Harvard, UPenn Presidents Grilled in Congress on Antisemitism

New York Rep. Elise Stefanik grilled the presidents of Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania on Wednesday during a congressional hearing on antisemitism.
The presidents of Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania were forced to issue statements clarifying their responses to a US congressional hearing on antisemitism after a barrage of criticism from business leaders and politicians that shows few signs of abating.
Harvard’s Claudine Gay and Penn’s Liz Magill were lambasted for refusing to say at the Dec. 5 event that calling for the genocide of Jews is against school policy, instead offering narrow legal responses.
Magill said late Wednesday in a video message that such language would amount to “harassment or intimidation,” while Gay stated on social media that Harvard won’t condone violent speech against Jewish students.
--------
Subscribe to our KZbin channel: trib.al/KM4k5RA
Subscribe to Bloomberg Originals: trib.al/dJv9Uw8
Bloomberg Quicktake brings you global social video spanning business, technology, politics and culture. Make sense of the stories changing your business and your world.
Connect with us on…
KZbin: / bloomberg
Breaking News on KZbin: / @bloombergquicktakenow

[@enjoyitbro]

But if she was asked if calling someone by the wrong pronoun, she would absolutely consider it harrassment.

[@user-zq4fv8sj6v]

😂😂😂 So much for Hillary Clinton’s “college educated voters” she and mainstream media portended to be superior to Trump voters in 2016.. Glad all women aren’t this indoctrinated! 😂😂😂

[@kennethtopping8953]

Free speech is free speech .... these college representatives are being asked to censor speech...Totally undemocratic....

[@lm58142]

Exactly. I commented noting the absurdity of being allowed to explicitly call for genocide but not being allowed to say that men cannot menstruate and the Woketube removed my post.

[@trianglesandsquares420]

It isn't right to remove everybody's posts either.

[@jessicawessica1412]

EXACTLY!!

[@tonik9594]

Depends on the context???!!!! When is calling for genocide for anyone acceptable, or not seen as harassment/bullying?? This is disgusting!

[@EdoBenDor]

When the university is getting donations of billions of dollars from terror organizations or terror supporting countries like Qatar, it depends on the context. The context of who pays your salary.

[@nadavb1983]

apperantly if its jewish people it's cool

[@larrym2434]

Some people will argue that blinking your right eye is a means of calling for genocide.

[@nadavb1983]

some people will argue that going into your home while you sleep and butchering you and your kids is an act of genocide. apperantly you dont@@larrym2434

[@boudicca7181]

they call right--wrong; wrong-right. they are a confused bunch.

[@mobuseseko557]

Since light travels faster than sound, some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

[@bengold7942]

Severely underrated comment

[@JM-yr6fr]

This bully of a congresswoman has no right to try to intimadte and embarrass these University Presidents who have all the right and freedom of speech as do their students to denounce genocide against the Palestinians who are the ones suffering or dying at the hands of the genocidal Netanyahu Zionist regime. This congresswoman does NOT represent millions of Americans who are seeing the genocide of Palestinians in their own land by their Zionist occupiers.

[@kellymcclendon6601]

So glad that they showed their true colors.

[@Retiredstatecop]

And faces. She could almost be J.J.'s twin.

[@therapeutate1093]

The beautiful thing is she’s not JJ’s twin, and if she were, this would mean the Evans have come a long way baby. I would say, it pays to have two strong parents in the household, it will take the disenfranchised to the seat of power in private institutions. Bravo 👏🏼

[@Philosophyrules77]

Just to be clear here. I’m pretty darn liberal and this is disgusting and disturbing. I would never ever ever endorse this. Ever. Calling for the genocide of ANY ethnic group, race, religion, sexual orientation or identity is categorically unacceptable.

[@JM-yr6fr]

This bully of a congresswoman has no right to try to intimadte and embarrass these University Presidents who have all the right and freedom of speech as do their students to denounce genocide against the Palestinians who are the ones suffering or dying at the hands of the genocidal Netanyahu Zionist regime. This congresswoman does NOT represent millions of Americans who are seeing the genocide of Palestinians in their own land by their Zionist occupiers.

[@jamesp739]

These people should not be allowed to resign. In their resignation letter they no doubt will state their reason is to be able to spend more time with their families or to pursue other interests. BS. They should be fired.

[@clarkvera6397]

Don't worry. EVERYBODY knows what they said. They can't hide it. It's VIRAL!

[@kennethtopping8953]

Free speech is free speech .... these college representatives are being asked to censor speech...Totally undemocratic....

[@simka6858]

Agree

[@yashjariwala1121]

And yet we are here.

[@JM-yr6fr]

This bully of a congresswoman has no right to try to intimadte and embarrass these University Presidents who have all the right and freedom of speech as do their students to denounce genocide against the Palestinians who are the ones suffering or dying at the hands of the genocidal Netanyahu Zionist regime. This congresswoman does NOT represent millions of Americans who are seeing the genocide of Palestinians in their own land by their Zionist occupiers. The Congresswoman should resign.

