I’m not involved in university administration but it seems to me that those who are deans should be held to the highest standards of non-discrimination. I might have a different opinion if a mere professor had done the same.
I think the question becomes: Are they actually discriminating, or are they sharing private thoughts with colleagues? Have those thoughts spilled over to how they treat students and do their jobs? We'll discuss this tomorrow.
It's the media age. My first boss in my first professional job said "Don't write anything that you don't want to see on the front page of the Washington Post." He wasn't referring to texts (they didn't exist) but the principle is the same. These people should have known better. And they are in positions of leadership.
Generally "free speech" is an allusion to The 1st, and as such is constrained to meaning the government can not censure you. We have never been free from the judgment and repercussions from society.
If you want to paint Nazi ( or Pride, MAGA, Biden, or pro Taliban) decals on your truck, you can't be arrested for that, but I don't have to invite you over for dinner or hire you as a plumber, or as dean of student affairs.
Now, if you're saying these weren't public statements and the individual who took photos and exposed them is guilty of an invasion of privacy, that's a different, possibly legit, argument altogether.
This is yet another example of the often irritating, and yes, at times, agonizing, double-edge nature of living in a constitutional federal republic. Sometimes the "bad" guys get to make use of its protections, just like the "good" guys. As abhorrent as this private speech was to many, if not most others, when revealed, it is almost certainly "protected" speech although technically, it is being "regulated" by a private entity which has that right. Government funding may play a role in what can or can not be legally regulated, but that's a discussion for the weeds. Suffice it to say, words do have consequences, whatever their intent, and however smugly wrapped in legal protection.
I am not involved in academia, but as the son of an orphaned Holocaust survivor have an admittedly conflicted view on this topic. Certainly, I believe hate in all its forms should be condemned vociferously, and as a society we should shun those who engage in it. While I think these people should not be in roles where they are responsible for the education of others, removing them altogether will not remove the hate. That said, I also believe wholeheartedly (as my father did) that education is the only long-term solution as attempting to silence others will only harden the haters to their (often ill-informed) points of view. It also helps to rationalize the view of those who fear guard rails being placed on their freedom of speech. Secondly, it is hardly fair or rational for a society – or a university – to to hold certain people to a higher standard or apply a “punishment” while this same society permits other haters (like the clown who thinks “there are good people on both sides”) to seek the highest office in the land or occupy other very visible roles (whether in private industry or government). I think calling these people out – whether at Columbia or on the national political stage – is important and appropriate, moreover it is an obligation of all of us seeking to drive hate from public (and ideally private) discourse.
Their job was to provide a respectful audience. Nobody forced them to do otherwise, but they did - and they got caught out. They have zero credibility and no business occupying any position of authority.
As I appreciate being distracted from the crazy 💩 about Biden who’s done several unscripted events and taken Qs, happy to scream and tear my hair out about one more set of horrible people.
(irrespective of my last name that literally means "Field of Christ," I'm Jewish all the way down--we think it was Klaristenfeld in the old country, wherever that was.)
I feel like some are worse than others. I'm not offended by the one that mentions the fundraising potential; I am offended by the one making fun of the students participating in Hillel.
These people have responsibilities for student life on campus. The nature of those comments indicate they are not suited to those jobs. Dr. Sorett should go also. "Free speech" is not free of consequences when they indicate that degree of disrespect for certain ethnic/cultural/religious groups.
I still can't "like" comments; but I agree. The fact that their jobs are specifically related to "student life" brings being fit for their positions into play in a way that wouldn't be true if they were professors or even deans in the chemistry or engineering departments.
It's possible to be a staunch supporter of Israel and of free speech, especially free speech intended for a private audience. Regrettably, free speech today is permissable only to the extent that it doesn't ruffle feathers.
I'm one of the 10% who voted Completely Unjust. I think that Minouche Shafik is cowering in the face of criticism from Republican Members of Congress. She's showing the Republican Members of Congress that she can be as intolerant of opposing perspectives as Elise Stefanik.
The participants in the conversation assumed the conversation to be private. If the deans had verbally conversed among themselves in person after the event and had been overheard saying similar things, would they have gotten into the same amount of trouble? I doubt it. They were idiots to put their thoughts to text.
I've seen no evidence that any of the deans made any public statements or executed any public acts that would meet the definition of antisemitism. I read the original article that included the texts, as well as the opinion piece that some of the commenters criticized. Many of you see comments that you perceive as being antisemitic. I don't.
Now that you have excoriated the deans for the content of their private texts, ask yourself if there has ever been a time in your life when you have shared an opinion in confidence with another person that, if that opinion had been made public, might jeopardize your job.
If you answer, "None," you're either fooling yourself or have never had a strongly-held opinion about any social, political or financial issue.
None. But my job was different. I couldn't have stated opinions IN WRITING that criticized my federal government employer. I neither confirm nor deny that I had anything to say that was not written down. More to the point, I DEFINITELY could not have criticized, implicitly or explicitly, any protected group. It appears you have. That makes me sad.
I’m not involved in university administration but it seems to me that those who are deans should be held to the highest standards of non-discrimination. I might have a different opinion if a mere professor had done the same.
I think the question becomes: Are they actually discriminating, or are they sharing private thoughts with colleagues? Have those thoughts spilled over to how they treat students and do their jobs? We'll discuss this tomorrow.
