrator: They’re often not removing the encampments, sometimes due to political interference with law enforcement.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/04/26/dc-police-george-washington-university-protests/
We can see who here would have been a fan of the Red Guard and struggle sessions.
Should have told them the protestors were Trump supporters. Then they would have gone in with guns blazing. And for extra measure hunt them down one by one across the country long after the protests ended for their megaultra insurrection. It only took a day for them to start busting trumpist skulls so whats their excuse for how long have these encampments been stinking up the place?
"It only took a day for them to start busting trumpist skulls"
What are you referencing?
Amos is sure the people he’s arguing with are not viewpoint neutral, because January 06 (? I assume that's what you mean; your constant resentment does not made you very cogent sometimes) is just like these nonviolent encampments.
Which attempted analogy itself shows he’s got some double standard issues.
Theres tons of video out showing you're lying about the 'non violent' protests. But I guess we can give them the benefit of the doubt and assume the police started it. Unless they are trumpers.
Are you talking about MIT? I am unware of any videos.
Or did you miss what we're talking about here?
You're clearly discussing encampments and protests in a wider sense in the earlier and other posts all over this thread but now you're going to suddenly pretend discussion has been strictly limited to MIT as some sort of weak attempt at a gotcha as if that proves anything?
Is there any point in your posts other than meandering around trying to misdirect and gaslight others into random directions?
No, that isn't clear at all. You're just blinded by resentment.
"They’re removing the encampments, ffs." is a pretty specific event.
"the resource argument is what hits home" did you think that was some other argument than the one in the OP?
You indeed missed the thread. Or preferred to argue on a different arena, where the ground is a bit easier for you. Meh.
As Don Nico pointed out, MIT is not actually removing the encampment there, only saying that the encampment is prohibited and please won't you move it. The protesters apparently don't intend to comply.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/quiet-weekend-at-pro-palestinian-encampments-at-harvard-and-mit/ar-AA1nO05b
Only two encampments seem to have been removed so far, at Northeastern University and at Emerson College.
Actually, they ARE Trump supporters -- a lot of people are going to say ENOUGH!
You may be in fact overestimating how many people are willing to die on that particular flatulent orange hill
Did you read the article you cited? The policing expert in it says:
"If these are peaceful demonstrators and MPD says, ‘Look, we’ll stand by. We’re not leaving, we’re simply saying at this moment we don’t see a compelling need to come in,’ then that’s okay,” he said.
We were talking about MIT, I thought.
Sarcastr0 and abcdef said "encampments", and MIT only seems to have one, so I inferred they were both talking about some larger set of campuses.
What Kornbluth said is that the encampments will be removed eventually.
Let's be honest here. The students demand what MIT will not ever give them - cut of research ties with Israel. The students are violating multiple campus rules and disrupting the lives of others. This camp out is extortion.
Kornbluth has warned that patience is running thin. That is not using a hammer; it is just not giving in to extortion.
Correct
Nah, warning that your patience is running thin is only not giving into extortion if, at some point, you actually let it run out.
If you read my comment, you will see I agree with you.
Alphabet is lamenting there was no hammer, and I called him on it.
Bullshit. Northeastern did not give into extortion. MIT did.
Snowplows!!!!
“Snowplows”
Can someone from Sen. Cotton’s staff come retrieve him? He’s posting deranged material under the Dr. Ed handle again
You mean like this?
https://loweringthebar.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/browns_letter_1974.pdf
The 'Third Stooge' needs to go, Don Nico. Sorry, but Kornbluth has been leading from behind (e.g. noably absent) on this from the start. She is not a good fit for the job.
C_XY,
I think that leading from behind is a fair characterization.
She is correct that the encampment has been non-violent so far, but she admits that she has been duped by thinking the that students were bargaining in good faith. The key demand is non-negotiable; so now she has painted herself in a box where the encampment threatens to interfere with commencement activities.
"she has been duped by thinking"
She duped herself. Smart president!
I am not reading her mind; I am only saying the result.
Don, she said the same thing last fall...
Except, of course, that every moment the encampment remains IS giving into extortion. Just incrementally.
Every time discretion is used in enforcing a college's rules it's giving into extortion?
It is not discretion any more. The students have been clear; their demands exceed her BATNA. It is a lack of courage to do what has to be done.
You thinking she's wrong doesn't mean it's not discretion anymore.
Stop trying to be a mind-reader; you're pretty poor at it.
You had better understand more about negotiation. Protester demands exceed her BATNA. That means she has no discretion except for the excact timing and the penalties to be imposed.
You're ipse dixiting how this negotiation has to go.
So yes, it is you thinking she's wrong.
And even if the result of waiting isn't optimal that doesn't mean she loses discretion; discretion includes owning the issue. That's her ownership. not yours.
You can argue she's wrong, but you can't say she's got no discretion when she pretty clearly does.
You persist in lying. I did not say she is wrong. Not at all
Read her statement, the whole thing.
She has NO choice. She said so.
So the ipse dixit is all yours, yours entirely no matter how much you stamp your feet.
You are saying any further delay is illegitimate. A failure of negotiation and of duty.
You don’t have the machine it takes to actually say that.
Yes, if you exercise discretion in allowing 'protestors' to disrupt the campus on account of being afraid of them, that's giving into extortion. And that's what is going on here.
Not using as much force as quickly as Brett wants means you're giving into extortion.
Deescalation is not driven by fear.
I'd be more scared of what the cops would do to them. Also, it's a protest. Crushing dissent is surely the aort of state authoritrianism you woud disapprove of?
MORE SNOWPLOWS.....
The fascist has spoken.
What's the extortion? Mild inconvenience? The protest equivalent of a few snow days? Terrifying! Send in heavily armed and armoured cops to do their thing!
Hyperbole alert!
"heavily armed"
Hand guns
"armoured [sic] cops"
Vests and sometimes helmets
Hand guns, mace, clubs, shields, a few covering snipers, a complete disregard for the safety and civil liberties of the people they're being set upon, military-grade armour to protect them from harsh words, and more or less complete impunity to brutalise, detain, charge and threaten whoever the fuck they want. Thank you anti-statists, libertarians and freedom-lovers!
'This camp out is extortion.'
You people are genuinely terriified of any protest that isn't a bunch of armed Nazis outside a bookshop.
MIT President: "We are open to further discussion about the means of ending the encampment.
But this particular form of expression needs to end soon."
Sarcastr0: "They’re removing the encampments, ffs."
No, they aren't removing the encampments. They are talking about removing them.
Anyone with a duty of care to the students setting the cops on them is a disgrace.
No compromise is possible between genocide and anti-genocide.
The controversy over the Gaza Holocaust really is not a matter that should be discussed in terms of the First Amendment.
Scholars of genocide law and of genocide studies throughout the world call the Gaza Holocaust a textbook (mass murder) genocide that the State of Israel perpetrates through the instrument of the IDF.
The ICJ ruled that SA made a plausible argument that asserts the State of Israel is perpetrating genocide by means of the instrumentality of the IDF. The international definition of genocide differs only slightly from the definition of genocide in the US federal criminal code.
Binding SCOTUS precedent tells us that speech in material support of genocide is not protected by the First Amendment.
The Hillel organization and Chabad provide material support to the genocide that the State of Israel perpetrates through the instrumentality of the IDF.
When a university officially hosts either Hillel or Chabad, it probably becomes complicit in genocide and has potentially astronomical civil liability for genocide and is potentially in criminal violation of US federal anti-genocide law.
To reduce legal exposure, MIT should immediately fire all Zionist faculty and expel all Zionist students. MIT should return all contributions from known Zionists.
Looks like criticizing the Jews is all the rage now after being a horrendous unthinkable crime just a few months prior when the alt right was doing it.
When will Elon and Kayne and other assorted figures linked to the right receive their apologies for being pilloried over expressing or liking tweets with opinions identical to but expressed with 1/10th the intensity of the ones in the post above and at the student protests; from the companies that loudly disassociated themselves and the people that cheered on the cancellation for said opinions but are now proudly proclaiming it themselves?
Looks like criticizing the Jews is all the rage
Haha do you think this guy you're replying to is a big liberal?
So what? Are the student protestors raging conservatives? Are the companies that loudly proclaimed that Elon liking a tweet was a horrendous crime they needed to publicly condemn preparing to condemn the organizations doing the same thing but 100x worse now?
AmosArch appears to believe that a Zionist should have complete immunity to US federal law.
Nope, you’re still dumb as hell.
Can you think of any way that Kanye and Elon differ from random student protestors, in the eyes of America?
You appear to be defending antisemitism, if the antisemite is rich and famous.
I can think of plenty of ways they differ. For example Elon liked a Tweet. The protestors on the other hand are directly terrorizing targets in person.
None of the rhetoric Elon supported was any worse than what the protestors are spouting now.
OK, so the protesters suck too? Your attempt to find a double standard is not gonna find a lot of fruit because no one in their right mind thinks condemnation is based only on viewpoint and not the person.
The protesters are not really in nearly the position Elon is for their sucky opinions to carry much weight.
Advertisers care about the brand they are advertising on. That is their focus; no double standard.
He agreed with a tweet castigating the Jews for the Great Replacement, I doubt that's a common view in the student encampments, but as a message being broadcast to millions it was probably way more effective.
Well, Kanye and Elon are less supportive of rape and murder and get way less support from the institutional Left.
There's that.
No amnesty. Make every one of these PUBLIC PROTESTERS' names public.
No one is criticizing Jews. A Zionist cannot be a Jew because Zionism murdered Judaism by transforming Judaism into a program of genocide. A Zionist hates Judaism and Jews. A Zionist is the most vicious, disgusting, and depraved of antisemites.
So you say, but the religion of Judaism believes in a homeland for Jews. If a Jew is not a Zionist, then how is he a Jew? Maybe he is a descendant of Jews, but does not actually believe in any of it?
Competent adults do not advance or accept superstition-based arguments in reasoned debate. Nonsense-based arguments are for young children and especially gullible adolescents.
Carry on, clingers. Without the respect of better Americans.
A religious belief is not a cognizable defense to an accusation of genocide.
There is no legitimate or legal reason to commit genocide.
Every Zionist on the planet must be transferred to a detention camp to await trial, almost certain conviction, sentence, and punishment for the capital crime of genocide.
Every Zionist must be stripped of all assets. Every Zionist must die penniless and impoverished.
Neither Biblical Judaism nor Rabbinic Judaism has a concept of a homeland for the community of either form of Judaism. These two forms of Judaism are completely distinct and have little in common.
The Talmud is the primary Rabbinic Jewish scripture, just as the New Testament is the primary scripture for Christians. The Hebrew Bible is the backstory for Rabbinic Judaism just as the Old Testament is the backstory for Christianity. With modernization, in the Jewish community (particularly in Europe but also in other places that had begun to modernize), Talmud study became neglected, ability to participate in Rabbinic Jewish intellectual culture rapidly disappeared, and most Jews were left only with a misunderstanding of Biblical myths and fairy tales.
Zionism is a disease of Jewish illiteracy in Rabbinic Jewish intellectual culture.
Here is Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 39a-b.
אמר ליה ההוא מינא לרבי אבינא כתיב (שמואל ב ז, כג) מי כעמך כישראל גוי אחד בארץ מאי רבותייהו אתון נמי ערביתו בהדן דכתיב (ישעיהו מ, יז) כל הגוים כאין נגדו אמר ליה מדידכו אסהידו עלן דכתיב
A certain heretic said to Rabbi Avina: It is written: “And who is like Your host [or assembly], Israel, one nation in the earth?” (II Samuel 7:23). The heretic asked: What is your greatness? You are also mixed together with us, as it is written: “All nations before Him are as nothing; they are counted by Him less than nothing and vanity” (Isaiah 40:17). Rabbi Avina said to him: One of yours, the gentile prophet Balaam, has already testified for us, as it is written:
במדבר כג, ט) ובגוים לא יתחשב)
“It is a host that shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations” (Numbers 23:9), teaching that where the verse mentions “the nations,” the host of Israel is not included.