[@theinformationcenter9289]

Let’s be honest, regardless of how you feel about what Israel’s doing to Palestine, calling for a genocide is crazy.

[@SkateAndReview]

Let’s be honest this was just a Israeli puppet trying to stir up propaganda. Good on them for laughing in her face and trolling her back

[@jondough4682]

That's Democrats for ya. They can call Trump supporters ULTRA MEGA MAGA extremists but can't call out the Lefts far left extremist Biden supporters.

[@Nonyabusiness111]

🇮🇱

[@mindyourbusinesspodcast7353]

It’s not erase those fake Jews

[@tloks8737]

yeah, of course, but is anyone gonna deny that the politician is just jumping on an opportunity to virtue signal over a semantic disagreement

[@willysbest9242]

Insert blacks or Hispanic instead of jews and these people would be saying yes absolutely. It's like pulling teeth to get answers out of a liberal.

[@SpeckledChieftain]

💯

[@roberth9814]

They are standing up for free speech and you can't give them any credit because a media echo chamber has turned half your brain off. Also they're women and one of them is black, so I'm sure the idea of rooting for them or appreciating anything the have said or done is beneath you. They are saying they would protect your rights if you were their student, and you insult them. You have to conjure up some BS scenario that never took place becaus you'd rather fight a strawman than find yourself siding with an identity you've been taught to hate and fear

[@josecolon3185]

💥💯💥

[@JM-yr6fr]

This bully of a congresswoman has no right to try to intimadte and embarrass these University Presidents who have all the right and freedom of speech as do their students to denounce genocide against the Palestinians who are the ones suffering or dying at the hands of the genocidal Netanyahu Zionist regime. This congresswoman does NOT represent millions of Americans who are seeing the genocide of Palestinians in their own land by their Zionist occupiers.

[@stockjonebills]

This is a sad example of academia's habit of overanalyzing something with a common sense answer. Their responses about the context of the message is ridiculous. I would be curious how they would respond with the same question if it was genocide against Palestinians. Regardless of religion or race asking for the genocide of anyone is ethically wrong.

[@Dr.HarshTruth]

If, however, it involved advocating for the enslavement of Black people, do you think that she would have answered that it depends on the context? In that case there would not be any "overanalyzing process." This has nothing to do with "academia's habit of overanalyzing."

[@dutube99]

she didn't analyze it or her interlocutor enough

[@Dr.HarshTruth]

@@dutube99 after repeating 17 times the same question?

[@dutube99]

@@Dr.HarshTruth yes - she didn't grasp quickly enough that is a simple question, and no amount of equivocating, like saying "context dependent" is going to save her. She's not savvy enough to realize that simple and direct is a lot smarter than a bunch of humming and hawwing.

[@Dr.HarshTruth]

@@dutube99 I disagree. Did you notice the smirk of the presidents of Harvard and Pennsylvania? This reveals that they know what they were saying, but they thought that the woke culture leads the world enough to protect them while answering that way.

[@mechak326]

Watching the way those so-called highly educated women intentionally dodging the question made my blood boiled.

[@urcompnioncube0213]

because there is a more complicated line that we have to cross before we start venturing into thought policing, censorship, political gymnastics and suppression of expression. The legal precedent case Matel vs Tam on despairing trademarks established, by Supreme Court Justice James Alito, that speech which demeans on various bases, including race, ethnicity, gender, and religion, is hateful, but the freedom to express "the thought that we hate" is a fundamental aspect of free speech jurisprudence in the United States. Justice Anthony Kennedy also emphasized the importance of protecting speech, even if offensive to some, as a safeguard for minority and dissenting views in a democratic society. That the danger of allowing government censorship is that definitions of hate speech can be amorphous and subjective. That the American model leans towards personal accountability and open discourse in society to challenge and overcome hateful ideas, rather than government-imposed restrictions. The same precedent also was used to strike down Institutional speech codes as violations of free speech BUT also states that the First Amendment does not protect direct, personal threats of immediate violence. In such cases, speech can be regulated, as in Virginia v. Black (2003), where certain intimidating symbolic actions were considered a form of threat. This is what the uPenn and Harvard was talking about. They already got their bells rung by courts that said it depends on the context and if it transform to conduct.

[@ronaldthered6650]

Welcome to adult life, in which people you disagree with have opinions and are not brow beaten by childish games.

[@user-cb9ul1ds6y]

Claudine is allowed to dodge questions because she is one of the "untouchables". Its sickening.

[@edclam]

I feel for you. Same here!

[@JM-bb8xi]

Wow her little smirk spoke volumes.

[@plaguedeity]

The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating: "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

[@JM-bb8xi]

Not saying shes not allowed, but for ivory towers preaching tolerance, its ironic.

[@alexjames6747]

What "context" ? Genocide has no "context". Genocide IS "genocide" . It is exactly what it means.

[@infinightsky]

Including the Bible?

