Anti-semitism thread: onwards from 2023

According to wikipedia the scholarly term is "ethnocracy"

Israel has been labeled an ethnocracy by scholars such as Alexander Kedar,[14] Shlomo Sand,[15] Oren Yiftachel,[16] Asaad Ghanem,[17][18] Haim Yakobi,[19] Nur Masalha[20] and Hannah Naveh.[21] It is also viewed as an apartheid state by various organisations, including B'tselem, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, due to actions committed against Palestinians that they see as emblematic of such a state.[22][23][24]

However, scholars such as Gershon Shafir, Yoav Peled and Sammy Smooha prefer the term ethnic democracy to describe Israel,[25] which is intended[26] to represent a "middle ground" between an ethnocracy and a liberal democracy. Smooha in particular argues that ethnocratic democracies, allowing a privileged status to a dominant ethnic majority while ensuring that all individuals have equal rights, are defensible. His opponents reply that insofar as Israel contravenes equality in practice, the term 'democratic' in his equation is flawed.[27]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnocracy

Well, it's about religion rather than ethnicity surely?

a student yelling "gas the Jews" might themselves feel that they're just expressing solidarity with dying Palestinians, without understanding that they're actually being stupid Nazis who deserve expulsion. Am I making sense here? I'm trying to say "the anti-Zionism/anti-Semitism conflation is very dangerous, will inflame anti-Semitism rather than quell anti-Zionism, and deserves far more pushback than simply labelling it as a red herring."

― spider alert: 🕷️🕷️ (flamboyant goon tie included), Sunday, 10 December 2023 14:04 (two minutes ago) link

I don't think you're completely making sense insofar as taking seriously what the Jewish students on these US campuses are complaining about in terms of wanting to feel safe to study, no.

Maybe I'm having trouble following because the idea that people have been yelling "gas the Jews" on a US University campus for weeks and weeks with no serious administrative action is so distracting and emotionally upsetting that I don't really have that much energy to get worked up about the rest.

Rationalizing "gas the Jews" sounds completely irrational to me. I don't understand how any University administrators can fail to prevent that. This should never have gotten to the point of having a Congressional hearing.

Blaming the hearing and who is politicizing it it sounds a bit like blaming the Jewish students for being upset about these conditions.

Well, it's about religion rather than ethnicity surely?

― Free Ass Ange (Tom D.), Sunday, December 10, 2023 6:10 AM bookmarkflaglink

I guess that's a can of worms to open. The US theoretically has freedom of religion, but it's definitely moving closer to state religion all the time.

Not sure why people need to use "anti-Zionist" when there is the perfectly good phrase - "criticism of Israel." There is no shortage of things to criticize. It's almost as if they want to draw complaints of being antisemitic, so they can then argue that antisemitism doesn't exist or something. I don't get it.

Because of the occupation of Gaza, the settlement of the West Bank; it is by definition an apartheid state, even if one doesn't want to label it as such

I've heard this mentioned recently, but IF (and I know thats a big if) Israel ended the occupations and settlements, would that mean it would no longer be considered an apartheid state? This is generally the case with occupying forces, with somewhat similar systems in Zaporizhia or Abkhazia? I don't know if thats a meaningful distinction or not, is it considered to be apartheid within its borders too, or in the territories it occupies?

The Penn situation definitely seems fraught, but I'm uncomfortable when people mix horrifying fact with hyperbole. I have no doubt a lot of Jewish students on campus don't feel safe, or have encountered things that have at the very least crept up to the edge of anti-semitism, if not past it. It's also pretty clear that (at least before the resignation of that inept and ill-prepared president) the school's response has fallen short of measures that would satisfy many of its Jewish students. But claims like "Penn issued guidance to students to hide their Jewish garb" or "an Israeli student whose identity and personal info was sold online for a bounty has not left his dorm room in weeks out of fear due to death threats" or "classmates and professors chanted proudly for the genocide of Jews" seem questionable to me. If they're accurate, things are worse there than I thought.

Likewise, I've seen plenty of disgusting justifications of the Hamas attack (I've even started to see people claiming it was made up, or was some sort of false flag, or asking for proof or whatever bullshit), but (per the NYU complaint) "chants of 'gas the Jews' and 'Hitler was right' ring out on campus"? Really? I've seen a lot of shit come out of these protests, and a lot of what I consider anti-semitism. Some assholes apparently disrupted the Hillel Hanukkah celebration up at UW-Madison the other night, "shouting political slogans and obscenities." But I've seen very little in the way of outright calls for the death or genocide of Jews, let alone chants, at least as framed by that asshole congressperson's gotcha question at those hearings. Again, if these claims are honest and accurate, then things are worse than they seem.

a student yelling "gas the Jews" might themselves feel that they're just expressing solidarity with dying Palestinians, without understanding that they're actually being stupid Nazis who deserve expulsion

I’m also going to point out on this side of the ocean, doing such a thing would be considered a criminal offence and I would agree with a person screaming such in public to be charged appropriately. Fuck that. Bad fucking fellow travellers.