——————————-
“You are mixed with us” because of the massive proselytization and conversion to Judaism that took place in ancient times. Judeans were not the largest group within Judea Province, which included most of Palestine. Judeans constituted even a smaller group among the population associated with ancient (pre-Talmudic or Biblical) Judaism. While Palestine was the homeland of Judeans, it was not the homeland of the community, which was associated with ancient Judaism and which consisted of people from many ethnic groups. Thus the community of Judaism is not a national group and has no national homeland.
A traditional Talmudic scholar normally asserted that the homeland of Rabbinic Jews is not Palestine but is the Torah.
A Zionist colonial settler of the Zionist baby-killer nation is an invader, interloper, thief, impostor, and genocide-perpetrator that deserves conviction, sentence, and punishment for the capital crime of genocide. Every Zionist must be hated, scorned, and loathed by the entire human race.
Biblical Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism are completely distinct religions. If someone practiced Biblical Judaism, he would have to convert to Rabbinic Judaism in order to be considered a Jew.
No modern Jew descends from a Greco-Roman Judean!
Rabbinic Judaism (Rabbinism) is barely an Abrahamic religion. Orthodox Christianity and Islam have much greater similarities to Greco-Roman Judaism than Rabbinism has. I would prefer to use the term Rabbinite instead of Jew. It would clear up tremendous confusion.
Rabbinic Judaism is to Biblical Judaism as Mormonism is to Roman Catholicism. Mormons have no legitimate claim to St. Peter's Cathedral. Rabbinic Jews have no legitimate claim to Palestine.
Zionism depends on non-Jewish ignorance!
During the Greco-Roman period, three separate populations practiced forms of Judaism. The Hellenistic Judaism of the Occidental Roman Empire was Greek-language based and used the Septuagint or later Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible for its Holy Scripture. Only descendants of non-Judean converts practiced Greek-language Judaism. This Judaism was also practiced in Alexandria among Greek speakers. European Judaism was Hellenistic, often used a vernacular version of a Greek Bible, and was ignorant of Hebrew or Aramaic until approximately 850 CE when merchants that practiced Mesopotamian Judaism established a seminary in Venosa, Italy. The Mesopotamian merchants were willing to admit Europeans into their trade networks in the role of junior partners but only if the Europeans were willing to use Mesopotamian religious law for the sole Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
Palestinian and Phoenician Canaanite/Hebrew-language-based Judaism was practiced among Phoenician and Palestinian Canaanite/Hebrew speakers including those that lived in Alexandria, Carthage, and other Phoenician colonies in N. Africa. This version of Judaism was tied to the Jerusalem Temple cult and was mostly shattered by the destruction of the Jerusalem and Leontopolis Temples. (The Casifia/Ctesiphon Temple probably continued to function until about 300 CE.)
The maniac Bar Kochba and his lackey Tannaim (e.g., Rabbi Akiba) completely discredited Biblical and Tannaitic Judaism for the peasantry because Bar Kochba persecuted the peasantry and the Tannaim supported him. The Palestinian population, which practiced Biblical Judaism, converted entirely to Christianity and subsequently mostly to Islam, which is a slight variant of Judean (Jamesian) Christianity in which Jesus is the messiah but not divine. By the beginning of the 3rd century CE most of the Judean peasantry (90% of the population) practiced some form of Judean Christianity.
The Roman Expulsion is a metaphor for the transformation of Judaism from the religion of Judea into a religion that only descendants of non-Judean converts practice. Palestinians descend from Greco-Roman Judeans, who converted first to Christianity and then mostly to Islam.
Aramaic-language-based Judaism was practiced in Mesopotamia/Babylonia. It was initially an Aramaic-language version of Zoroastrianism but adopted the Hebrew Bible in the early Hellenistic period. This community created Rabbinic Judaism.
Judah the Prince and Nathan the Babylonian tried to introduce this version of Judaism to Palestine during the 3rd century CE in the form of the Mishnah, but their efforts were mostly scorned by the peasantry.
Scholars have begun to piece this history together in the last 70 years.
Some of this material (e.g., The Origins of Judaism) is creeping into popular literature and journals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkRZULyQnZo
Hey man. I just want to let you know: you sound like a crazy person. The first comment sounded like sovereign citizen stuff. By this part of the thread you sound like a bible code nut. No one is reading your posts and being convinced. It's not about content or position, it's about how you're expressing yourself. You just come off as a deeply crazy person. If this is how you express yourself in real life it's going to lead you to become alienated from the people around you, it's going to negatively impact your social relationships.
Again, this has nothing to do with your position or your politics, there are people who share your basic premises and express themselves without coming off like crazy lunatics. I would hate for you to read this and think "okay well this guy is just some IDF shill" -- I'm really not. It's really not about your criticism of Israel or your basic positions. Just that you are expressing yourself like you have a screw loose.
My comment has no intensity. I am describing US federal statutory law and US caselaw. See Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 130 S. Ct. 2705, 177 L. Ed. 2d 355 (2010).
No foreign Zionist is admissible to the USA. See 8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens (a)(3)(E)(ii) (Participation in genocide).
ICE and the DOJ tear the heart out of the US Constitutional, legal, and political system when these agencies ignore the US Code.
This is sovereign citizen stuff. The law isn't some magic puzzle that you've solved. No court and no judge in the United States would agree with your legal position here, so you do not have a correct understanding of the law. You're not arguing that it would novel or interesting to try to apply anti-genocide provisions in immigration statutes to exclude participants in what you call a genocide.
In real life courts would likely not conclude that Israel actions in Gaza are a genocide (even if you think they are) absent a determination by a U.S. authority; they would not likely apply "participation in genocide" provisions to ordinary people who merely believe in a state's right to exist (even if the state is prosecuting a campaign of genocide, as you claim), or even ordinary soldiers complicit in what you call a genocide, when those provisions are intended to exclude individuals who are personally guilty of massacres or who organize genocide.
Again, I'm not telling you you're wrong to advocate for trying to stretch the application of these provisions or to advocate for more forceful provisions than those that currently exist in law. None of this is about the normative component of what you want to happen. You're just incorrect in your reading of current law and because you don't even seem to understand you end up sounding like a sovereign citizen who thinks they've unlocked the secret to get out of paying income tax.
Thanks for conceding that there is plenty of antisemitism on the right.
And note, to take a mirror image of your comment, that none of the RW expressing horror at antisemitism today peeped a word when it was Kanye and Musk, and Fuentes dining with Trump, and MTG going on about space lasers and fine people talking about being replaced by Jews, and so on.
So I don't take any of your shit seriously. Just a handy cudgel in the culture wars. There's at least as much antisemitism on the right as on the left, where no one has shot up a synagogue yet.
MTG?
Oh, Moscow Marjorie! Use her legal name, please!
Even Snopes agrees she did not say JEWISH space lasers.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/greene-jewish-lasers-wildfires/
Is this what they call being technically correct?
The post said the Rothschilds were behind the lasers. Draw whatever conclusions from that you prefer.
Look, they're only the Protocols of the ELDERS of Zion, how is that anti-semitic?
Watching Lefties criticizing ANYBODY for being "anti-Semitic" is endlessly amusing these days.
Be Accurate, she said Jerry Brown (not Jewish), PG&E (not Jewish) and Rothschild (which in 2024 likely isn't entirely Jewish).
Arson of the Pacific Northwest Forests as an act of war HAS happened -- the Japanese did it during WWII with balloon bombs.
“Be accurate.”
Please quote for me in the comment you are responding to where it says “Jewish space lasers”.
“Arson of the Pacific Northwest Forests as an act of war HAS happened”
That is not accurate. No fires were started— one balloon caused some casualties.
Am I to gather from this comment that you find the idea of space lasers starting wildfires in 2018 plausible?
Yeah, these students - not being pilloried at all.
How is it Genocide? Gaza has about 2 million residents, and Israel has only killed about 2% of them. Israel isn't finished, so maybe 5% will be dead when it is all over. That leaves 95% surviving. Israel is not trying to kill them all.
A depraved propagandist for genocide practically makes a legal admission of genocide when he tries to redefine genocide to exculpate Zionists of the accusation of genocide. Such redefinition of genocide probably amounts to genocide incitement, which is also a US federal crime.
Below is the US federal criminal definition of the crime of genocide. Please note that genocide is a US federal capital crime without a statute of limitations. Biden is a probable perpetrator of genocide. In comparison with Biden's actions, Trump's actions are peccadilloes. The DOJ should be arresting US Zionists en masse.
18 U.S. Code § 1091 - Genocide
(a)Basic Offense.—Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war and with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such—
(1)kills members of that group;
(2)causes serious bodily injury to members of that group;
(3)causes the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques;
(4)subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part;
(5)imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group; or
(6)transfers by force children of the group to another group;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
(b)Punishment for Basic Offense.—The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) is—
(1)in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1), where death results, by death or imprisonment for life and a fine of not more than $1,000,000, or both; and
(2)a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in any other case.
(c)Incitement Offense.—
Whoever directly and publicly incites another to violate subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(d)Attempt and Conspiracy.—
Any person who attempts or conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be punished in the same manner as a person who completes the offense.
(e)Jurisdiction.—There is jurisdiction over the offenses described in subsections (a), (c), and (d) if—
(1)the offense is committed in whole or in part within the United States; or
(2)regardless of where the offense is committed, the alleged offender is—
(A)a national of the United States (as that term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101));
(B)an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States (as that term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101));
(C)a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the United States; or
(D)present in the United States.
(f)Nonapplicability of Certain Limitations.—
Notwithstanding section 3282, in the case of an offense under this section, an indictment may be found, or information instituted, at any time without limitation.
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed
with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious
group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about
its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Article 3
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.
Please note the genocide does not require the death of an individual of a group. Genocide is a crime against a group. In contrast, murder is a crime against an individual. There are 5 types of genocide:
a) murder genocide,
b) maiming genocide,
c) toxic conditions genocide,
d) birth prevention genocide,
e) kidnapping genocide.
Lemkin, who created the concept of genocide, explains genocide in the following passage.
That is why USA immigration policy is a form of genocide against White, and some countries like Canada, Ireland, and Sweden have suffered genocide by foreign invasions.
But Israel has not occupied Gaza, except for the recent war, and the population of Gaza has grown substantially over the last 30 years. Israel will probably exit again, after it is done killing and searching for hostages. So how is it genocide?
Israel will not exit again. First, they've said they won't. Second, it's politically impossible. Just wait for Oct 7, 2033 to happen, is that the plan? No.
Plus only idiots think there's a relevant distinction between an occupation and an occupation-followed-by-a-seige.
Oct. 7 only happened because of security and defense failures. Israel even had detailed warnings, and did nothing. Israel could withdraw from Gaza, reinforce the border, and probably be safe.
Israel could withdraw from Gaza, reinforce the border, and probably be safe.
No.
OK, that's just stupid. So long as Hamas or some similar successor organization is around, and has someplace to prepare, they WILL eventually breach that border.
If only there were alternatives to either cowering in fear waiting for the next breach or killing tens of thousands of people, then cowering in fear waiting for next breach.
"If only there were alternatives to either cowering in fear waiting for the next breach or killing tens of thousands of people, then cowering in fear waiting for next breach."
Nah. The second alternative is the correct one.