[@alexjames6747]

Yes. Including Bible...conquistadors, inquisition@@infinightsky

[@alexjames6747]

extermination of jewish people by Roman Empire@@infinightsky

[@plaguedeity]

The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating: "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

[@AhmedS-dr8ns]

Including what's going on Gaza right now?

[@MarkFox88]

These ladies are replying in the same way as Eichmann did. They must be fired, fined and sentenced.

[@MyLove-uj8zi]

Wow, never send your kids to those colleges!!! How disgusting!!!!

[@kennethtopping8953]

Free speech is free speech .... these college representatives are being asked to censor speech...Totally undemocratic....

[@plaguedeity]

The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating: "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

[@TheBasedCanadian]

Overpriced education

[@ReactorFour]

It’s odd how much context and nuance now seemingly matters to them when discussing the persecution of Jews, but on matters of LGBTQ or black and brown people, it is completely clear without nuance. It’s pretty obvious they are not for racial equality and the respectful treatment of all people, rather they just despise those who aren’t dependent on the government and can’t be controlled by their progressive cult.

[@plaguedeity]

The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating: "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

[@ReactorFour]

@@plaguedeity r/swoosh

[@bearmarco1944]

@@plaguedeity private universities have no duty to uphold first amendment laws because the first amendment only binds the government. It didn't even bind state governments until it was incorporated against them after the passage of the 14th, which started a doctrine of selective incorporation. it is their right to remove anyone who says anything for any reason, because it's not a public university there are no inherent rights there.

[@trocycling1204]

Just when you thought it Universities couldn't possibly be any worse, this. This is where Universities are folks.

[@lisagilmore6311]

Funny how these people who call what you say as racist but yet they can say what they want because they are college educated

[@patrickmcguire2434]

Academically Brainwashed.

[@neilkurzman4907]

You can say what you’re allowed to say, according to the constitution of the United States. The head of the university has limited, say over what that is.

[@WolfHeathen]

It's only bigotry if it applies to whatever group they decide it should apply to. It's all projection. They call you racist while attacking jews and white people. They call you sexist while attacking men. They call you cruel while supporting genital mutilation of children. They call your speech violent while burning entire neighborhoods. They call you islamophobe while attacking christians. They call you intolerant for wanting border control while sending immigrants straight into homelessness and poverty.

[@kennethtopping8953]

Israel is actually COMMITTING GENOCIDE AS WE SPEAK!!!!! WTF!!!!!

[@neilkurzman4907]

@@kennethtopping8953 So you’re trying to say is you don’t know what the word genocide means. And you think using the word is going to give your cause power that it doesn’t deserve. That’s a powerful word it shouldn’t be used lightly. You realize Hamas could stop fighting anytime they wanted to, and the war would be over

[@marmadukewinterbotham2599]

How on earth did such people rise to such highly-paid positions of authority and influence??

[@annidashafira4510]

O humanity! Indeed, We created you from a male and a female, and made you into peoples and tribes so that you may ˹get to˺ know one another. Surely the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous among you. Allah is truly All-Knowing, All-Aware 1 (Al-Hujurat 13) Footnote 1: The Prophet (ﷺ) is reported in a ḥadîth collected by Imâm Aḥmed to have said, "O humanity! Your Lord is one, and your ancestry is one. No Arab is superior to a non-Arab, nor is any non-Arab superior to any Arab. No white is superior to any black, nor is any black superior to any white except on account of their righteousness."

[@PlaGueR3FLEX]

I never would have EVER guessed we could get to a point in society where the head of Harvard couldn't give a straight answer as to whether genocide was right or wrong.

[@kennethtopping8953]

Free speech is free speech .... these college representatives are being asked to censor speech...Totally undemocratic....

[@DOC2089]

But the question wasn’t a right or a wrong question. It was a loaded question that opened the door to many controversies with free speech. They aren’t defending genocide, they’re defending free speech and preventing multiple civil lawsuits. These people aren’t dummies, they know exactly what their assignment is. Everyone else too triggered to see it.

[@PaladinAwaits]

@@DOC2089 Crazy triggered. Would not be surprised to see them with their pitchforks and torches marching to MA.

[@plaguedeity]

The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating: "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

[@PlaGueR3FLEX]

@plaguedeity All of this is known. Here is the thing, you can go to work and cuss your boss out because you have freedom of speech. Chances are you will be written up or fired. Everyone has the freedom of speech, but you are not free of the consequences for what you say. Case in point UPenn's president resigning was the consequence for what someone else said. They had the free speech to call for the genocide of jews and the school had the right to defend the student's free speech. But low and behold, she lost her job because crazy as it sounds, people don't like when people advocate genocide. So that student exercised free speech and the president lost her job for it. Action and consequence...beautiful.

[@W5w5345]

Bravo to congresswoman 👏🫶. Thank you for showing this people true face 👏👏🫶🫶❤️❤️👍🇮🇱🇺🇸🇮🇱🇺🇸🇮🇱🇺🇸💯✌️

[@imo8249]

Harvard having it's Bud LIte moment

[@Zero11_ss]

More like the Jews bought these senators already.

