Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
There is some rhetorical fuckery afoot there. But similarly, what cannot be avoided is the double standard on display before Congress two days ago, in which university presidents stumbled over their words to dissemble on why it might be, but not might not be, a violation of school code to speak in favor of Hamas depending on "context."
Speak about the trans and various other marginalized peoples as the Jews have been spoken about on campus and you'll be expelled. Why are the Jews treated differently? Is it perhaps because of a bizarre Marcusian view that one may speak in vile fashion about those deemed "oppressors" or "colonizers" (based on a hideous stereotype of Jews as uber-successful or conspiratorial, a la Protocols of Zion). Is it that all language is actually power, and it can always be used against those in power, without limitation - the suggestion of Foucault, a discredited buffoon? I honestly don't know. But a double standard is being used.
|
For what it's worth, that's not right. I'm not going to defend the university presidents, because they did a shitty job, but if you want to understand why they said what they said and what the free speech policies actually are,
read Popehat (Ken White) ("Stop Demanding Dumb Answers To Hard Questions") on this. You and he come from a very, very similar place on First Amendment issues, and I think you will be sympathetic to his point of view.
eta:
Quote:
|
Final thought: Academic Admin's problem is not only having dumb ideas, but being in perpetual CYA mode. Those Presidents looked like fools because they endlessly dissembled. All one had to answer Stefanik with was, "Yes, someone stating a desire to commit genocide on any group violates our code." Nothing more, nothing less. But they couldn't, because they were so used to searching their minds for something to say that wouldn't upset someone they missed the one thing they could say that would have shut up Stefanik.
|
The Presidents fell flat because they they had been prepped by lawyers and HR people and had nothing beyond that to say. If you want to sound like a University President, the answer to that question is, we are running a university here and genocide is wrong. I will let the university's lawyers decide whether a specific act violates a specific policy, but the point of a university is to answer ideas with other ideas to get to the truth, and that is my focus as the university's leader.
But none of them were hired to answer yes or no questions from Rep. Stefanik, alas.