We could recognize Qatar as a sponsor of terrorism for funding Hamas, but Biden's brother has business there so, ipso facto, they are cool and lovely.
"Israel will not exit again. First, they’ve said they won’t. Second, it’s politically impossible. "
You hit the nail on the head. The idea of the 2-state "solution" is dead.
The idea of the 2-state “solution” is dead.
It's been dead really since the 90s, but yeah it's very obviously dead now.
I remind you that if the only two options are a Jewish state with a few Palestinians or a Palestinian state with a few Jews, then "from he river to the sea" is a totally legitimate sentiment.
If "To the River.." is legitimate, wiping out all of the Gazans is equally so.
Yes. They are equally legitimate.
It would be great if Israel stopped pussyfooting about Zionism and just said hey, it’s no longer about that, we’re just doing regular old traditional conquering of our enemies for territory now, and pushed the vast majority of Palestinians out of Gaza and the West Bank. That would be way better than another 50 / 100 years of squalid occupation and subjugation.
1, US immigration policy is not white genocide.
2. No foreign invasion has taken place in either Canada, Ireland, or Sweden.
3. The Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights has said “the majority of international opinion” holds that Israel maintains effective control, even without armed forces present. While legal experts acknowledge that the lack of a military presence does not follow the “traditional approach” to analyzing effective control, they find that military presence is an “evidentiary test only.” They point to authorities such as the Israeli High Court, which have held that occupation status hinges on the exercise of effective control. They, therefore, find that technology has made it possible for Israel to use ongoing force to exercise effective control—imposing authority and preventing local authorities from exercising control—without a military presence.
Specifically, experts from the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory found “noting” positions held by the UN Security Council, UNGA, a 2014 declaration adopted by the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, the ICRC, and “positions of previous commissions of inquiry,” that Israel has “control exercised over, inter alia, [Gaza’s] airspace and territorial waters, land crossings at the borders, supply of civilian infrastructure, including water and electricity, and key governmental functions such as the management of the Palestinian population registry.” They also point to “other forms of force, such as military incursions and firing missiles.”
For the Gaza-Egypt border, they hold that while the Palestinian Authority operates the crossing under the supervision of EU monitors, Israel ultimately has control. Israeli security forces supervise the passenger lists—deciding who can cross—and monitor the operations and can withhold the “consent and cooperation” required to keep the crossing open. In that vein, experts note that Israel’s “coercive measures” have further “impeded efforts to build proper democratic institutions,” and that Israel still has not transferred sovereign powers and instead maintains control over “the [Palestinian Authority]’s ability to function effectively.” Based on the actual exercise of effective control, they, therefore, find that Israel has occupied Gaza since the broader occupation of Palestine began in 1967.
4. Raz Siegel is probably the pre-eminent Israeli genocide scholar.
He called the Gaza Holocaust a textbook genocide in October 2023. The mass murder genocide has become more intense since October.
https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide
Denial of Zionist genocide against Palestinians is intended to facilitate continuing genocide and is thus genocide incitement, which is a US federal crime.
Nonsense.
The population of those countries is indeed being replaced by foreigners who are invading. There is genocide all over the place, if you use such broad definitions, and you look for it.
Well, Canada was settled by Europeans who killed a lot of natives, Ireland by the English, who also killed a lot of natives, but Sweden tended to be on the 'sending out bands of armed men to violently ravage and eventually settle in other countries' side of things.
‘That is why USA immigration policy is a form of genocide against White,’
Some people will argue that the systematic killing of tens of thousands of people can’t be genocide; some people will say this. They’re all on the same side.
18 U.S. Code § 1091 – Genocide
(a)Basic Offense.—Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war and with the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such— Keywords are: specific intent, substantial
Have both been reached ? Who defines them ?
All civilian deaths in war are tragic. Israeli actions, past their border, are not self-defense. When they crossed the border, self-defense ends. Same with Hamas! Neither 'side' will achieve inherent certitude of righteousness when they keep killing.
Solutions to that conflict over there require compromise or overwhelming external force onto both parties to end their bull shit endless warfare. Arming either side prolongs conflict and solves nothing.
The US federal judiciary, the ICJ, and the ICC have jurisdiction over the crime of genocide.
When the ICJ heard SA’s genocide argument, the president of the ICJ was an American that worked for the State Department for many years, she and the ICJ as a whole found SA’s accusation of genocide plausible.
At this point, US AG should dispatch the FBI to arrest every US Zionist to be tried, almost certainly convicted, sentenced, and sent to prison or to the gallows.
On Dec 11, 1946, the international community banned genocide and made this ban jus cogens. No compromise is permissible with a state violator of jus cogens. The international community must obliterate the IDF and abolish the State of Israel.
International law is pellucid on the criminality of Zionism, of every Zionist, and of the Zionist baby-killer nation.
A Hamas fighter is a hero. A Zionist like a Nazi is an enemy of the human race.
Nazi Germanization is no less a crime and no less genocide when Zionism renames Germanization to Judaization.
Because Palestinians are darker non-Europeans, from Dec 1947 onward the white states gave the Zionist colonial settlers a pass to commit genocide with impunity approximately one year after the international community banned genocide. The mere existence of the Zionist state negates the international anti-genocide legal regime and undermines international law because no one can take international law seriously if international law is not enforced uniformly and equally. Since its founding 75 years ago, the Zionist state has been a suppurating festering cancerous tumor in international law and on the surface of the planet.
In resolution 260 A (III) of December 9, 1948, the UNGA approved the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and proposed the Convention for signature and ratification or accession by means of General Assembly resolution 260 A (III) of December 9, 1948. The Convention entered into force January 1951, in accordance with its article XIII.
Apartheid and persecution of Palestinians under Zionist domination are byproducts of the ongoing genocide. In addition, apartheid and persecution are directed to “deliberately inflicting on the [Palestinian] group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” The Zionist colonial settlers hoped that Palestinians would be pressured into leaving their stolen homeland. Instead, when Netanyahu started his latest term in Dec 2022, the native Palestinian population under Zionist domination had become larger than the Zionist colonial settler population, and the Palestinian population was much younger than the Zionist colonial settler population is.
The Zionist colonial settlers have become crazed and frantic. Since Dec 2022, the attacks of Zionist colonial settlers on Palestinians, on Palestinian property, and on Palestinian communities have been steeply increasing. Zionist colonial settlers have kidnapped and imprisoned thousands of Palestinians. Zionist colonial settlers have been terrorizing Palestinian children and schools. Zionist colonial settlers have besieged Palestinian religious sites. Zionist colonial settlers have stepped up efforts of Judaization of Jerusalem and of Hebron.
Hamas is a native resistance movement within stolen Palestine and hardly differs from a native resistance movement in Nazi-occupied Europe. Just as the Nazis called the native resistance terrorist, the Zionists and their supporters call Hamas terrorist even though Hamas like the French or Polish resistance to the Nazis is heroic. On Oct 7, 2023, Hamas reacted to the unspeakable barbarism of the Zionist regime and had no other way to force the State of Israel to negotiate except by taking colonial settler prisoners.
The kibbutzim of the Gaza Envelope are military bases
1. that are intended to make irreversible the ongoing genocide, which started in Dec 1947 and
2. that have been been camouflaged with civilians that have the role of human shields.
A native resistance movement like Hamas is fully justified in attacking such military bases. The civilian residents of such military bases are not protected noncombatants because they serve a military purpose.
Hamas broke out of Gaza to seize Zionist colonial settlers so that they could be traded for kidnapped Palestinians and for a cessation of attacks on Palestinian religious sites. The US federal code defines such hostage taking for exchange to be a legitimate non-criminal act during a war that has no international character. See 18 U.S. Code § 2441 - War crimes. The occupation exists because the state of war has never ended.
When Zionist forces understood the actions of Hamas fighters, the Zionist military perpetrated unspeakably heinous and random slaughter in accord with the Hannibal Directive. Zionist military seems to have caused practically all civilian casualties and deaths during Oct 7.
The incompetent but depraved, murderous, and genocidal Golani Brigade collapsed.
In response, the Zionist regime has revenged itself on the Palestinian population by destroying Gaza just as Nazi forces destroyed Warsaw. Even though genocide is not a legal or legitimate response to any act, the Zionist regime has achieved the grand slam of crimes of genocide:
• mass murder genocide (Gen. Con. Art. IIa),
• physical and psychological maiming genocide (Gen. Con. Art. IIb),
• hostile conditions genocide (Gen. Con. Art. IIc),
• birth prevention genocide (Gen. Con. Art. IId), and
• child-kidnapping genocide (Gen. Con. Art. IIe, mostly in the West Bank).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Like the British committed war crimes for recognizing a Czech state that included Sudeten German land. Or all those atrocities the Negros committed during the illegal occupation that was Reconstruction when violent savages fit only to be slaves were propped up by foreigners who were attempting to whipe out Southern peoplehood and culture, and given rule over their masters and betters.
And to hear the Native Americans (ranchers and farmers and such, folks who speak English, America’s native language) tell it, the Americans committed war crimes for granting thise murderous Indians reservations on their (the Native Americans’) land.
The Arab occupants of Israel, most of whose grandparents arrived there in the 20th Century at the same time as the Jews (but a minority of whom, like a minority of the Jews, had been living on the land from long before), were subjects of the Ottoman Empire which had been an independent empire – and a settler-colonialist one – for hundreds of years until it allied with the wrong side and was defeated in World War I. It got treated the same way Austria-Hungary was when it was defeated.
Slivers of land were given to other peoples. Germany made the same irredentist claims about the slice of Imperial Germany given to the Poles.
You should read Der Stormer to hear about the atrocities the Czechs were aupposedly committing against the Sudeten Germans.
As George Orwell wrote in his review of Mein Kamp, Hitler’s basic appeal to Westerners was his astonishing ability to play the part of a victim to the hilt . As Orwell wrote, Hitler played the part so well he himself couldn’t help feeling sorry for him whenever he heard his speeches despite knowing what he was up to.
We no longer think of the poor, unjustly defeated, unjustly mistreated Germany that was once a common view of Westerners well into the 1930s.
However, it seems the Ottoman irredentists who seek to restore the Caliphate have been able to get a new lease on their sob story by playing the race and colonialism card. Despite never having been colonized. Despite having consistly been an independent empire. Despite having started the settler-colonialism game, having invaded, occupied and colonized large chunks of Europe for centuries. Despite having consistently been regarded as white, to this day, by American racial typologies.
Like the Confederate irredentists managed to get a new lease on theirs by telling similar atrocity stories about the settler-colonialist-carpetbagger Yankees and their tools, the Negros.
Even in the 1960s, the FBI was treating Martin Luther King as a likely terrorist.
Just as Asa Earl Carter attempted to redwash the Confederacy by telling the Confederate story through the eyes of a fictional Cherokee Indian under a pseudonym, and largely succeeded until he was outed, Asa Earl Carter student Edward Said came up with the idea of brownwashing the story by recasting it into the Middle East.
Just as Asa Earl Carter picked genuine Confederates - the Cherokee were slaveholders who allied with and fought on behalf of tjr Confederacy - Said picked genuine slave empire irredentists.
The Ottoman Caliphate was not just a settler-colonialist but a slave empire whose raiders and merchants captured and sold slaves in the tens of millions, rivalling the Anericans in this respect, most but by no means all of whom were black.
And Hamas openly seeks to restore the Ottoman Caliphate, including slavery.
After all, under Muslim law, non-Muslims can be enslaved if captured in a holy war, or purchased. While in early Islam Jews and Christians couldn’t be enslaved, this was later relaxed. Jihad can thus be regarded as “wars with benefits.”