[@jjmars9160]

Harvard President is a big hypocrite. She needs to go.

[@neilkurzman4907]

No Harvard having a we are never showing up for a congressional hearing again moment. Because Congress only cared about getting us fired. Asking question yes or no questions that either one was a bad answer. That’s basic training stuff.

[@java4653]

​@@neilkurzman4907indeed. It shows how there's no conspiracy. They walked in not understanding it's a show trial.

[@neilkurzman4907]

@@java4653 Well, every other college president now knows the lesson. And now Congress has one less group of people that are willing to help them, or even deal with them

[@user-lh2ie8ev6d]

These representatives from the two colleges are out of reality in their speech, they should resign

[@plaguedeity]

The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating: "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

[@user-tf4ho2uo1e]

The correct answer is "not only does it violate our policy on bullying and harassment, but it violates federal law and should be reported to the FBI."

[@vylbird8014]

Something of an iffy area. First amendment. There's no law against advocating for genocide in the abstract, and if there were it would be struck down as unconstitutional - it's only when advocating for specific criminal actions that such speech may constitute a crime.

[@aliasmike2127]

How is this not anti American, a us congress woman is more worried about a foreign country

[@michellehernandez322]

Does calling for the genocide of Palestinians violate the code of conduct ?

[@user-uq9rs8mr4w]

You go Elise. Your the best.

[@eastsidenicole]

You're

[@richardosborne5092]

What about Islamophobia? and not just calling for the genocide of Muslims but actually doing it? Is that against her code of conduct?

[@Sad_bumper_sticker.]

Unlike Palestinians who use the slogan „Death to Jews”, Israelis nor Jewish people chant „Death to Muslims” nor „Death to Palestinians”. Stop spreading misinformation. ​​⁠No, calling for genocide in question during the congressional hearing was not the ambiguous „From the river to the sea” BUT calling chanting „GLOBALIZE INTIFADA” on campuses. Intifada is historically terrorist resistance „by any means necessary” like 7.10 and historic past Intifadas which involved mass bus bonbings, suicide bombings of public spaces in Israel, knife murders of civilian Israelis in cafes and parks. Inciting violent breeches over free speech rights. So the double standard is Harvard conduct laws identifying chanting on campus or addressing Black or Muslim or Chinese or Queer fellow students calling for violence or terrorist death to either Black or Muslim or Chinese or Querr People IS (and rightfully so) inciting VIOLENCE against a minority and DOES breech both right to free speech AND Harvard code of conduct. So the issue is Harvard double standards bias against Jewish People wih regard to inciting violence.Shouting Free Palestine or protesting Israel army actions is your lawful and deserved right.

[@mohammednoordesmukh3784]

What about the call for genocide of Palastinians? & calling them animals, is it not dehumanising? Why this extreme hypocrisy?

[@saehian]

Those who don't know how answer yes or no is hiding. Hypocrite.

[@karinaakakpo1274]

What would have been your answer if you were asked “ does calling for black people (I am one by the way) to be lynched violate UPenn, Harvard or MIT’ s code of conduct? You failed on this. It is upsetting.

[@AC-re9ee]

Im more concerned about anti-whiteism, where were the hearings on that 😂😂😂😂

[@jerpmagerp5924]

Ok so the more degrees you have the harder it is to give an answer. Who are the people funding these non learning institutes?

[@csmith1]

It's disgusting and infuriating watching this.

[@milfordmkt]

I'm tired of Israel being a sacred trust, being attributed extra-ethical standing. Judaism is a religion. Israel is a state. Can't we talk about Israeli policy without someone trying to co-opt us? Pro-Israel lobby alleging anti-Semitism, asking loaded questions re: hypothetical anti-Semitism, not citing any actual cases of anyone on campuses calling for genocide, or questioning Israel's right to exist. "Intifada" just means "uprising" not genocide. "River to sea" refers to original 1947 UN Palestinian borders -- protest is not hate speech. First they seized their land, now it’s their words too? These are attempts to intimidate innocent people into apologizing for words not said & things that didn't happen to swing focus away from Israel's war in Gaza.

[@HolocoughSurvivor]

To find out who rules over you, find out who you're not allowed to criticize.

[@dollarstorebarrontrump1141]

Calling for genocide and criticism are very different things.

[@CaliDraco]

Jews are criticized every step of the way

[@catdooley4616]

@@dollarstorebarrontrump1141 Israel has been saying the same thing about Palestinians for years, if you can go and watch or read some news from Israel you will find examples and more information there, then you will see in the USA news.

[@QualityInfinite]

@@dollarstorebarrontrump1141 Tell me what is an acceptable criticism of Israel. According to Israel - nothing.

[@sharpe52312]

People get pretty upset if you criticize black people, but I do not think they control anything.

[@jayceejm]

Frankly I think this line of questioning IS bullying and harassment. So there!

[@SWog617]

Magill has resigned from Penn. When will the others do the same?

[@roberth9814]

She resigned her seat, she remains a member of the faculty

[@htvlogs80]

This is why our school Is failing and why students are in debt with loans.