Yes, thank you gyac. And Josh, while there is some drama in the way legal complaints are written, the underlying facts are indeed much worse than I thought.

I see the topic of "are Jewish students on US campuses being subjected to levels of discrimination and harassment that violate US civil rights laws?" sort of weaponized and subsumed under a lot of other finger pointing.

No matter how well meaning, that feels like the sort of indifference and standing silently by from people who should be allies that has historically permitted the unique evil of hatred of Jewish people to flourish and become deadly.

Again, while it's ultimately probably a distinction without a difference, I do think there is a difference between school bullying and harassment and chanting "gas the Jews." The former is cause for internal/school discipline, the latter is hate speech. I've not seen many clear examples of the latter lately, fortunately, but that doesn't mean the environment is not currently conducive to the sentiment. That is, while I have not myself seen many examples of that stuff amidst the litany of more verifiable claims of harassment, it wouldn't surprise me if they happened. It's just a pretty extreme claim to make, though, especially in the context of that dubious congressional hearing. It makes it a little too convenient to play into the hands of bad faith GOP jerks who would use ad hominem accusations as a cudgel. For example, while I did not watch those hearings, my understanding is that at least one of the university presidents dodged the gotcha by responding along the lines of "I have not heard claims of people chanting 'death to the Jews'" (or equivalent)," rather than Penn's disturbing equivocating.

@ gyac and felicity, I feel you're missing the point of what I was trying to express, and I blame myself for not expressing it more clearly; for this I apologise. I'm not excusing anti-Semitic rallying cries like these in any way-- may those who say such thing go to jail-- my argument is that the conflation of "criticism of Israel" (broadly defined by those who both critique Israel, and those who would argue that Israel is above critique, as "anti-Zionism"; but I do agree that the term is loaded from every angle) and "anti-Semitism" has the effect of inflaming anti-Semitism rather than quelling critique of Israel. This is broadly the basis of why so many Israel-critical Jews have adopted the "not in my name" adage; they seek to set a clear boundary between their Jewish ethnicity/beliefs and the present-tense actions of the Israeli state.

Aside from massive failure to read the room (just say yes, all genocide is bad when the white hot light is on you - you can explain the nuance of Title VI and First Amendment in video tweets later) the critique of the University presidents that resonated with me were (1) the disingenuous double standards, and (2) a bit of hubris in the way they acted like they could wriggle out of answering straight questions.

The double standard is that University campuses have historically never been shy about taking action where exercise of free speech has been offensive. There are a few very unsympathetic examples but one that was brought up was accepted applicants posting offensive messages on Facebook and having their offers rescinded. That's not even a Title IV violation, just a "character" thing.

Regarding the hubris, I'm probably biased from spending years in law. But the number one rule of being under oath is you answer the question. Don't try to answer a different question - it looks like you think you're above the law.

When Claudine Gay was asked about the Ukranian flag or if marches calling for the death of other groups of students would violate school policy you could see that she understood the trap she had been led into and did not want to answer the questions. Just say yes or no. There was a Ukranian flag, it was an exception. Not answering the question being asked like a mere nobody would have to looks elitist and out of touch.

The better thing is to make sure you are never in a position to have answer anyone's questions under oath in the first place, but see above.

xp I get you. To me I get people being angry about the atrocities happening, I just wouldn’t justify crossing that bridge.

https://www.wcvb.com/article/jewish-students-provocative-banner-harvard-university/46066578

This story had been doing the rounds and it disturbed me. The article is opaque about where it originated; it is credited to both “a group claiming to represent Jewish students” and “they(Hillel) believed it was paid for by an outside conservative group”.

I get that the statement is intending to be provocative, but the use of the Palestinian flag pushes it well over the line from daft student tactic to something worse. I don’t see who this is for or who this helps, frankly, especially when there is a mention that schoolchildren saw the banner and were upset by it.

This is broadly the basis of why so many Israel-critical Jews have adopted the "not in my name" adage; they seek to set a clear boundary between their Jewish ethnicity/beliefs and the present-tense actions of the Israeli state.

― spider alert: 🕷️🕷️ (flamboyant goon tie included), Sunday, December 10, 2023 7:05 AM bookmarkflaglink

That's ok. I know you believe this. And, to put it very gently, I think it gets to sort of what being an ally is - letting the people you're supporting lead the discussion and centering what they think is important - perhaps to the exclusion a bit of what you think is important, in some moments.