It's the media age. My first boss in my first professional job said "Don't write anything that you don't want to see on the front page of the Washington Post." He wasn't referring to texts (they didn't exist) but the principle is the same. These people should have known better. And they are in positions of leadership.
Yep. I'm my opinion the university had no choice.
Plug in any other minority group. Would it be acceptable?
These are not public statements and should be covered by "free speech." But that seems to be a concept of the past. I am not surprised.
free speech does not and never has mean no consequences.
Generally "free speech" is an allusion to The 1st, and as such is constrained to meaning the government can not censure you. We have never been free from the judgment and repercussions from society.
If you want to paint Nazi ( or Pride, MAGA, Biden, or pro Taliban) decals on your truck, you can't be arrested for that, but I don't have to invite you over for dinner or hire you as a plumber, or as dean of student affairs.
Now, if you're saying these weren't public statements and the individual who took photos and exposed them is guilty of an invasion of privacy, that's a different, possibly legit, argument altogether.
This is yet another example of the often irritating, and yes, at times, agonizing, double-edge nature of living in a constitutional federal republic. Sometimes the "bad" guys get to make use of its protections, just like the "good" guys. As abhorrent as this private speech was to many, if not most others, when revealed, it is almost certainly "protected" speech although technically, it is being "regulated" by a private entity which has that right. Government funding may play a role in what can or can not be legally regulated, but that's a discussion for the weeds. Suffice it to say, words do have consequences, whatever their intent, and however smugly wrapped in legal protection.
Well-said.
I am not involved in academia, but as the son of an orphaned Holocaust survivor have an admittedly conflicted view on this topic. Certainly, I believe hate in all its forms should be condemned vociferously, and as a society we should shun those who engage in it. While I think these people should not be in roles where they are responsible for the education of others, removing them altogether will not remove the hate. That said, I also believe wholeheartedly (as my father did) that education is the only long-term solution as attempting to silence others will only harden the haters to their (often ill-informed) points of view. It also helps to rationalize the view of those who fear guard rails being placed on their freedom of speech. Secondly, it is hardly fair or rational for a society – or a university – to to hold certain people to a higher standard or apply a “punishment” while this same society permits other haters (like the clown who thinks “there are good people on both sides”) to seek the highest office in the land or occupy other very visible roles (whether in private industry or government). I think calling these people out – whether at Columbia or on the national political stage – is important and appropriate, moreover it is an obligation of all of us seeking to drive hate from public (and ideally private) discourse.
Their job was to provide a respectful audience. Nobody forced them to do otherwise, but they did - and they got caught out. They have zero credibility and no business occupying any position of authority.
As I appreciate being distracted from the crazy 💩 about Biden who’s done several unscripted events and taken Qs, happy to scream and tear my hair out about one more set of horrible people.
I don't feel like I have enough information to form an opinion on the subject so I have refrained from voting.
The incident does confirm one old stereotype: School administrators do hate their students.
Dean Wormer isn't as much of a caricature as one might have hoped.
(irrespective of my last name that literally means "Field of Christ," I'm Jewish all the way down--we think it was Klaristenfeld in the old country, wherever that was.)
I feel like some are worse than others. I'm not offended by the one that mentions the fundraising potential; I am offended by the one making fun of the students participating in Hillel.
These people have responsibilities for student life on campus. The nature of those comments indicate they are not suited to those jobs. Dr. Sorett should go also. "Free speech" is not free of consequences when they indicate that degree of disrespect for certain ethnic/cultural/religious groups.
Yup.
I still can't "like" comments; but I agree. The fact that their jobs are specifically related to "student life" brings being fit for their positions into play in a way that wouldn't be true if they were professors or even deans in the chemistry or engineering departments.
It's possible to be a staunch supporter of Israel and of free speech, especially free speech intended for a private audience. Regrettably, free speech today is permissable only to the extent that it doesn't ruffle feathers.
I'm one of the 10% who voted Completely Unjust. I think that Minouche Shafik is cowering in the face of criticism from Republican Members of Congress. She's showing the Republican Members of Congress that she can be as intolerant of opposing perspectives as Elise Stefanik.
The participants in the conversation assumed the conversation to be private. If the deans had verbally conversed among themselves in person after the event and had been overheard saying similar things, would they have gotten into the same amount of trouble? I doubt it. They were idiots to put their thoughts to text.
I've seen no evidence that any of the deans made any public statements or executed any public acts that would meet the definition of antisemitism. I read the original article that included the texts, as well as the opinion piece that some of the commenters criticized. Many of you see comments that you perceive as being antisemitic. I don't.
Now that you have excoriated the deans for the content of their private texts, ask yourself if there has ever been a time in your life when you have shared an opinion in confidence with another person that, if that opinion had been made public, might jeopardize your job.
If you answer, "None," you're either fooling yourself or have never had a strongly-held opinion about any social, political or financial issue.
None. But my job was different. I couldn't have stated opinions IN WRITING that criticized my federal government employer. I neither confirm nor deny that I had anything to say that was not written down. More to the point, I DEFINITELY could not have criticized, implicitly or explicitly, any protected group. It appears you have. That makes me sad.
I bow to your moral superiority.
I’m not sure what to say, and this is a bad platform to get into a fight. I don’t think I’m fooling myself, that’s all.
Understood