University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill resigns

[ThatRobGuy]

Live updates: UPenn President Liz Magill resigns after months of controversy

Liz Magill, the president of University of Pennsylvania, voluntarily stepped down from the helm of the Ivy League school on Saturday, according to an announcement from board chair Scott Bok.

www.cnn.com

Wealthy donors, CEOs, lawmakers and even Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro condemned Magill’s testimony on Tuesday in Congress where she struggled to say whether calls for genocide against Jews would violate the school’s code of conduct on bullying or harassment.

Magill attempted to clarify her widely criticized response, but the damage was done.

The donor backlash was triggered by a Palestinian literature festival hosted on campus in September.

To the dismay of some alumni and support of others, Magill allowed the Palestine Writes Literature Festival to go forward even as she acknowledged it would feature some speakers with a history of making antisemitic remarks.



...I think the damage was also done in that some of these Ivy League institutions tried to defend current happenings on grounds of "we have to allow free speech, even if it's controversial" after having an abysmal record in that regard over the past 5 years.

2024 College Free Speech Rankings

For the fourth year in a row, FIRE and College Pulse surveyed college students about their perceptions and experiences regarding free speech on their campuses.

www.thefire.org

At the other end of the rankings, Harvard University came in dead last with the lowest score possible, 0.00, more than four standard deviations below the mean. The full list of the bottom five schools and their scores is as follows:

• Harvard University (0.00)
• University of Pennsylvania (11.13)
• University of South Carolina (12.24)
• Georgetown University (17.45)
• Fordham University (21.72)

The school in question was ranked 2nd to last in terms of protecting free speech on campus.

 

[zippy2006]

At the other end of the rankings, Harvard University came in dead last with the lowest score possible, 0.00, more than four standard deviations below the mean.

Well, technically Harvard earned a negative score, but they were generously bumped up to zero. Perhaps next year they can achieve a score of zero without any special assistance.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Well, technically Harvard earned a negative score, but they were generously bumped up to zero. Perhaps next year they can achieve a score of zero without any special assistance.

Yeah, I saw that...

But when it comes to grading things on a scale presented as being 0-100, giving someone a negative score is reminiscent to a Spinal Tap "this goes to 11" moment.

 

[zippy2006]

Yeah, I saw that...

But when it comes to grading things on a scale presented as being 0-100, giving someone a negative score is reminiscent to a Spinal Tap "this goes to 11" moment.

Here is an explanation: Greg Lukianoff link.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Live updates: UPenn President Liz Magill resigns after months of controversy

Liz Magill, the president of University of Pennsylvania, voluntarily stepped down from the helm of the Ivy League school on Saturday, according to an announcement from board chair Scott Bok.

www.cnn.com

Wealthy donors, CEOs, lawmakers and even Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro condemned Magill’s testimony on Tuesday in Congress where she struggled to say whether calls for genocide against Jews would violate the school’s code of conduct on bullying or harassment.

Magill attempted to clarify her widely criticized response, but the damage was done.

The donor backlash was triggered by a Palestinian literature festival hosted on campus in September.

To the dismay of some alumni and support of others, Magill allowed the Palestine Writes Literature Festival to go forward even as she acknowledged it would feature some speakers with a history of making antisemitic remarks.



...I think the damage was also done in that some of these Ivy League institutions tried to defend current happenings on grounds of "we have to allow free speech, even if it's controversial" after having an abysmal record in that regard over the past 5 years.

2024 College Free Speech Rankings

For the fourth year in a row, FIRE and College Pulse surveyed college students about their perceptions and experiences regarding free speech on their campuses.

www.thefire.org

At the other end of the rankings, Harvard University came in dead last with the lowest score possible, 0.00, more than four standard deviations below the mean. The full list of the bottom five schools and their scores is as follows:

• Harvard University (0.00)
• University of Pennsylvania (11.13)
• University of South Carolina (12.24)
• Georgetown University (17.45)
• Fordham University (21.72)

The school in question was ranked 2nd to last in terms of protecting free speech on campus.

That was a pretty clear question she was asked, whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates the Code of Conduct.

This was the HEAD of the university who vaccilated on such a question. I think we can pretty clearly say that "calling for the genocide of ANYONE" is a terrible thing, and certainly violates a Code of Conduct to treat others with respect. But she waffled, not wanting to offend anyone. They all did.

 

[Pommer]

That was a pretty clear question she was asked, whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates the Code of Conduct.

This was the HEAD of the university who vaccilated on such a question. I think we can pretty clearly say that "calling for the genocide of ANYONE" is a terrible thing, and certainly violates a Code of Conduct to treat others with respect. But she waffled, not wanting to offend anyone. They all did.

So “cancel-culture” is good again?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

So “cancel-culture” is good again?

No, but one must be consistent. To argue that "misgendering" someone is egregious and "unsafe", but calling for GENOCIDE of a segment of the student body is fine is just reprehensible. As always, it is about the abject hypocrisy.

 

[Pommer]

No, but one must be consistent. To argue that "misgendering" someone is egregious and "unsafe", but calling for GENOCIDE of a segment of the student body is fine is just reprehensible. As always, it is about the abject hypocrisy.

There’s hypocrisy in academia!?
NO!?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So “cancel-culture” is good again?

