So any small group that yells loudly, breaks rules and laws deserves WSJ page time? This is an interesting survey polling college students on the issue. This issue barely registers for them nationally when put up against other priorities. They also disagree with the tactics and largely support the schools. Though they do support legal means of protest. https://www.axios.com/2024/05/07/poll-students-israel-hamas-protests
No. But if it's a small group and an unimportant issue, why are we giving university presidents space in the WSJ to justify their decisions?
Because the issue in question and most of the discussion is a much larger one, where the line between free speech and action is drawn, and how disruptive a small group could be when allowed to be. How the admins handled these protests is the story far more than the issue itself for that reason.
I dont know, the media coverage seems more focused and weighted on the administrations and officials that decided "not at all" was how disruptive protestors could be vs. the schools that decided to talk to their students about their demands and come to peaceful resolutions. But thats how the media works, generally. If it bleeds, it leads. Scenes of cops beating/arresting students is going to beat a serious discussion about Palestine/Israel or Free Speech.
To say What? “We have the right to occupy buildings, violate published school policies or vandalize?” I respect that fact that you’re a first amendment absolutist (truly). but this long ago stopped being about that. Actual peaceful lawful protests would have been tolerated just about anywhere. If you want to argue that some of the rules around protests like UF’s are over the top, that’s fine and fair. But there’s a reason almost every campus finally said “enough”. These weren’t peaceful or lawful in many cases. And that was largely because schools continued to let things escalate with no action. Even students sided with their admins cracking down in the poll I posted above. So the only interesting question in all this is why so many campuses let things spiral out of control before they did something. And that’s why it’s an admin question. what will be telling in the coming months is how many presidents, board members, etc. lose their jobs to have schools try and put a “we get it now, we promise” face on what happened. Because for schools like Columbia, UCLA, MIT, Penn etc., this was an absolutely crushingly bad PR event. Beyond the large segment of the population that saw what happened as insanity…Even those who agree with the protestors want their kids to be safe, and get actual in person classes and commencements. Who wants to pay 80k a year for online classes or 320k to not even have an actual graduation? Or send their Jewish kid to a school where parts of the campus can be made off limits to them with the tacit approval of the admin? There is no way they aren’t harmed by this, the question is how much. I’m also really interested to see what UF’s admissions numbers look like next year, how much Sasse’s public face of the “opposition” pays or doesn’t pay dividends. But that’s a discussion for late this year.
By the way, a letter from a number of Jewish students at Columbia. In Our Name: A Message from Jewish Students at Columbia University
from the link, much of this seems indefensible If the last six months on campus have taught us anything, it is that a large and vocal population of the Columbia community does not understand the meaning of Zionism, and subsequently does not understand the essence of the Jewish People. Yet despite the fact that we have been calling out the antisemitism we’ve been experiencing for months, our concerns have been brushed off and invalidated. So here we are to remind you: We sounded the alarm on October 12 when many protested against Israel while our friends’ and families’ dead bodies were still warm. We recoiled when people screamed “resist by any means necessary,” telling us we are “all inbred” and that we “have no culture.” We shuddered when an “activist” held up a sign telling Jewish students they were Hamas’s next targets, and we shook our heads in disbelief when Sidechat users told us we were lying. We ultimately were not surprised when a leader of the CUAD encampment said publicly and proudly that “Zionists don’t deserve to live” and that we’re lucky they are “not just going out and murdering Zionists.” We felt helpless when we watched students and faculty physically block Jewish students from entering parts of the campus we share, or even when they turned their faces away in silence. This silence is familiar. We will never forget.
To offer an explanation why the school's policy or response was flawed for one. If a paper is only printing one perspective, we're only hearing half of the story (at best). That's certainly their right, but it's not a good thing imo. Quite a few universities resolved the situation peacefully. I remember the Occupy protests when I was in college. They were mostly ignored and went away on their own. When government tried to act, it actually made things worse. Sometimes, government (or private university) has to act. But many of these university administrators really didn't try to exhaust their options before acting harshly, and I don't think that speaks well of them. Chicago was by no means the worst offender, though. They were on the better side of the spectrum, from what I know. I will make one correction. I'm not a First Amendment absolutist. I've never met a First Amendment absolutist. I believe in a very broad interpretation of free speech. My personal view of free speech is even under broader than Supreme Court precedent, which is fairly libertarian at this point. But I do try to distinguish between when I'm speaking of my own personal views and when I'm offering a perspective based on law. (And I think we, as Americans, should have our own personal views of free speech. The popular understanding of free speech was arguably broader than the legal understanding for much of American history.) I'm not so sure that's the only interesting question. But it seems to me that the admins are not the only people who can answer that question. Hell, considering their role in it, they may not even be the best people to answer the question. I think there's a reason these universities market themselves in the way they do, so I'm not sure we can predict what effect this will have. I'd give this editorial read, as it makes some interesting points: America’s Colleges Are Reaping What They Sowed
Not even Princeton University can fix stupid. The idiots on a self-imposed hunger strike on campus are now whining about how hungry they are and that the school is “not taking care of them”. Not to worry though as these brainiacs can last at least a couple more weeks without food.
No, there actually is no point to what they are doing and I, like the majority of others in this country, could care a less if they starve themselves. Again, life is all about choices and if you choose to be a dumbass and voluntarily go on a hunger strike, don’t go begging for sympathy because no one is going to care.
So ... I wonder if progressive biscuit eaters consider defacing a George Washington monument to be protected speech? George Washington statue at namesake DC school left defaced for days now covered up after Dem mayor takes heat (msn.com) "For nearly two weeks, the statue was covered in Palestinian iconography, including multiple flags, a keffiyeh and stickers that read: "Free Palestine" and "Free Gaza." The words "Genocidal Warmonger University" were spray-painted at the base. George Washington University spokesperson Josh Grossman told Fox News Digital on Tuesday that the school planned to "engage on restoring the statue with professionals who are best equipped to manage this work when we are ready to proceed." + "Last week, several Republican members of the House oversight panel toured the campus and condemned D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser and D.C. police for declining the university’s request to intervene. Bowser on Monday said city officials and the police declined the university's request to intervene because there wasn't any violence for officers to interrupt." "Bowser, a Democrat, and Metropolitan Police Chief Pamela Smith had been summoned to testify Wednesday afternoon before the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability to discuss their handling of the protest. But the committee called off the hearing after police intervened early Wednesday to clear the tent encampment at GWU. Police made 33 arrests, including for assault on a police officer and unlawful entry." Cretins .... the protestors and DC local government.
I mean, at least someone is finally willing to sacrifice something, instead of demanding vegan food or university meal plans for their illegal sit ins. But they are not prisoners or oppressed, seems way over the top, like a kid holding their breath…one day soon they will walk away from it almost surely after declaring some Pyrrhic victory, assuming the admin doesn’t cave. For comparison’s sake, the students there did something similar in 2007, made it about 10 days.
I don't think it's an effective protest. Hunger strikes work in prisons and detention centers because prison officials are responsible for the health and care of their detainees. But it is a form of nonviolent protest. And if you're going to do it, you might as well tell people that you're suffering because of it. I don't see people caring, which is why it isn't effective.
Cornell’s prez is out, though she claims it’s not related to recent events. Won’t be the last I suspect. BREAKING: President Pollack to Retire After Seven Years of Leadership - The Cornell Daily Sun