[@ellew4573]

I don’t quite like the Representative from New York’s tone.

[@user-io3xw4hh3l]

This is Crazy they should all be sacked. Why do they defend it??

[@AgeofCraccadilliaassent]

Doesnt include semitic Arabs i guess

[@edgarzuluaga4896]

2 different standards when it comes to these politicians!!!

[@jasonhilts2661]

Was it just me or did it sound like both president's were actually implying "no, this is not harassment because it's just words not actual action", and the congresswoman who is interpreting these non-answer answers is actually interpreting the answer wrong. They both said it's only harassment when it becomes conduct, that means they're saying calling for the genocide of jews is not harassment. HOW ARE THESE PEOPLE IN CHARGE OF ANYTHING BUT THE CELL BLOCK THEY LIVE IN?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

[@Philosophyrules77]

Man I am as liberal as the day is long and this is just disgusting. This is the clearest question to answer. It shouldn’t even be a question. This makes liberals look bad. This is unacceptable.

[@chrisgoeswest9882]

Haha from the party that said the “they will not replace us” crowd were good people. You can’t make this stuff up.

[@mikewazowski9531]

😂😂😂😂

[@dutube99]

that's not the quote

[@bonnenaturel6688]

This congresswoman I out of order. Why is she not asking about Gazan's genocide? it is only a no no when it is against jews, no one else counts. This is the US, not Israel!

[@AgeofCraccadilliaassent]

But usfg is a zog

[@dutube99]

because it's not genocide. If they wanted to do that, they could have long ago. You are very mixed up.

[@sirrevenant1]

You’re deflecting. These people were allowing students in their colleges to freely shout genocide to Jews. Justice is being served.

[@bonnenaturel6688]

they have been doing it for 75 years. Where have you been?@@dutube99

[@rastersplatter]

Embarrassing non-leadership.

[@lh-qs4ig]

What if Miss Gay was asked the same question “ does calling for the genocide of Blacks…”what would her statement be? These cows need to be sacked. Utterly disgraceful.

[@angelacleveland75]

Is this really the most important discussion to have right now??? Do your damn jobs and legislate!!

[@sandipanaich]

In short, they did not answer. Why .... because they knew theirs was a wrong answer.

[@plaguedeity]

The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating: "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

[@MrWirelesscaller]

How about when they teach about the genocide of Whites? I bet they'd run out of teach staff if that was held to any standard.

[@Engineersoldinterstingstuff]

The most astonishing is how stupid a principal att a top university can be. Apparantly Harvard is not hiring based on competence anymore, the downspiral from this will be very difficult to manage.

[@HolocoughSurvivor]

Free speech is antisemitic Lmao 😂

[@Harpo-Chico]

Yeah kinda like using someones "wrong pronouns" incites violence to gay and trans people. Lol

[@zesolodar]

just because you have free speech dosent mean your not or what you said is racist or anti semetic.

[@sirrevenant1]

In this context, yes

[@melokey6421]

She's harassing the presidents trying to get a answer she likes. Does Congress harass people? The simple answer is yes.

[@dutube99]

trying to get a straight answer is harassment? you work in the grown-up world?

[@sirrevenant1]

This isn’t harassment. It’s a case and she’s questioning the people being tried. Learn the difference and stop making the law look bad.

[@richardthomas1531]

Just because it is Easy to find Netanyahu and his policies are anti -2 State solution.Doesn't mean your anti semitic..

[@karinaakakpo1274]

Those women’s answers are UNACCEPTABLE.

[@corneliusrupert7354]

Never have I've ever seen a group of people in America being so protected.

[@Jordanbobba]

Antisemitic statement

[@user-pi1nw3is2m]

are you saying that wanting to commit genocide is ok?

[@richardthomas1531]

Never seen a dispute last this many decades.

[@H-bi6yyy]

Is genocide ok against Palestinians?

[@hithere4719]

@@user-pi1nw3is2mYes. It absolutely is. If you want to live somewhere without caselaw like Brandenburg v Ohio, then leave America 👍🏻

[@adavikolanupani1]

Upenn and harvard should be ashamed

[@SSGTCivilian]

Should be defunded completely.

[@arshad25]

Brave ladies and corrupt congresswoman

[@georgewetzel4380]

How is antisemitism an issue for congress, but genocide is not.

[@rodgerwoods4971]

And why are we actually worried about this??

[@CollDott]

This is hard to look at😂😂😂😅

[@spdrcrsoncho312]

this title should said, presidents inquired under oath on Antisemitism on campuses

[@a.m.5805]

Ms. Stefanik Great.

[@yminyru]

That Harvard woman is despicable. Fire her now.

[@SpeckledChieftain]

Agree!

[@MrArtm87]

the smirk on her face says everything ,

[@trentbateman]

Please don’t misgender him

[@billf7062]

Large demonstrations bring out all types of people. Why do people assign blame to the entire crowd for the behaviors of some demonstrators? Attacking an institution for the egregious behavior of individuals is similar to the policy of Israel, which has attacked an entire populace because of the murderous acts of a group of criminals. Justice requires punishment of perpetrators not the innocent.