I think it's more along the lines of people taking a certain amount of satisfaction in "the gander" getting a little bit of "what's good for the goose"

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

There’s hypocrisy in academia!?
NO!?

I wish I could say no. I should be able to say no. It certainly has changed in recent decades.

 

[iluvatar5150]

There’s hypocrisy in academia!?
NO!?

Yeah, the stuff coming out of Liberty the last couple years has been wild.

 

[Margaret3110]

So “cancel-culture” is good again?

Calling for the genocide of anyone - ANYONE - is not protected free speech, and saying so isn't cancel culture.

 

[durangodawood]

No, but one must be consistent. To argue that "misgendering" someone is egregious and "unsafe", but calling for GENOCIDE of a segment of the student body is fine is just reprehensible. As always, it is about the abject hypocrisy.

Did the congress people ask her if misgendering was against the code of conduct?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Did the congress people ask her if misgendering was against the code of conduct?

Not that I saw, and I saw most of the hearing that was available. It was just about anti-Semitism. This article has more information. But that would have been a good question to ask first.

MSN

 

[durangodawood]

Not that I saw, and I saw most of the hearing that was available. It was just about anti-Semitism. This article has more information. But that would have been a good question to ask first.

MSN

Well that would have been the opportunity to see if theres really hypocrisy at play vis a vis these 2 different issues and free speech.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Well that would have been the opportunity to see if theres really hypocrisy at play vis a vis these 2 different issues and free speech.

Directly, yes. There is already unequivocal anti-bullying, pro LGBT policy at Harvard.

 

[durangodawood]

Directly, yes. There is already unequivocal anti-bullying, pro LGBT policy at Harvard.

The claim of hypocrisy here isnt about whats written in the policy. Its about how she would answer a similar question re a different offense. We didnt get to see that.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

The claim of hypocrisy here isnt about whats written in the policy. Its about how she would answer a similar question re a different offense. We didnt get to see that.

She would answer, undoubtedly, with current pro LGBT policy statements, with no equivocation. You are correct that we didn't get multiple questions asked about other subjects in this particular hearing about anti-Semitism at universities, which we have seen blatantly displayed for weeks on video on multiple outlets.

What do you think would happen at Harvard if students were marching and protesting loudly for "genocide to (fill in the blank with protected category)" would happen? Do you think she would equivocate, saying, well genocide to (fill in the category) might not be a violation; it depends upon context?

 

[durangodawood]

She would answer, undoubtedly, with current pro LGBT policy statements, with no equivocation. You are correct that we didn't get multiple questions asked about other subjects in this particular hearing about anti-Semitism at universities, which we have seen blatantly displayed for weeks on video on multiple outlets.

What do you think would happen at Harvard if students were marching and protesting loudly for "genocide to (fill in the blank with protected category)" would happen? Do you think she would equivocate, saying, well genocide to (fill in the category) might not be a violation; it depends upon context?

No I dont think she would equivocate. But "I dont think" is not the same as having evidence she IS a hypocrite.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Calling for the genocide of anyone - ANYONE - is not protected free speech, and saying so isn't cancel culture.

I think some of what's being said falls in that realm of "yeah, we all know what that means", where there's heavy use of semantic overload to imply something much more serious that's commonly associated with a phrase/slogan, and when people get called out for it, they fall back to the more innocuous sounding definition.

Not saying it hasn't happened (maybe it has), but I haven't heard any direct calls for things like "kill all the Israelis", but some of the slogans being leveraged certainly make that a potential possibility with regards to intent.

Some of the people are playing coy and acting as if "we just thought it meant we wanted Palestinians to be free", but not every college student can be THAT naive as to have never gotten on the web and looked up the popularization of the slogans they're using.


It'd be sort of like if a bunch of guys with a shirt that said "Rebel Pride" were at some sort of rally, and were yelling "The South will rise again!...how do you like that boy!" at Black people while waving confederate flags...and then said "What??? No!, we're not implying anything racist... just a big fan of states' rights and preserving history and the southern way of life"...I don't think anyone would buy it.

Where this situation gets extremely "unique" is that the people currently doing anti-Israel chants out in the streets now, are co-opting the the slogans of people/organizations that believe the exact same things about Jews that the tiki torch guys did at the Unite the Right rally (who they excoriated a few years ago).

This is why consistency is key...and why the university leaders playing the "we have to defend expression even if it's controversial or mean" rang hollow. Nobody sees their stated sentiment as being sincere, and it more or less comes off as (and pardon me for being blunt) "It's okay to bash Jews as long as you're doing it in favor of people with more pigment and less power"


As I noted earlier, I don't think it's so much that the US right have fallen in love with the notion of cancel culture, it's more of a case of the more "base urge" of taking pleasure in the old adage of "what's good for the goose is good for the gander".

For instance (an example going in the other direction), when Rush Limbaugh used to go on endless rants about how "drug users are scum and should be locked away", and then ended up getting busted for illegal substance use himself, and people on the left (and center for that matter, I'd be lying if I said I didn't have a little smirk when he got busted) took pleasure in his sentencing/punishment, it wasn't because they'd changed their tune on drug laws, it'd because they were watching someone, who they viewed as obnoxious, get hoisted by their own petard, so to speak...and at a basic level, there is something mildly satisfying about seeing that happen for most people (myself included)