Asa Earl Carter is probably smiling in his grave to see so many Western, supposedly left-leaning students openly espousing the cause of people who want to restore slavery, and who started a new Jihad by kidnapping hundreds of Jews as a down payment on future benefits.
Thats a lot of words to say: 'you can't criticise Israel.'
Man those were good books, if you read them before the internet. Now, not so much.
The participants in the reconstructionist governments and the black-run fusion governments prior to Redemption and White Supremacy weren’t exactly run by saints and weren’t exactly the worlds’ most experienced governments. They were sometimes out-and-out incompetent.
But don’t you think that saying Klan propaganda “criticized” them is a wee bit of an understatement? And don’t you think similarly charactetizing some of the usual things done in war, including some of the usual mistakes, as “genocide” and “atrocities” is also a wee bit of an overstatement?
Is someone who calls the FBI racist for surveilling Dr. Martin Luther King as a terrorist suspect really saying Dr. Martin Luther King can never be criticized? Is someone who says the ubiquitous Klan negro atrocity propaganda of the time was mostly lies and at best severe overstatements, blowing ordinary mistakes and even the occasional ordinary crime beyond all proportion, really saying that Reconstruction was perfect and what it did can’t be criticized?
As I said in a comment some time ago, Western governments levelled Raqaa (among other cities) when the conquered the Islamic state. Nobody accused them of genocide at the time.
'But don’t you think that saying Klan propaganda “criticized” them is a wee bit of an understatement?'
I would, if anyone had actually said it, least of all myself.
'And don’t you think similarly charactetizing some of the usual things done in war, including some of the usual mistakes, as “genocide” and “atrocities” is also a wee bit of an overstatement?'
Not really. Tens of thousands of people are dead. The suffering is unimaginable, and ongoing. This is not propaganda.
Nuke Gaza!
Like there's such a thing as 'attempted' genocide!
Headline:
MIT President’s Statement on the Anti-Israel Students’ Encampment
No possibility of viewpoint-based bias in this OP!
Just be grateful he did not work a racial slur into that one.
Or a trans angle, come to think of it,
He must be busy packing.
OK, "Student's Encampment Against Israel"
The inherent problem with two adjectives is that one often appears to be a noun, not a modifier to another noun.
No, there is not when the principal demand is to end all research collaboration with Israeli institutions.
Reagan had it right:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1784150096751231176
You a big Kent State fan?
What did Reagan have to do with Kent State?
The risks and results of federal crackdowns on campus protests don't change depending on who is President.
What does the federal government have to do with Kent State?
Kent State was the Ohio National Guard, called in by the Governor of Ohio. There were no federal troops, nor any federal orders.
You can't get your president right. Can't get even get the state-federal divide on authority right? Is it any surprised you're so confused?
Well, at least you always know what side to pick when Jews are involved.
Fair enough, it wasn't a federal crackdown.
But if you don't see a similarity between Reagan and Nixon here: ("You see these bums, you know, blowing up the campuses. Listen, the boys that are on the college campuses today are the luckiest people in the world, going to the greatest universities, and here they are burning up the books, storming around this issue. You name it. Get rid of the war there will be another one") you aren't trying.
Point is that Kent State was bad, and some here seem to want a crackdown of similar force, from whatever jackboots are nearby.
I mean, the Defenestrations of Prague were bad too but like Kent State, there's zero connection to Reagan. No matter how many incorrect assumptions you make.
But keep digging.
Do you think the protest just came out of nowhere?
They were protesting Nixon's war policies.
And Nixon's contempt for them certainly did not help things.
But the important thing, of course, is how many are ignoring the manifest risks of government use of force on college protesters, and advocating for exactly that.
The college protesters themselves are using force, ignoring the manifest risks of doing so. Not that you are ever consistent in your standards.
Besides, people who break the law and refuse lawful police orders to stop doing so and disperse assume the risks of force being used. That's an inherent part of civil disobedience.
The OP is quite clear that everything has been peaceful so far.
You keep wanting to move away from MIT.
Different policies for different situations.
Besides, people who break the law and refuse lawful police orders to stop doing so and disperse assume the risks of force being used.
George Wallace again.
Gaslight0 still thinks that any law enforcement is immediately George Wallace. Sad.
You aren't just talking law enforcement, you are saying 'and if some students die that's their fault.'
There are lots of ways to deescalate and clear things out without risking death; you just don't want them to be brought to bear for some reason.
Once again, Gaslight0 makes up a quote when he cannot argue with what was actually said.
Fucko, I'm talking Kent state and your response is: "people who break the law and refuse lawful police orders to stop doing so and disperse assume the risks of force being used."
Yeah, you are absolutely saying students can die and it'd be their fault.
Your lying denial of what you said only serves to show how little you care about baseline reality versus getting partisan scalps by any means necessary.
Lot of anti-statists loving the idea of state force being used to crush a few kids.
Gaslight0 loves him some double standards. If he brings up Kent State in response to a comment about Ronald Reagan, every response has to be in light of Kent State.
But if we point out that every campus protest to date has trampled the rights of others, shucks, we have to constrain ourselves to the current MIT encampment not yet having documented violence.
Nige said: "Lot of anti-statists loving the idea of state force being used to crush a few kids."
You either have law & order, or you don't. And when a private institution asks the police to remove an illegal encampment on its property, and the police tell them to go hang -- you don't. (And no, you don't have to be a "statist" to have a problem with this.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/04/26/dc-police-george-washington-university-protests/
"Do you think the protest just came out of nowhere? They were protesting Nixon’s war policies."
Funny how the protests dried up after the draft was stopped but before the fighting did...
LOL! Before I muted him I used to say that Sacastr0 intentionally lied in just about every one of his posts because he couldn't possibly be as stupid as they made him sound. I'm now forced to reconsider that assumption.
Well actually Reagan was governor of California at the time, I remember because I was a politically active highschool freshman in at the time (I remember well being told to take off my Black armband and get a haircut by the dean of boys).
Reagan had plenty of student insurrections to deal with, in fact my biology teacher commuted from Berkeley and missed several days of school when they sent the national guard and tanks in, we got a blow by blow of what was happening, that was the year before Kent State.
I’m pretty well educated, about what happened, and in California (although I opposed him at the time), and later as President (I voted against him once, and for him for reelection) he never showed any Tiananmen Square Syndrome.
Do you ever try to educate yourself on events before you comment?
I cannot speak to your idiosyncratic personal experience, but yes I have studied of the history of activism in America, and Kent State obviously looms large.
Tiananmen Square Syndrome didn't really come up, since that kind of fantastic paranoia was out of the scope of this course. Though as I look it up, it appears to refer to student reactions to a crackdown not leaders' enthusiasm for a crackdown?
Anyhow, it sure sounds like you want the government to roll in heavy. And I pointed out the risks of such a move are dire. Your personal stories don't really get at that issue at all.
"I cannot speak to your idiosyncratic personal experience"
Yeah you little punk. I was an actual actual radical at 15, a full grown hippie in the 70's.
I've lived in communes, built sweatlodges, slept in teepee's.
Hitchhiked thousands of miles on a whim. Organized A demonstration on the first earth day in 1970 with over a 1000 people when I was barely in school.
All you and your generation will ever be is wannabes.
And I can truthfully say back then, as now, what I wanted was a government that let the people alone. Abolish the FBI, CIA, keep us out of foreign wars, let us grow and smoke our own weed, sell what we make without excessive taxes and regulations. Build our houses on our own land without the government looking over our shoulders every second. Brew our own beer. drink raw milk 10 minutes after it was milked.
And I'll never trade that vision for your wet dream nanny state.
Whoa! Far out, man.
I’m saying don’t be so easy risking shooting kids. Your authenticity okay doesn’t mean much on that front.
Your libertopia never came to be, but that’s not on me.
Ok Boomer. 🙂
You've had a fascinating life.
Well I eventually settled down and graduated from the University when I was 34. Life on the outside was too interesting to be constrained by school and 9-5 jobs before then.
So you formed your political opinions as a child and left them cemented in place for the next 50 years. You never learned anything new in that time that affected your positions, and you're proud of this? My god, man, do you know how many children died from raw milk when it was legal to sell? I guess there really is no fool like an old fool.
"And I’ll never trade that vision for your wet dream nanny state."
But I repeat myself.
You're MAGA!
"yes I have studied of the history of activism in America"
Yet you do not know even basic facts about Kent State
Try studying harder.
I made a mistake, as happens on the Internet from time to time.
Feel free to rage about it though.
Rage?
Laugh you mean.
"I made a mistake, as happens on the Internet from time to time."
Especially to people who don't have the factual expertise that they claim to have.
I too a class. Don’t exclude the middle between ignorant and expert.
Gaslighto is actually right on this one -- a student got killed by the police -- I forget the details but there was a fatality.
I say the SOB got what he/she/it deserved.
The student who was killed was apparently trying to help subdue arsonists, and the shooting was not intended: https://www.kcrw.com/news/shows/kcrw-features/isla-vista-burning-50
"Reagan had it right:"
Straight to my veins!
Campus protests were an important reason why Reagan got elected governor which was a needed step for a tv commentator and actor to get to the presidency. Thank you hippies!
I will also note that the 1968 DNC was a big reason why Nixon won in 1968. Will these pro hamas protests get Trump over the hump? DNC in Chicago again, as history rhymes.
You guys have never not been hankering after brutal authoritarianism.
"brutal authoritarianism"?
We had 8 years of Reagan and 4 years of Trump but no "brutal authoritarianism" at all. Your paranoid fears not withstanding.
None? The Reagan admins games in South America alone suggest otherwise. And the main right-wing criticism of Trump was that he didn’t (or wasn’t allowed by the Deep State) put enough people in camps and didn’t seperate enough families, didn’t sell enough children to Christian families for adoption, didn’t arrest enough of his enemies, and then he tried and failed to overturn an election with the help of a white riot. But he promises to make up for all that if re-elected!
What games in "South" America Nige?
You guys know nothing about recent history, or geography.
Universities have this largely because they're not enforcing their own rules. Whether it's a pro-Israel or pro-Hamas or pro-whatever encampment, there's well known tactics that will work on all but the most dedicated. Order to disperse, followed by tear gas, followed by pepper spray, followed by fire hoses. If anybody's still left, screw it, we tried; arrest them and prosecute.
This is right out of a southern governor regarding MLK.
Rules are not all zero tolerance; that's how you run a police state, not a free society.
We're already well past what a reasonable protest is. "But MLK!!!" can't be used as an all purpose pass for criminals to seize and occupy public property.
Besides: Part of the original logic here was accepting the punishment and sparking outrage because it was unjust. If these guys believe they're the next MLK, they can suck on some tear gas. History will most likely forget them either way, but whatever.
We’ve established that with the Republicans that protest gay divorce—white Republicans should never suffer any consequences for engaging in civil disobedience.
? When Republicans protested on January 6, the cops shot at them, killed one and prosecuted the survivors. It's the left wing that gets a soft touch. I would, regardless, pre-commit to a set of content neutral laws enforced fairly.
The group that got shot at and prosecuted wasn't the protest part.
No protestors got shot or arrested.
People who violently broke into the Capitol, and threatened further violence, did.
If you can't tell the difference you are moronic beyond help.
Your side rejected that kind of distinction in 2020 protests, when conservatives pointed out that many people broke laws in the course of protesting. Why are you now resorting to that distinction? I believe the argument goes that a protest doesn't stop being a protest just because some people commit crimes during it.
The standard of 2020 means the folks in DC that day who did not break into the capitol are not going to be prosecuted.
And they haven't been. Because yeah, a lot of what happened on J6 in DC was just a protest.
You want to pretend the fighting with policy, breaking through the barricades, hunting for Representatives and staffers, and stealing/vandalizing stuff was all protest.