[@dollarstorebarrontrump1141]

Hamas is a massive group, with 40,000 active members, and inactive members in the hundreds of thousands.

[@johnnydjiurkopff]

Idk, why'd we treat anyone tangentially related to j6 like they were the ones shattering windows?

[@jondough4682]

Does that also go for Trump supporters?

[@terrainaholic]

70-90% polled in gaza have no problem firing rockets at Israel and they voted Hamas as its governing body. I see you have been listening to the main stream media which has the lowest rating in truthfulness out of the 46 counties who measure the trust the populous has in their own media.

[@squidy6785]

The Israeli military literally gave the Palestinian populace notice to evacuate. Many Palestinians did not want to leave. Then, when they tried to leave, Hamas trapped them in Palestine (essentially creating human shields). Hamas have purposely built many of their headquarters underneath hospitals and schools. For you to say Israel has "attacked an entire populace", is an egregious lie.

[@Brian_Collins]

The road to hell is paved by Ivy League professors

[@g.c.5065]

I don't understand why people even go to these hearings to get humiliated like that. What's there to gain? Is it illegal to not go?

[@MrBillagordon]

There would be no consequences if money $$$ wasn't involved either. Donations to the University withheld. If there was anti-arab speech being condoned, or allowed, would there be the same consequences for these administrators? Anti-Immigrant? No consequences. Anti-LGBTQ? No consequences. They'd still have their jobs. When is comes to money, that's where a big line is drawn.

[@snowowl1343]

There would be no inquisition. 99% of the students were supporting the Palestinian population, NOT Hamas. This is not anti-semitism, it's pro human rights. Not against any religion or ethnicity.

[@neilkurzman4907]

No, they still have their jobs if they refuse to talk to Congress. Which is what’s going to happen in the future.

[@sirrevenant1]

Where do you get this from? Back up your “facts”.

[@trentbateman]

The thing is they don’t allow anti lgabataq rhetoric on their campuses and would go apeshizz if there was coordinated harassment. The Presidents name is Gay for Crissakes 😂

[@sirrevenant1]

@@trentbateman that’s what I was thinking 🤣😭

[@Semper_Iratus]

Shame! Shame! Shame!

[@lizbethartemis4886]

??? shame on what.

[@H-bi6yyy]

Can someone explain, why is saying “Free Palestine” is considered equal to calling for Jewish genocide?! Calling for any geneocide is terrrrible. However, no one cares when it’s against Palestinians for example!

[@sirrevenant1]

Nope they said genocide to Jews.

[@ROMANABSOLUT]

Imagine the world after 2030 !

[@gallegos5464]

It's disgusting that Israel wants to commit genocide and play the perpetual victim at the same time.

[@pleurmanga]

Israel is not wanting to commiting genocide. It is comitting genocide! And congress has not issue with that . In fact , it is assisting and is complicit to ship bombs and giving diplomatic cover at U.N.

[@BigJimbo106]

It’s the YT supremacist playbook 😊

[@anthonydavid5121]

I laugh every time of you whack-a-doodles use Gaza and genocide in the same breath. You are forever a constant source of entertainment. There is not genocide happening in Gaza. 17K is collateral but dear, you can put that on Hamas even if that low number is true.

[@pleurmanga]

Only evil people laugh at death of innocents. @@anthonydavid5121

[@sirrevenant1]

I’d like to see where you get this from. It was self defense against the agitator, Hamas. The people playing victims are Hamas who’s using people from Gaza as human meat shields and saying Israel is evil.

[@prosay]

So these three women must swear an allegiance to Israel to keep their jobs.

[@zesolodar]

who said that? having an allegiance to Israel and calling for a genocide of a certain group of people are not remotely the same thing or related

[@ahegazy9434]

Yes. That's literally how it works.

[@DOC2089]

lol yup that’s exactly what that means.

[@SamvadSoul]

Calling colored by Ni.. is Ok in context

[@GeorgeKafantaris]

“[D]oes calling for the genocide of Jews on your campus constitute harassment, yes or no? The question is a trap, of course, and for several reasons. The first and most important reason is that there’s no evidence anyone since 7 October, or even in recent history, has called for the genocide of Jews on any American campus, public or private. Stefanik’s question implies that such calls are commonplace, but she offered no proof. The second reason this is a trap is that the question can’t be answered with just ‘yes’ or ‘no’’. Public universities, as state actors, are bound by the first amendment, as are private universities which receive federal funding. And the vast majority of private universities guarantee freedom of speech and academic freedom as part of their core mission. The American university is, by tradition and design, precisely where abhorrent ideas can be uttered. So, if someone had called for the genocide of Jews, which they haven’t, that would be extremely disturbing but still protected speech.” - The Guardian

[@DOC2089]

I had just said in another comment that this isn’t about answering yes or no. The question was loaded and they knew it, that’s why one had smirked. It was a trap. They were protecting free speech and possibly preventing future civil lawsuits. Dr. Gay’s dissertation was in political science lol her “evasive” answer was appropriate considering the question was an attack on free speech.

