Fair expose of Stefanik, but lets Gay and the other presidents off the hook far to easily. Presumably university presidents are seasoned professionals used to tough questioning who are are capable of challenging presumptions of their questioners. Whatever Stefanik’s vices, why they failed to respond to her appropriately is not her fault, but theirs. At stake are not only issues related to Israel and Palestine, not only related to antisemitism on campus, but also issues related to the distinction between constitutionally legally protected speech, and the kinds of discursive and behavioral civility that are essential to robust academic life. Gay’s apology acknowledged that admirably, both the general issue, and the fact that her failure —yes her failure,not Stafanik’s—particularly hurt Jewish students in this context.
That was as clear a description of the Stefanik-Gay interchange and the surrounding issues as I have read. And I have read a lot. My husband's profession means I swim in a pond with a lot of historians. My birthplace means I know a lot about the guilt that Britain bears in this whole sorry mess. BUT, I am still frustrated that Gay et al could not have anticipated this questioning and short- circuited it. What is wrong with an answer that says that genocide is abhorrent, as is hate? Deliberately misrepresenting a situation to create more hate, as Stefanik was doing, is also abhorrent. And the answer to all these problems is not kicking people out of countries or universities but educating more people to understand issues from different perspectives. Keep writing. You polish the rust off my brain cells.
Thank you. As a matter of fact, Gay and the other presidents did say clearly that genocide and hate are abhorrent. The interlocutors were never satisfied with that. Always (as far as I read) they returned to the technical question about what counts as harassment.
Fair expose of Stefanik, but lets Gay and the other presidents off the hook far to easily. Presumably university presidents are seasoned professionals used to tough questioning who are are capable of challenging presumptions of their questioners. Whatever Stefanik’s vices, why they failed to respond to her appropriately is not her fault, but theirs. At stake are not only issues related to Israel and Palestine, not only related to antisemitism on campus, but also issues related to the distinction between constitutionally legally protected speech, and the kinds of discursive and behavioral civility that are essential to robust academic life. Gay’s apology acknowledged that admirably, both the general issue, and the fact that her failure —yes her failure,not Stafanik’s—particularly hurt Jewish students in this context.
Fair response. Thank you.
That was as clear a description of the Stefanik-Gay interchange and the surrounding issues as I have read. And I have read a lot. My husband's profession means I swim in a pond with a lot of historians. My birthplace means I know a lot about the guilt that Britain bears in this whole sorry mess. BUT, I am still frustrated that Gay et al could not have anticipated this questioning and short- circuited it. What is wrong with an answer that says that genocide is abhorrent, as is hate? Deliberately misrepresenting a situation to create more hate, as Stefanik was doing, is also abhorrent. And the answer to all these problems is not kicking people out of countries or universities but educating more people to understand issues from different perspectives. Keep writing. You polish the rust off my brain cells.
Thank you. As a matter of fact, Gay and the other presidents did say clearly that genocide and hate are abhorrent. The interlocutors were never satisfied with that. Always (as far as I read) they returned to the technical question about what counts as harassment.