Because for you and a distressingly large part of the GOP leadership, it is party over country.
You can accuse others of putting "party over country" as much as you like, but all of us know who is trying to destroy the country's borders and laws out of partisan politics. We know who was attacking police precincts and federal courthouses with impunity. We can see who is pretending that the MIT encampment is happening in a vacuum and needs to be handled with kid gloves because it hasn't yet reached the same levels of excess as other occupations of campuses.
Ahh yes, everybody knows I'm in favor of all bad things and you're in favor of all good things.
Well, why don't you break into the capitol about it.
"And they haven’t been. "
Not true. People who never went inside have been prosecuted.
Here is one:
"Shroyer didn’t enter the Capitol, but he led a march to the building and led rioters in chants near the top of the building’s steps. He’s among only a few people charged in the riot who neither went inside the building nor were accused of engaging in violence or destruction." PBS, Sep 12, 2023 5:53 PM EDT
Owen Shroyer? Yeah what in the world did he have to do with the riots?
If this is the best example you have, that actually undercuts your point, assuming you're arguing that there was a double standard between January 06 and 2020 rioters.
Unsurprisingly this is not the whole story. But Bob already knew that.
Is this guy a sandy hook truther too? Are you, Bob?
You people truly get the heroes you deserve.
"Yeah what in the world did he have to do with the riots?"
Stop moving goalposts. You made a false statement, 2 minutes on google proved you wrong.
Good news Bob I restated the goalposts in that very post.
Because I anticipated your disingenuousness.
You aren’t even technically correct.
When Republicans protested on January 6, the cops shot at them, killed one and prosecuted the survivors
Of the right wing meme, "Fiery but mostly peaceful protests", would that be the peaceful part or fiery part?
What a load of crap. We didn’t use the “fiery but peaceful” meme - your side did in 2020.
That said, there is no denying that righties didn’t burn businesses, rob businesses, kill people and the like. The BLM riots is where that happened. Lie to us and yourself all you want.
It wasn't because the cops weren't being sent in that any of that happened.
Not sure if you noticed, but your goalposts are already slipping.
You: "Universities have this largely because they’re not enforcing their own rules."
Also you: "We’re already well past what a reasonable protest."
You went from zero tolerance to tolerance within 'reason.'
Suddenly we're basically on the same page, or at least within reason.
----------
MLK was indeed willing to go to jail. But 'tear gas, followed by pepper spray, followed by fire hoses' was a hate and fear-filled state using disproportionate tactics back then. You are playing that same role now, even if the goal of the protests isn't as cool as MLK's.
Not really. Just realistically it's going to take some time to notice somebody building an encampment and summon peace officers. If they obey the first order to disperse, fine; congratulations, we had a great protest everybody, it's over, there's no need for further punishment . If they don't, then it's time for the tear gas, pepper spray, fire hoses, and arrests. It's not a disproportionate response; it's giving people multiple opportunities to obey a legal order before they face actual legal consequences. That these were misused in the past doesn't mean we can never use them again; if that was the standard, the government couldn't do anything because surely everything has been done wrongly at least once. This encampment has persisted for far longer than it should take to get a cannister of tear gas.
"Just realistically it’s going to take some time"
You've moved them again. "We’re already well past what a reasonable protest" is a threshold that has zero to do with time.
It’s not a disproportionate response; it’s giving people multiple opportunities to obey a legal order
You gotta stop sounding like George Wallace.
There are plenty of ways to break up an encampment before you break out the freaking firehoses (and do you not see how those optics are a huge victory for the protesters?)
You and Wallace share the same lack of wisdom, and you both seem blinded by the same antipathy and desire to punish.
Rather than criticize, why don't you describe how Sally is going to remove the encampments. She has about 1 week.
First, I get to call out something as a bad argument without having to write the alternative policy.
Second, you can look at other campuses clearing their encampments for plenty of examples. Threats of administrative sanctions seem effective, as is just simple arrest without needing to go riot protection.
Angry commenters here want maximum force deployed yesterday. That's not about effectively dealing with the issue, that's about making these protesters to suffer.
That's stupid and bad.
"First, I get to call out something as a bad argument without having to write the alternative policy. "
In other words, you're afraid to make a positive recommendation.
"you can look at other campuses clearing their encampments for plenty of examples"
I don't see any successes. Why can't you point out successes?
"Angry commenters here want maximum force deployed yesterday."
Again, it is easy to criticize. Now tell Sally how she she can proceed with prudence.
In other words, you’re afraid to make a positive recommendation.
What is this 'you're afraid' nonsense?! It's *humility* to not just lay down an opinion if you don't want to. It's a virtue, not a vice to refrain from hot takes.
And right below my saying I didn't need to provide an opinion, I pointed you to where you could formulate one of your own.
I don’t see any successes. Why can’t you point out successes?
So you're lazy and being an asshole about it.
Checkout Northeastern, USC, NYU, Emory. Probably others.
it is easy to criticize
So say people who are wrong but don't want to be right.
S_0,
You call it humility. I call it cowardice. All you have been doing is criticizing others.
You have nothing to offer.
That is an awful attitude to take. Wrong is wrong and criticism is warranted.
Anyone who has touched science should know better.
PhilMack, what is it about tear gas which imparts its affinity for events where powerful people suppress younger people, poor people, and black people?
Or a Kennedy, it wasn't Nixon that sicced the FBI on MLK, it was JFK's Attorney General RFK2.
Oh no a Democrat I must support him I'm melting!
The problem with using tear gas, which is actually a fine powder, is that it will get into the HVAC air intakes for the buildings that no longer have windows and then you have a major problem where it is almost cheaper to demolish the buildings and build new ones.
You really don't have to do any of this -- just identify who the students are and expel them.
Just enforce school rules, period. Things are spinning out of control because students, including at MIT, have been violating the rules with impunity since October, and have come to believe that because of their strong feelz, the rules don't apply to them. I agree that *suddenly and without warning* enforcing rules that had been flouted without consequence wouldn't be critic. But give the students 3 hours to pack up the encampment and go home, or face expulsion and possible arrest.
"Just enforce school rules, period."
Then, and only then, is it meaningful to call them rules. Then, and only then, is there a reason (for some) to *not* violate rules.
Are you inferring that the rules weren’t being enforced prior to all of this? If so, care to back that up instead of knee-jerking?
Expulsion? Oh no. Some of the students might lose their visas. But what’s a few more illegal aliens?
That was why it was a mistake at MIT not to hand out suspensions after the first "die-ins" under the dome
Of course you're into zero tolerance nonsense. It's like you've never been on campus.
These are kids; they're meant to be stupid. Coming down with an immediate hammer teaches bad lessons and is overly harsh.
They have been tolerated for several days already and they continue to act in violation of the rules. At some point the hammer must come down and they must face the consequences of their actions. Consequences that they have known could include expulsion yet they continue to violate the rules. No excuses of ignorance expiates their violations.
I agree with you (though I might want a slower rampup than you now that the clear order has been given).
The OP makes a pretty powerful argument based on resources and practicality that the time has come to clear the encampment.
But it sounds like you and I both disagree with Don as to the timing.
Nope. I agree with Don Nico that the potential loss of a visa should not be a deterrence to expelling any of the protesters. Part of getting a visa involves acknowledging that if they lose the purpose of the visa ( job for work visa enrollment at a university for a student visa) they will lose the visa and have to leave the USA. When they take actions that cause them to lose that visa that is on them and garners no sympathy from me.
That's not what I pushed back on (though I do think weaponizing immigration status is fucked up)
This is the point: That was why it was a mistake at MIT not to hand out suspensions after the first “die-ins” under the dome
Suspension is not zero tolerance. Warnings came first. Warnings that said the protests were violating university rules and that continuing those violations would have consequences that included suspension.
Zero tolerance would have started with expulsion and arrest. Punishment early on where the warning is that the consequences will get more severe the longer the rules violations continue is not zero tolerance.
The persons weaponizing immigration status are the protesters and their sympathizers.
Your memory is pretty damned short or selective.
"It’s like you’ve never been on campus. "
Doesn't he work for MIT?
Maybe he actually know something about the situation there. Nah, the Last Reasonable Man knows all.
I know he works for some institute of higher education.
That's why he should know better.
I do know better. Much better than you who wear blinders.
You seem to want students to sit down and shut up.
It’s not blinders to think that is a bad way for someone who deals with college kids to be.
Yeah, they do stupid things. So when they do even more stupid things that make other peoples’ safety lower, let’s just let’s just ignore it.
2 things: they’re NOT kids. They’re adults. Maybe they should be treated as such. Two, adults their age are serving in the military and they’re not treated as though they’re kids and have no responsibility.
Stop simping for spoiled, entitled brats. The country as a whole isn’t better off because these “kids” are able to get away with everything. When they get older, they’ll have the same traits. And we’ll all be worse off for it.
I am frequently on the MIT campus. Where is your fist hand knowledge?
“Of course you’re into zero tolerance nonsense. ”
Your typical exaggeration to the point of lying. It is rather tiresome as you have nothing positive to offer.
“Coming down with an immediate hammer teaches bad lessons”
Coming down with nothing teaches worse lessons; in fact it encourages worse behavior.
Who said immediate? the students can have a few day to comply.
Are MIT students somehow special?
Yes, calling for immediate suspension the first time they violent TPM restrictions is zero tolerance, don't be a weasel.
Coming down with nothing teaches worse lessons
Only if the encampment stays up forever.
You're excluding the middle.
Who said immediate? the students can have a few day to comply.
YOU did. 3 hours ago: "That was why it was a mistake at MIT not to hand out suspensions after the first “die-ins” under the dome"
I'm fine with this statement. You need to get on the same page with yourself.
You need to get on a page aside from endless criticism of others.
MIT has been in the middle since November. It has not worked out for the university nor for the great majority of Jewish students and faculty. Sally now admits that she is within the end of her rope. The protesters are the ones denying her discretion. They are amplifying what she cannot and therefore will not concede.
Again what would you do in her shoes? Why can't you say? Has the cat got your tongue?
SNOWPLOWS....
Paging Senator Cotton’s chief of staff. Sir or madam, if you’re listening, please come pick up your principal. He’s drunk posting again!
I think the letter is fine. You are the one wishing to go back in time and is you’re a zero tolerance policy.
There are costs and benefits to where you draw the line but I’m pretty glad your way has not been widely adopted.
I expect 'enforcing rules' is complicated in the face of a mass protest. There are good ways and bad ways of handling these things. Ignoring people getting snotty about it is probably a good thing. They have the welfare of ALL the students to look after, including the ones protesting. They might not *want* to decimate the student population, or to give the campus a reputation of utter hostility to young people. Then again they have wealthy donors and podium-pounding politicians who hate universities and a censorious media who seem to love the university-haters to appease. I expect we know who'll win. The students will always be the lowest priority.
Ahhh, the “Bettors” the Reverend Sandusky-Kirtland constantly tumescences over. I can see her at Buchenwald, “Herr Eichmann, could you perhaps run your Ovens at night? the smell disturbs our students”
Gonna go back to the Groove-yard of Political Quotes with one from one of my favorite DemoKKKrats, George C. Wallace,
“Here’s how you get rid of the rioters, SOAP!”
Seriously, it’s only April, but can you imagine the Stench of those Muddled Asses yearning to eat for free?
Other thing that would work is Dogs, big mean ones, A-rabs don’t like Dogs, I think it’s because Dogs can lick their own Assholes right after biting you a new one.
Frank
As with everything else you write, that's a lie.
The ICJ did emphasise in its order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide.