[@malcolmsteele1992]

To those who are outraged by the Presidents answer to the question, you have to remember a university can not punish someone for for exercising their free speech. This means some can scream “genocide for Jews” all they want but unless they take ACTION upon those words then they can get disciplined. In academia this is a very fine line especially in today’s decisive culture.

[@BecauseIWannaComment]

Yall are being dense. What constitutes as "harassment" is clearly conduct dependent as is any other potential hate speech. And the fact that you all have time to boohoo and read into semantics when mentioning "genocide" but don't care about the active genocide wiping out the Palestinian population in Gaza is telling

[@asdg2271]

Harvard educated wokester right here.. Allow me to quote the late MLK who once said: "To the window, to the walls, 'till the sweat drip down my balls"

[@tangentquo7996]

they dont know what genocide is...and violence has likely been threatened aginst those giving testimony

[@lacanian_lifter]

I’d find it intimidating if people were calling for genocide against my race, but maybe that’s just me.

[@Jadensurabhi]

Yes or No questions, they failed to answer 😡

[@bfattori01]

Yes or no questions are "gotcha" questions that do not provide enough information. They are great for sound bites on Fox News

[@dollarstorebarrontrump1141]

@@bfattori01She said “Do you condemn people calling for genocide of Jews”. That is a very simple question.

[@squidy6785]

@@bfattori01 If you have to avoid answering the question, you know you are in the wrong. They answered saying it, "depends on the context". The congresswoman asked, "What context?", and they still wouldn't give her a clear answer. Asking, "What context?", is not a yes or no question. The very fact that you think yes or no questions are "gotcha" questions, points to an underlying sense of guilt. As far as Fox News goes, they provided a far better sound bite for Fox News, by avoiding answering yes or no.

[@sirrevenant1]

If they didn’t do anything wrong and hate speech in this context wasn’t allowed they could’ve just said yes, but them making excuses and not saying yes shows enough.

[@plaguedeity]

The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating: "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

[@arunkumarrajamani]

They all thought its an intellectual question....so much lack of moral compass....all got schooled!

[@PaladinAwaits]

Wrong. You need to get schooled regarding the First Amendment which protects such hate speech, and why it is somehow wrong to afford these private universities with the same type of free speech protections.

[@alexjames6747]

I want know what charges will be laid?

[@cindipossidento5688]

A bully will not answer that question. She will not answer …… this is why I tell all parents that have collage age students, don’t waste your money, instead send them to a trade school. They have the ability to make a bloody fortune, learning plumbing, electrical, construction.

[@CaptTeamwork]

2:10 watch dude behind her follow along like reading from a script. These people have every answer lined up before they even know the question. They never have any intention of answering questions honestly.

[@AgeofCraccadilliaassent]

Of course it's done in court everyday

[@plaguedeity]

The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating: "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

[@umnojon]

What idiot lawyer is advising them to give these answers?

[@non_brewed_condiment]

We have lost the plot. I consider myself left/progressive whatever you want to call it, but this is just wild.

[@domingomelchor4902]

Where’d they get their doctorates? I’ve learned in grade school how to answer yes or no questions: to answer yes or no, and nothing else, unless there is a follow-up, “why?”

[@plaguedeity]

The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating: "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

[@vylbird8014]

Doesn't work in politics though. Too easy for yes-or-no questions to be carefully crafted to force the subject into a situation where they can't answer without appearing as a monster. The classic example is "Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?" This is a rather more subtle question, but it's the same idea. The factually correct answer is "Sometimes..." followed by a cumbersome explanation of how the university harassment policy is reconciled with their free speech policy and exactly where the line is drawn before a student's expressed views become a disciplinary matter. The interviewer here took efforts to deliberately rule out this complex an answer though, forcing the yes-or-no response. So the subject was left with no choice but to say either 'yes' which would be a lie, or 'no' which makes her look like a monster. This is what happens when you bring academics to a political arena. They just don't have the training or experience for it - they believe that honesty is always the best policy, and the aim of a discussion is to get to the truth. But in politics, the aim of the discussion is to make your side look good in the eyes of the watching voters and the other side look like idiots or criminals. The academic gets thoroughly clobbered.

[@thomaslawnandlandscape]

For everyone who thinks she is wrong for what she is saying, just think about this. if you do not have these conversations, how are you going to teach someone the wrongs of their thinking? I think a school is a better place to have these conversations than anywhere else.

[@jlp2011]

Who is “she” here? All 3 ppl in this vid are women. Harvard has anti-bullying rules, does it not? It seems very odd to not apply them to calls for genocide . There really isnt any deep thinking required in this case. Censure the person (not censor), from that code of conduct, will teach them just fine. Not a “conversation”. Or “debate”. The only real question here is whether or not someone really did call for genocide. Otherwise your code of conduct’s best use is in your fireplace.