That’s your quibble? They didn’t actually use the word “plausible” but rather "risk of irreparable harm?" I’m not sure what substantive distinction you’re trying to draw.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-68906919
The distinction is between harm to "the right to be protected from genocide" and other harms, such as actual genocide.
The hairsplitting of a depraved Zionist is awesome.
The South Africa case continues. It has not been dismissed. Apartheid Israel remains in the dock for genocide. Deal with it.
The president of the Court said that, strictly speaking, the Court ruled on the plausibility of South Africa’s assertion of rights to put forward a case for Apartheid Israel committing genocide. Apartheid Israel remains in the in the dock for genocide. Deal with it.
Because genocide is a US federal capital crime without statute of limitations, every US Zionist should be in the dock for genocide.
Genocide loopholes. You know you're on the righteous path when you need genocide loopholes.
That's not what the ICJ said. What the ICJ said is that the rights to be free from genocide "are of such a nature that prejudice to them is capable of causing irreparable harm." They did not say that there was a "risk of irreparable harm."
And it's not my quibble; the author of the ICJ opinion spoke out the other day to correct people who mistakenly said that the ICJ had found that it was plausible that genocide was occurring.
No matter what the issue or how big the sides, I understand that security and/or police fees might be out of control for a budget but...
"And keeping the encampment safe and secure for this set of students is diverting hundreds of staff hours, around the clock, away from other essential duties."
Is this an attempt to plead poverty? From MIT? I mean I think there's better ways to express the financial burden part of the argument. "Credit tuition, dormitory costs, and student fees for groups to continue to exist will all increase if the stuff continues blah blah blah"
(Sees Eugene has a kid there)
(Thinks)
Not that I *want to raise the cost to attend MIT! 😀 😀 😀
"Is this an attempt to plead poverty? From MIT?"
No. It means that things that have to get done are not getting done and likely are not being paid sufficient attention.
She also notes that the space is needed for other scheduled events (read commencement related events).
It is clear that you have little idea of running a well functioning university
A law professor with a deeper commitment to free speech and the values of open debate in higher education might take a moment to comment on how university administrations have been citing regulations selectively in order to disband student groups, suspend or expel students, and forcibly remove these encampments.
A more intelligent and pragmatic observer might have noticed that, in an age of social media and spectacle-driven engagement, these crackdowns are having the perverse effect of inspiring more encampments, not fewer, despite such encampments having only a tenuous connection to the underlying cause or achieving whatever goals these student groups hope to achieve.
At root, this is about whether criticism of Israel's war on Gaza is going to be tolerated in the upper echelons of elite opinion, or if the hasbara campaign will succeed in casting virtually all such criticism as "antisemitic" or so "antisemitic"-adjacent as to be dismissed without further consideration. Conservatives have cast their lot for the latter outcome, because it neatly aligns with their broader war against higher education and the media (which is itself part of their effort to eliminate independent bases of power not controlled by the GOP).
The milquetoast liberals who populate the bureaucracies of higher education and media are more conflicted, but they are not equipped with the critical faculties required to resist the very intense hasbara campaign that is happening now. The reason for this, Eugene, is that they went to universities like those you have worked for and received opinions like those you have so frequently espoused - flat, archaic, repetitive, and ultimately dead.
Here is the question: What is wrong with the encampments?
Is there another time you get encampments other then protesters? This doesn't seem like persecution to me. (But see Prof. Bernstein who is absolutely sounding like he's never been on a campus a day in his life and wants zero tolerance alluva sudden)
Your second point about the possibility of escalation is spot-on; that's a big part the cost-benefit here. We've gotten very good at de-escalation since Vietnam actually, but we're not perfect.
Your third point that this is about whether criticism will be tolerated is I think overbroad; this is a pretty bog standard time place and manner thing and I don't see any double standards in evidence.
Certainly other schools have made it clear they're rolling in base on viewpoint concerns. But I'm not seeing it in this case.
Your final point about school administrators being conflicted is starts good but then gets a bit harsh as you bring it home; I used to think administrators were cowards; maybe they still are, but a lot of them are taking some big swings in one or another direction in dealing with this crisis. I don't think one side or another has a monopoly on critical thinking going there. I respect that choices are being made; because if asked to predict like a year ago I'd have said there would be paralysis
(Though I do hear a ton of speculation this has to do with the rise in the importance of big donors to schools like MIT)
Is there another time you get encampments other then protesters?
This isn’t the question. The question is why encampments are all of a sudden an issue for university administrators. Is it because they’re not officially permitted? Or is it because people at these encampments have views that have suddenly put university administrators in the crosshairs of Elise Stefanik?
You can miss me with this TPM gobbledy-gook. This isn’t a law school exam. No one is calling in the cops to crack down on encampments because they’re blocking the ability of other students to use the quad for their own duly-authorized speech activities. No one is citing unhygienic conditions or lawns trampled to mud. It’s not about good order, not in the slightest.
This is about chants that James McWhorter can hear while he’s miseducating his students and posters that go viral on Twitter. I mean – for fuck’s sake, just listen to what people are actually saying: Jewish students shouldn’t have to hear people chanting for the destruction of Israel. Do you think the rationale becomes different if you get an official permit? Do you think these universities are going to officially permit protests they’ve deemed “antisemitic”, if only the students ask nicely and fill out all the right forms?
I don’t need you, nor Eugene, citing casebook law about TPM restrictions. That is a complete side issue that is designed to deflect that TPM restrictions are being conveniently invoked to shut down speech that has become too sensitive to permit. If it’s not an encampment here, it’ll be a bullhorn there, a missed registration deadline there.
.
If there haven't been encampments prior to now, then why wouldn't that explain why encampments are all of a sudden an issue?
Did you read Simon’s post?
By the administrators’ own admission, the encampments aren’t a problem for any reason that encampments might normally be a problem. That is to say, the encampments aren’t being enforced against in order to vindicate any possible reason for the rule against encampments.
They’re being enforced against because of the viewpoint of the content of the speech.
[For the record, I don't entirely agree... just, the question you asked was already answered in Simon's post.]
Simon’s answer dismisses as being non-responsive the plausible explanation that the reason the encampments are now a problem is that they are a new thing.
For the record, I’m not taking any stand on why they are a problem now. Simon could be right. I’m just saying his out-of-hand dismissal of the explanation that they are new thing as being non-responsive makes no sense.
Explaining that the encampments are merely new doesn't address the question, no.
Consider a different form of protest: a loud, raucous clamor in a talk being given by some speaker deemed too pro-Israel. We can explain why that is a problem, right? That would be a disruptive form of protest that is shutting down the exchange of ideas in a university environment. Whether an administrator chooses to tolerate such "protests" is one question; but if they were to say, "this cannot be tolerated," we can at least point to the reason why, in objective terms that have nothing to do with what's being expressed.
I can appreciate why an encampment might be a problem. I mean, one could suppose a few things - bad for the grounds, results in litter, blocks other students from making use of the space. None of those issues feature in any meaningful way in the rhetoric about shutting them down. Columbia's president did not call in the NYPD because she's concerned the students aren't properly disposing of their takeout containers.
The same goes for the MIT president featured in the OP. She speaks of "diverting resources" and "commandeering space," but it is her choice to divert the resources in question, and no competing use for the space is mentioned.
"We cannot tolerate this protest because it is too effective." That's all it comes down to.
Yes, the newness isn't sufficient to explain why encampments are a problem (*). But, it can be sufficient to explain why the encampments are all of a sudden a problem (as if past encampments were permitted).
(*) And again, I'm taking no position on whether the problem was the content of the protests.
Are you being intentionally obtuse?
When did the Columbia president call in the NYPD to force students out of the encampment? Was it shortly after the students first made clear their intention to occupy the quad? Or was it shortly after the president testified in Congress before Republicans intent on pressuring university administrators to shut down campus protests deemed "antisemitic"?
Maybe the Columbia president is trying to hasten the end of America’s support for Israel?
If so, it seems to be working.
Hi Revolting,
With friends like Parkinsonian Joe( who even if he was to get murdered by an Ill-legal, would it change anything about their Border Policy? OK, his Assassin probably wouldn’t (Subjunctive Mood, not Indicative, I have no knowledge of any Ill-legals plans to kill him) get released the next day, where was I? Oh yeah friends like him, Israel doesn’t need them
Frank
You're assuming a double standard you have not established.
I don’t think Simon is claiming a double standard, just bad faith. It could be equal-opportunity bad faith, who knows.
No, I'm not. Please feel free to read my comments again; I'm not repeating myself.
You're also free to develop this argument, rather than simply reading it into something I've said.
Congress has started to haul admins to stand tall before them and explain themselves, wink wink, funding can be affected. Admins respond appropriately.
It's about the money, which is how we got into this mess long ago. Whatever the value of the famed dear colleagues letter, it has morphed into something else.
Ah yes, more assumption of government blackmail based on telepathy.
Still wrong, even when it's on the other side of the partisan divide.
U Presidents hauled before Congress, hem and haw.
Massive blowback.
Change stance, fired, etc.
Not sure who’s the fantasist here. Or in the section 230 issue, massively documented as a threat, including its own haulings of CEOs before Congress, “Why aren’t you blocking harrassment?”
Mr. Facebook said he wouldn’t do that to politicians before an election regardless of tweets being called harrassing, because the people need to see what their pols said, and got taken to task for it.
You need none of this to be true, and so you enter the fantasy world. All this is available. Millions watched the Democratic 2016 debate where they fell all overthemselves how to hurt the big tech media giants because they weren’t censoring harrassment the way these politicians demanded.
You are beyond hope, flat out lying, sir.
You tell stories that takes campaigning and playing for the public as full of baseline truths.
You also include a ton of behavior and thinking that is never established.
You cultivate an incredible ignorance of politics, a denial of countervailing evidence, and plenty of speculative telepathy to believe what you do.
You are the odd one out you know; you call me beyond hope but not many subscribe to your conspiracy theory. Even it’s new leftist sequel.
I'd say wealthy reactionary donors are more likely to be making the threats, no wink-wink needed.
OK Simon, I'm trying to understand the concept of second derivatives with those fuckheads disturbing me, so I take a baseball bat out there and start swinging. I'm just expressing *myself*...
this is a pretty bog standard time place and manner thing
Sarcastr0, that seems inapt. Time, place, and manner, apply as permissible limitations for speech. That works in part because there is a reasonable presumption that speech thwarted here can nevertheless find an alternative outlet there. And also, the notion that speech is enduring, and not necessarily ephemeral, plays a part. Speech prevented now in this place may nevertheless prove as a practical matter to be as enduring if uttered elsewhere later. Thus, not much damage is done to the right by time, place, and manner restrictions.
Encampments may seem expressive, but they are not speech, they are assemblies. The manner for permissible assemblies is Constitutionally prescribed. They must be peaceable. No limits on time or place for assemblies are Constitutionally prescribed. However, assemblies must all be considered as ephemeral; none has ever proved perpetual, or even as enduring as millions of utterances recorded and remembered down through the ages.
That means time and place, particularly, are of the essence with regard to a right to assemble. Those factors cannot be dictated without heavily burdening the right. If folks want to use a political assembly to affect the outcome of a political convention, it is plainly crippling to the right to require that the assembly be done far from the convention location, and/or at some other time.
Thus, the time, place, and manner restriction cannot properly be applied to the right of assembly, at least with regard to spaces customarily available for public purposes.
"Encampments may seem expressive, but they are not speech, they are assemblies."
Well, that--I think--is just wrong. It's hard to imagine an organized assembly that is not trying to communicate a message (or multiple messages). If the students gathered and gave a bunch of speeches, that would say one thing to me. The fact that they are camping out, and spending a significant amount of time staying gathered together communicates a (slightly? significantly??) different message. The group that gathered in Washington to listen to Trump's bullshit on Jan 6 was certainly engaged in speech as they listened to him blather on. (And, obviously, a fraction of them then engaged in different speech when they rioted and invaded the Capitol [unprotected speech, it should go without saying, at that point.])
Whats the different message = The fact that they are camping out, and spending a significant amount of time staying gathered together communicates a (slightly? significantly??) different message.
Commenter_XY, sure, but still a protected political message.
The founders did not intend the right of assembly to be anodyne. They intended it to be efficacious political medicine, strong enough to put to a test of popular tolerance tyrannies and impositions of bad government.
Well, they wanted disputes settled via politics…not by assembling armies in opposition of the federal military like in 1861.
Santamonica, a bunch of people coming together in public, at a mutually agreed time and place, for a political purpose, is not an assembly within the meaning of the 1A? Yikes! What would be an assembly? A Quaker meeting, but only if nobody chose to speak?
The J6 gatherings—at the Ellipse, and at the Capitol—were assemblies. The problem was that for many who attended, and perhaps provably in the case of Trump, they were not intended to be peaceable—and self-evidently they did not remain peaceable.
The notion that J6 speech was categorically unprotected is wrong. Mere advocacy for insurrection, without the speaker associating himself with action to put violence in process, is protected. John Marshall explained that at length in the Burr treason trials.
J6 participants who did not participate in the breach of the Capitol, who were otherwise not violent, and who did nothing materially to support the violence which did happen, deserve acquittal if they are tried, no matter what they said.
Subtract from J6 Trump’s coup attempt, leave off the weapons, forego the violence, and you could not make a legitimate case for a time, place, and manner limitation on anything that happened. It would all be Constitutionally protected 1A right of assembly.
I guess Jefferson Davis telling the people of Charleston that he would rather see their city burned to the ground than be taken by the Union Army is protected by the 1A??
Assembling would not be a problem in itself. Setting up an encampment is neither speech nor assembly, and it is not inherently expressive enough to be protected.
Similarly, many other current occupations of public spaces on campus violate other rules in unprotected ways: they harass people on the basis of (perceived) religion or national origin; they block passage of others; they use the place at a time or in a manner that is prohibited; and so on.
'Block the passage of others' really is doing a lot of work to justify violently ending a protest.
Speech or an assembly, which materially supports genocide, is not protected under the US Constitution. Zionist speech in material support of genocide or a Zionist assembly in material support of genocide is a legitimate basis for criminal indictment. See 18 U.S. Code § 2339A - Providing material support to terrorists. § 2339A directly references 18 U.S. Code § 1091 - Genocide.
"Thus, the time, place, and manner restriction cannot properly be applied to the right of assembly, at least with regard to spaces customarily available for public purposes."
That's probably the stupidest thing I'll read today. For one thing, you say "place" can't be applied, but "spaces" can. Those are the same thing, you idiot. You say time can't be restricted because it's an illusion or whatever, yet when I look at a calendar it appears to be quantifiable. You think it's proper for one group to monopolize a space indefinitely, even if another has reserved it? You want to privilege whoever started speaking first, allowing nobody else to speak until they voluntarily leave? Idiotic. And manner - you think it's improper to prohibit cross-burning in front of black dorms. It's okay if they erect a gallows on school property? What if they use it? Just arrest the specific perpetrators and leave the assembly alone, because it's just "manner?"
No, the legal doctrine of time, place, and manner is appropriate, it flows from the Constitution naturally and necessarily, and no amount of childish pseudo-philosophy will overcome practical reality.
Drewski, spaces customarily available for public purposes, and not otherwise controlled privately, are by explicit application of the 1A candidates for peaceable public assemblies. That means they are not, "places," from which assemblies can properly be precluded by a "time, place and manner," limitation. There is no contradiction.
You assume without reason that the use of a space for a public assembly bars others from entering it, to go about other business. If that were to happen, it would at least call into question the peaceability of the assembly. It does not typically happen, except perhaps in terms of the inconvenience suffered by drivers who cannot traverse in vehicles streets filled with people privileged to be there by explicit Constitutional authorization. A personal power to drive on the streets is supported by ordinary statutes. Do you suppose those trump the Constitution?
In the special cases of drivers of emergency vehicles, there is always the option for police to clear a path for their access—something police are trained to do, and which they do routinely everywhere—without need to disperse a lawful assembly. To insist otherwise is a typical dodge used by authoritarians to suppress a Constitutional right which the authoritarians want to deny to opponents.
That of course has been a practice so long-practiced and so wide-spread that many have reasoned on the basis of nothing better than plausibility that it is an appropriate application of law. I think that likely includes you.
Perhaps you would find it unpleasant to associate with members of a public assembled for purposes with which you disagree. That's on you. It is not an exclusion that anyone imposes on you against your will. All my life I have mingled freely among assemblies of people with whom I may disagree, and sometimes strongly disapprove. Nothing untoward ever happened.
That is a rule you can also rely upon, and which you are entitled to see enforced by police action if anything bad does happen—but probably not enforced by dispersal of the assembly, which would likely happen by authoritarian over-reach, not within Constitutional compliance.
When you ask—stupidly if may use your own term advisedly—whether a gallows may be used by a mob assembled on school property, you are right over the top with outrage, but otherwise unmoored. I have not kept up with the law on cross burning, but I know that law exists, and whatever it is, I would not expect it would be suspended during a peaceable assembly.
I think you are more an authoritarian than a libertarian, and more an authoritarian than the founders expected their citizens to be. When Franklin famously answered, "A republic, if you can keep it," the, "you," he had in mind were the jointly sovereign People, not office holders in governments intent on preventing political assemblies among their opponents.
Ah, your argument is that you don't know what words mean, and therefore "space" is not a "place" and "peaceful" is not a "manner." Words don't work like that.
And no, I'm not a libertarian. It's a childish, self-indulgent philosophy for people who believe they live in a fictional society that can be logicked into a utopia.
You're doing that thing again where you decide your idiosyncratic ideas about what the 1A should say represent the actual interpretation of the 1A by courts. But the Supreme Court disagrees with you,, and the Supreme Court, not Stephen Lathrop, decides what the law is. Speech, press, and assembly are all analyzed similarly. See Clark V. Community For Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984), applying time, place, and manner restrictions to… (wait for it) an encampment in a public park for political purposes.
Speech, press, and assembly are all analyzed similarly.
Which is to say, none of them are analyzed systematically, let alone according to originalist standards the Court purports to follow now. As usual, I do not attempt in this case to opine about the present state of the law.
The general case of assemblies which occupy public roadways is, however, a useful example to show confusions occasioned by unreflective present-minded historical analysis. At the time of the founding, public roadways were treated as the most natural of sites for public assemblies. Throughout New England, at least, intersections of major roadways were probably the most common original recipients of the designation, "public square."
Many major road intersections are even today named squares, with some additional designator preceding them to keep them all sorted. In Cambridge, MA, for instance, Central Square is a road intersection. Likewise for Porter Square, and Union Square, in Somerville, also the intersections of major roads. Because roadways named for Washington proliferated, so too have Washington Squares. Washington Squares in Brookline, Braintree, and Plainville, all in MA, are examples among others.
Historically, the very term, "public square," refers to roadways. What folks in the midwest might term a, "public square," would often in New England be termed a, "common," as for instance Boston Common, or Cambridge Common.
Thus, the notion of a peaceable public assembly blocking traffic is of course absent from the historical record. That was not even thought of until after the Civil War, and perhaps not prior to the early 20th century. Before that, foot traffic in the public roads was an accustomed liberty which anyone could exercise without being questioned, or even thinking about it, in most places.
After automobiles appeared and began to conflict with pedestrians in roadways, the question of which should get legal priority remained fraught for a surprisingly long interval. Eventually the machines won out.
Whether such practical determinations arrived at by nothing weightier than modern policy are properly justifications to burden a constitutional right is among the questions I seek to raise for consideration. If as you say, Nieporent, the law of time, place and manner is alike for speech and assembly, then the right of assembly has been gutted by that conflation. And pray tell, how do you suppose time, place, and manner restrictions are properly applied to press freedom? That is not one I had been aware of.
I do think you are at least partly right, by the way, about the present state of the law. I get that many commenters take road clearance as a priority ahead of public assembly, when they express outrage about blocked traffic. I expected that counter-argument. I just think it is wrong as a matter of history, and unwise as matter of legal policy and American constitutionalism. I would expect any reflective libertarian to oppose it.
Nieporent, having read Clark V. Community For Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 it seems a weak reed to support rebuttal of my points about the right of assembly, which go unmentioned. Unfortunately for the comparison, the plaintiffs chose to ground their case on expression, instead of on a right of assembly. Given that, it is hardly surprising that the Court found a time, place, and manner basis for its decision. But it seems a stretch to presume on that basis that the Court intended to extend time, place, and manner restrictions to the right of assembly without even saying so.
"Is there another time you get encampments other then protesters?"
I knew a "twig", (Forestry student) who used the dorms only for showers and meals, and otherwise lived in a tent in a wooded area of campus. On a peninsula sticking into lake Superior, 30 feet of snow a year and occasional -40 weather. But I suppose you need more than one tent to qualify as an "encampment".
The encampments must serve a purpose to be effective.
Non-Violent Struggle / Action serves a purpose when deployed rationally for a purpose or goal. Discipline of forces conveyed to a point or points of determined value are valid objectives. The encampments are for what ? Occupy, which I was a part of, had no long range planning or depth of defining the issue(s) of their concern(s). For myself, I found the occupy people too conservative and unimaginative, but the group was small. They were all Democrats, not I. And, we had a Trans youth.
Protesting works better when the message is conveyed to where it will be understood by others. Being truthful and honest are beyond value even when ignored or dismissed. Lies are like self-inflicted wounds.
Simon, here's what's wrong with the encampments:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/opinion/columbia-protests-israel.html
John McWhorter is Black and he just wants to TEACH without being disturbed.
You really are painfully stupid.
No, it’s not. You just disagree.
We generally disagree with the painfully stupid.
Typical bureaucrat speech. We're going to intensively meet and discuss the issue until people forget about it.
But, they will. These student protests will soon fade away, just as every other student protest has in the past. It's what students do.
The active protest will fade. The voting and sentiment will endure. Conservatives and Israel hardest hit.
Gee, a couple weeks ago you thought the protests would work against Biden for backing Israel. Now it's going to work against conservatives because you think that's a useful thing to say in the moment, as though these students were all going to vote Trump but suddenly changed their mind.
The truth is that most of them will never vote, and those that do will mostly either go Dem or Green, and in ten years will settle into their larger demographics. These protests will not affect their voting.
As I recall, I thought protests might accelerate Pres. Biden's already developing objections to Israel's conduct. I don't remember thinking Biden's open disdain for Netanyahu and Israel's other right-wing assholes (and their indefensible conduct) would hurt Biden in any manner.
Maybe you weren't around for the '60s and '70s. Those protesters became the people who shaped American progress (against the preferences of conservatives) for decades. America's current college students are going to spend the next 30 or 40 years kicking even more of the bigoted shit out of conservatism.
The moment somebody uses the phrase, "out of an abundance of caution", you KNOW something really stupid is coming. I've literally never seen that phrase used to justify a sensible action.
That is so true. These are people for whom mere caution is completely inadequate.
Whatever happens, don't upset the status quo or you'll be in the untenable position of having to defend against accusations of having taken a position.
"Out of an abundance of caution, [blah blah blah]."
Well, this is some shitty tone policing.
If you got an issue with the content, make that point. This is just inchoate whinging.
"The question is why encampments are all of a sudden an issue for university administrators."