[@Retiredstatecop]

It should be, but at these indoctrination centers it is expected that students accept what they're told. That is NOT education.

[@Sad_bumper_sticker.]

A „debate” on whether a Genocide of ANY minority or nation constitutes a breech free speech and a such a „to genocide a minority or not debate” would hold zero pedagogical or educational value.

[@bearmarco1944]

Doing so effectively means that you put the right of Jews to exist up for debate. The next issue is that Jews also are students on the campus and will be significantly affected by people calling for their collective deaths. Also, when they say this sort of thing, there is a likelihood of them convincing someone and letting the ideas spread.

[@jaquelinekaku1302]

😳 WHAT SHAMEFUL ANSWERS !!! HOW THESE TOP BRAINS COULD NOT DO BETTER FOR SAKE OF SIMPLE COMMON SENSE ?!?!?!?!? 😔

[@Becccab2023]

Does this not have to do with the first amendment-the right to free speech? Are they not just saying that they cannot take action against verbal hate speech? In the same way the KKK can spew racist garbage? I’m truly trying to understand the difference. I agree that demanding genocide sounds threatening, but if they are not taking action, is that not their right to speak freely? I think that is why these woman answered in the way they did. If they condemned free speech they’d be dealing with a different issue. If we change the first amendment to say that we have the right to free speech, except when speaking out against other humans, they could have safely answered that the schools would take action. No?

[@SicilianStrega13]

I hate elise… she backed and still backs Trump and she has the audacity to pretend that she’s on the right side of bullying

[@TheGator876]

What year are you in?

[@denysdmytrenko3817]

Probably call for genocide doesn't violate law on free speech, but there is a code of conduct at universities and rectors have to know what's written there

[@user-eb3tn6zt9c]

Why are they smiling? You can see evil in their look. Crumbling society

[@cnuque76]

There's an inconvenient truth in this country that hate speech is protected speech. These schools while private also accept federal money in the form of student accepting federal grants. Their school's code of conduct can not supersede the constitution

[@cnuque76]

Having said that, they could've explained themselves with more empathy and less disdain.

[@Sad_bumper_sticker.]

No, you are uninformed. Inciting violence against ANY minority breeches over the right of free speech.

[@cnuque76]

@@Sad_bumper_sticker. From what I gather that prior to this questioning the speech that was in question was "From the river to the sea"? In Brandenburg vs. Ohio they're differentiating advocacy vs incitement. That phrase was interpreted by different groups over the years and even Israelis have used a slightly different version of it. But I agree, if the actual statement is "Kill all Jews" that's an incitement.

[@PaladinAwaits]

@@cnuque76 The Brandenburg v. Ohio primary holding: "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The key is inciting or producing "imminent lawless action".

[@user-pl6yi1bi7m]

Ladies and gentlemen, these are your educators parents allowed to influence and educate your children.

[@plaguedeity]

The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating: "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

[@stephenhagen234]

Okay, they can declare war on the Jewish students so long as nobody actually does any harm to them under the ruling of the Supreme Court. So doing, however, reflects a serious lack of wisdom and will return on their own heads down the road. Law of the Harvest: you reap WHAT you sow, MORE than you sow, LATER than you sow. You don't get tomatoes when you plant corn. You get corn.

[@Dan.50]

If all of our leaders come out of this diploma mill is it really a surprise how we ended up here??

[@dogmaticent]

I lost it when I see she is visibly laughing SMFH lol

[@alikoubrujup_Italia]

Hidden Context: Elise Stefanik : I emphasize on PREVENTIVE ACTION Three Presidents: We emphasize on CORRECTIVE ACTION. Explanation: Corrective action prevents RECURRANCE , while preventive action prevents OCCURANCE. Corrective action is carried out after a nonconformity/INCIDENT has already occurred, whereas preventive action is planned with the goal of preventing a nonconformity/INCIDENT in its entirety. In Oct 7 incident - the corrective ( too late) is taken and preventive actions will follow suit. Lesson learnt : Elise Stepanik was correct to emphasize PREVENTIVE measures.

[@mytubemz]

Yall should not resign from #HARVARD or #UPENN. These questions are biased and self serving. No one is calling for the genocide of Jews. Get your boots off our neck.

[@Harpo-Chico]

You know we all have access to the internet, right? You know there are several videos out there that completely disprove your comment, right? Somebody failed their liberal gas lighting course.

[@mytubemz]

@@Harpo-Chico ok

[@dutube99]

start paying attention

[@sirrevenant1]

@@mytubemzso you admit to spreading false information and supporting terrorists? Shame on you.

[@jabbadabbajew6035]

Once I saw a black woman all of Harvards problems suddenly made sense. This is what happens when you promote based on ethnicity and gender instead of ability.

[@polarispolaris5077]

I’m just wondering if that Balck woman equally stands by her balck community?! Probably she ain’t looking back.

[@jabbadabbajew6035]

@@polarispolaris5077 she left them behind a long time me ago. Baby want a white man’s world, lol.