It's because the people in the encampments are harassing Jewish students, and anyone else who disagrees with them and making classes difficult to attend.
Funny how that works.
That’s not what this speech says.
Of course that's not what this speech says. If he admitted that was what was going on, he'd never be able to justify putting off shutting them down.
So it's telepathy yet again, then.
Well go enjoy your personal reality. I'm going to argue based on the evidence in front of me, not self-reinforcing assumptions at odds with that evidence.
You do realize this argument you are adopting is about unequal favoritism towards Jewish students, eh?
Would you even be able to talk to people who disagree with you, if deprived of the ability to accuse them of mind reading every time they drew reasonable inferences?
This is the same woman who promised suspensions for the demonstration last November that took over a campus building and trapped Jewish students, and then backed down and let them off with a warning.
I read the OP.
You made some shit up.
We are not the same.
You made shit up about politicians not threatening section 230 to coerce media to censor harrassment. Or claim it has no real effect.
Or something.
This is the same woman who promised suspensions for the demonstration last November that took over a campus building and trapped Jewish students, and then backed down and let them off with a warning.
Then why are you assuming she's now displaying favoritism towards Jewish students? To make up for it?
Your telepathy is all over the place.
Her statement in this matter seems genuine to me, I don't see a lot of dissembling there. She even addresses the external pressure that Simon is accusing her of succumbing to. She also manages to avoid charges of rank moral relativism -- the statement does take sides.
"'about unequal favoritism towards Jewish students"
That is another of your lies.
Kornbluth has a fiduciary duty to keep all students free from harassment and intimidation. She has failed at that. But you prefer not tho want to inform yourself about that.
1. I did miss the 'putting off' in Brett's comment. OK then. Still telepathy yet again.
2. There are competing duties here, as you well know. Don't lie by omission.
“a fiduciary duty”
Can I ask where you got this idea?
It's floating around as a phrase recently, by firms advertising they have a fiduciary duty to their client investors. I suspect that is really a cover for abusing the "gaping hole" in that, which has also been discussed.
Oh, so it's the reason why running companies and services into the ground, understaffing them and cutting every corner is The Right Thing To Do.
It is her duty as an officer of the MIT corporation which is contractually bound to fulfill its agreement with students and faculty and employees.
That’s not what fiduciary duty means in a technical sense. I understand by your response you are using it in a different sense: a fancy law-sounding word you heard somewhere and threw into your comment. No shame in it.
Sorry, as an officer her duties in this regard are fiduciary. Her fulfillment of them is subject to legal responsibility. They must be fulfilled even if they are detrimental to her personal interest.
A lot of the students in the encampments are genuine Jews. A Zionist can never be a genuine Jew because Zionism murdered Judaism by transforming Judaism into a program of genocide.
On some campuses, genuine Jews outnumber depraved Zionists that screech a vacuous accusation of antisemitism in order to distract from the mass murder genocide that colonial settlers of the Zionist baby-killer nation are perpetrating in Gaza.
You are an out and out lunatic.
Presumably not the Jewish students in the encampment.
Professor Volokh, tell your son to stay safe. You must be enormously proud.
While the FBI should be mass arresting US Zionists for probable violation of US federal anti-genocide law, at least in Boston I have yet to see any anti-genocide demonstrator make a true threat or evince recklessness toward a Zionist.
We must all keep in mind that at present Zionists are probably the most criminal, depraved, and disgusting group on the planet.
The most? What makes them any worse than Iranians, Ukrainians, Saudis, N. Koreans, or Biden supporters?
MIT could borrow the mobile barriers transportation departments use to keep rubberneckers from looking at crash scenes.
Ugh. What a mess of a message. Compare to the memo sent out by the University of Florida (and which got demonstrators to immediately comply):
“Allowable Activities:
Speech
Expressing viewpoints
Holding signs in hands
Prohibitive Items and Activities:
No amplified sound
No demonstrations inside buildings
No littering
No sleeping
No unmanned signs
No blocking ingress/egress
No building of structures (chairs, stakes, benches, tables)
No camping, including tents, sleeping bags, pillows, etc.
No disruption
No threats
No violence
No weapons
Any other items and/or activities deemed to be non-compliant with policy and regulations by university officials.
Consequences for Non-Compliance:
Individuals found responsible for engaging in prohibited activities shall be trespassed from campus. Students will receive a 3 year trespass and suspension. Employees will be trespassed and separated from employment.”
Night and day.
Only thing missing is expulsion and then for the government to deport those here on student visas (after expulsion).
They all need to be deported, preferably to Afghanistan where they can experience Sharia law up close and personal, I’ve heard the Tolly-Bon (HT Barry Hussein Osama) aren’t really woke on Drug Addicts and Homos
Frank
Every US Zionist must be arrested to be tried and almost certainly convicted for probable violation of US anti-genocide law so that he can experience prison life or the gallows closely and personally.
You talkin to me?
And you just gave yourself away Ahab, only places still using Gallows are your Moose-lem shitholes (sorry EV, gotta call a shithole a shithole) I think you’re even more Revolting than the Revolting Reverend
Frank “ the Students are Revolting!!!!”
Okay, you want a genocide against Zionists. Any other groups you want to do away with?
A political group (e.g., Zionists or Nazis) is not protected from genocide according to international anti-genocide law.
Getting stomped by their betters in the culture war has made our remaining conservative culture war losers cranky and vindictive.
A bad look for people who will mostly rely on the magnanimity of the culture war's winners for the rest of their deplorable, impotent lives.
Again with the “Stomping” and you don’t even get the Irony of an effete Shyster talking about something he’d have to wear a pair of shit kickers to even do.
I actually have a pair.
And a pair of shit kickers too
Frank
Which is vindictive, and stupid in the long term, if you depend on certain numbers of foreign students every year.
That's a useful edict, and answer to the rhetorical question, "What do you expect a university to do?"
Question: How do you implement rules like that without capitulating to colonial settler Jews and their MAGA sympathizers?
"sent out by the University of Florida"
Ex GOP senator is president there.
This is full-on echoes of the 1970s where older folks wanted the hippies to be beat up.
Now the hippy generation wants the new set of kids to be beaten up.
Perhaps the lesson for you is that college brats across the ages need boundaries to be set and enforced. Their zeal and emotions do not excuse camping in a public square or calling for the murder of Jews or blocking members of their community from attending classes (which did happen at MIT specifically) or all the other ways they oppress others.
You are doing an awful job hiding how much you hate speech when you don't like it.
And you do an terrible job of hiding that you think "our violence is speech".
MIT, which is what I've been talking about this whole time and have to keep reminding you, has been nonviolent.
You're not doing a great job of hiding how you really want to talk about something else.
A lot of the students in the encampments are genuine Jews. A Zionist can never be a genuine Jew because Zionism murdered Judaism by transforming Judaism into a program of genocide.
On some campuses, genuine Jews outnumber depraved Zionists that screech a vacuous accusation of antisemitism in order to distract from the mass murder genocide that colonial settlers of the Zionist baby-killer nation are perpetrating in Gaza.
"A lot of the students in the encampments are genuine Jews. "
True, but they are stupid Jews.
I dunno... this whole thing is probably going to taint Judaism for centuries, as Zionism becomes synonymous with ethnic cleansing. Imagine 100 years from now, anti-Arab "neo-Zionists" running around in yarmulkes intimidating Muslims. That will be sad.
For some that might make them reconsider their broad brush of hostility.
I mean, we're getting a very clear picture of how you guys treat dissent and protests that aren't Nazis protesting drag queen story hours. None of it's a surprise, but it's always a useful reminder. Also, the visceral hatred for the young, and a desire to control them ruthlessly.
Gotta break it to you, but those 70's protestors some people wanted beat up? They were few enough that it's slander to refer to the generation they were members of as "the hippy generation".
Most of that generation were perfectly ordinary people trying to lead normal, productive lives. That's why society didn't collapse, after all.
Next you'll tell me a lot of the Greatest Generation weren't great.
Point is, this is just the same shitty desire for kids to be beaten up by authorities as in the 1970s.
It's as if language itself is just your meaningless bitch.
Watch the autistic, antisocial, disaffected, obsolete loser soaked in conspiracy theories and old-timey bigotry talk about "normal."
I think this draws a decent balance, But here's the arguments I've seen so far, including from Prof. Bernstein.
-The OP is just lies
-Zero tolerance is the best way to deal with students breaking the rules
-Zero tolerance is the best way in this case because the viewpoint is so bad
-Deadly force seems called for. Any deaths would be the Student's fault.
-I very much want to switch away from MIT as the subject
-What about January 06???
Hard to shake that this collection of bad arguments isn't in service of suffering for kids these days for being activists on the left.
Just like in the 1970s. I hope this ends up looking as bad as that era of 'what's the matter with kids today' did, in the distance of time?
You are such a douche.
Guess you're having trouble addressing my argument, even if you don't like it much.
It’s not an argument. It’s snide pablum that you think makes a point, but really doesn’t.
He's a douche.
You're an old-timey bigot and disaffected right-wing loser.
He's the fly in this blog's ointment.
You're this blog's target audience.
He has won the culture war.
You're culture war roadkill, destined to spend the rest of your life complying with the preferences of better Americans.
The US has unforgiving anti-genocide law. Zero-tolerance is the proper way to deal with a US Zionist genocide supporter at a university or elsewhere.
.
These dickheads weren't the protesters. They were the awkward, rural kids who walked around in short sleeve shirts, crewcuts, and neckties; joined ROTC; went to church while cheating on their spouses; learned to hide their bigotry in public; sent their children to backwater religious schools; drove shitty American cars while muttering about "rice burners;" got madder and madder about being unable to beat their wives and children; put Nixon, Reagan, and Buchanan signs in their front lawns; and seethed about all of this damned progress, reason, education, modernity, science, inclusiveness, and social justice.
" beaten up"
Strawman. Removing tents and arresting/expelling protestors is not "beating up" anyone.
University research ties to Israeli universities probably constitute criminal material support of genocide. Material support of genocide is a legitimate basis for criminal indictment. See 18 U.S. Code § 2339A – Providing material support to terrorists. § 2339A directly references 18 U.S. Code § 1091 – Genocide.
Genocide and anti-genocide are not merely irreconcilable positions.
Support for genocide is a heinous crime in US federal law. In order to reduce criminal and civil legal exposure, MIT should immediate dismiss all Zionist faculty or staff and expel all Zionist students.
No genocide-supporter should be present at any US university.
Am I the only one here who thinks this statement was, on the whole, pretty good, considering everything?
KIornbluth treated the pro-Palestine anti-genocide standpoint as morally equivalent to the Zionist pro-genocide standpoint.
Genocide is a US federal capital crime without a statute of limitations. US anti-genocide law is unforgiving. A US university cannot be neutral on the question of genocide. Every Zionist must be removed from an American university. No other position is legally permissible for a US university.
Israel has the same legal status that a cannibal state has. The international community must obliterate the IDF and abolish the Zionist state.
Kornbluth’s position is untenable.
Lotsa posts here, but yeah I agree.
Lots of posts by you (and Aflac) and you are still a douche (Aflac too).
I'm aware that arguing on the Internet will make some people not pleased with me.
You're doing a hilariously empty job of dealing with it though.
Except considering that it's just a statement, and based on her own (in)actions back in November, is likely to remain just a statement.
My 2 cents: Affleck is terrible; Sarcastro is fine; and Brett, fair, but we'll see.
Maybe Prof. Volokh's son supports the Palestinians but doesn't feel comfortable sharing his decency with a conservative parent (who might be paying the tuition statements).
Maybe he has signs of indecency - qualms about endorsing people who want to restore slavery, for example. Very indecent of him.