As for the "not in my name" Jewish people - this might close to the fetishing and tokenism of certain points of view when those views are brought up by non-Jewish people. It's been expressed as a bit of an irritant in this and other threads. There are a lot of interesting discussions about criticizing Israel. Perhaps they go better in another thread, or in another moment that is not right in the middle of this campus thing.

Thank you both— and I agree with your assessment of the presidents’s performance under inquiry, too, felicity

The reason I feel the campus hearings were a trap is that they let disingenuous scumbags like Stefanik define the terms of debate, to further imo nefarious goals. For example, I don't think she is for a second serious about confronting anti-Semitism on campus, but I do think she and her cohort would love to pressure these liberal elites into setting standards that people like Stefanik could then use to punish or ban protestors or protests of their choosing in the future. Like BLM, say, or, people who protest or harass conservative voices. Their goal is not the safety of Jewish students, their goal is the weakening of liberal institutions of higher education.

For example, the Wisconsin GOP just more or less tried to extort the University of Wisconsin-Madison. They tried to leverage funding for a new engineering building and raises in return for firing several DEI administrators and establishing a conservative academic think tank, or something like that. The University, thankfully, did not take the bait, because they recognized the GOP's offer as bad precedent, less about giving the school something it wants and more about getting something *they* want that they could in turn exploit for further culture war gains.

It boggles my mind that being opposed to a nationalist political ideology has been conflated with hatred of Jewish people. It isn’t the same thing, no matter what anyone on ILX or anywhere else says.

Regarding antisemitism on campuses, criticism of Israel absolutely has to be part of the conversation, because of the conflation of antisemitism and criticism of a state-adopted ideology .

xpost They’ve definitely chilled the atmosphere for any university thinking of inviting a Palestinian speaker, or anyone else who has been critical of Israel.

From another UK perspective -- and following on from what JiC and others have said -- I have seen campus conflict (over trans issues, for example) and harassment being inflated to ultimately undermine educational establishments with a moral panic around student 'radical politics', when newspapers and politicians with an agenda get involved.

There are plenty of complaints here and once the dust settles it would be good to see if there could be processes to de-escalate the conflict in the campus. Maybe the students who are shouting "gas the Jews" are thugs whose humanity cannot be salvaged. As are the ones putting the Palestinian flag on a plane at such time.

But maybe they can.

The reason I feel the campus hearings were a trap is that they let disingenuous scumbags like Stefanik define the terms of debate, to further imo nefarious goals. For example, I don't think she is for a second serious about confronting anti-Semitism on campus, but I do think she and her cohort would love to pressure these liberal elites into setting standards that people like Stefanik could then use to punish or ban protestors or protests of their choosing in the future. Like BLM, say, or, people who protest or harass conservative voices. Their goal is not the safety of Jewish students, their goal is the weakening of liberal institutions of higher education.

The campus hearings were a trap if you're concerned primarily with policing GOP jerks or safeguarding the jobs of University presidents. Why are Jewish students in need of anyone -- GOP or Democrat -- being their mouthpiece to bring attention to this though?

Recognizing they set up gotcha moments for a despicable party does not negate that there is harassment and discrimination on campus and increase in hate crimes against Jewish people in North America. It's not like they cancel each other out.

Either you don't believe things are as bad as the students say, or you cannot conceive that questioning led even by Democrats can elicit any kind of material enforcement of civil rights law.

I really despise Stefanik, but the kind of putting the cart before the horse of close-mindedness of refusing to look at a situation because who is also profiting politically from it is kind of intolerant. You can be opposed to harassment and discrimination without endorsing Stefanik, and I wish people would stop playing into this propaganda and giving her so much attention while acting like "refusing to watch the hearings" is some sort of virtue.

As for DEI - of course the GOP will try to dismantle it. That is one of the reasons I have been posting since October that it is the responsibility of people who lead legitimate Pro-palestine protests to make sure they have no nazis or other blatant antisemitism. Or you get .... this.

It boggles my mind that being opposed to a nationalist political ideology has been conflated with hatred of Jewish people. It isn’t the same thing, no matter what anyone on ILX or anywhere else says.

Regarding antisemitism on campuses, criticism of Israel absolutely has to be part of the conversation, because of the conflation of antisemitism and criticism of a state-adopted ideology .

― butt dumb tight my boners got boners (the table is the table), Sunday, December 10, 2023 7:47 AM bookmarkflaglink

Respectfully, that does not seem like your call to make. Who is doing this "conflating"? Is it every individual Jewish student, or are you treating them not as individuals? If you care about criticizing Israel to the point that alarm bells go off in your mind and you must bring up Israel every time a Jewish person wants to talk about studying free of garden variety anti-Jewish harassment and discrimination, that seems like a huge issue.

To be really real, I was kind of shocked that I saw you post something a few years back that you don't hate anyone except "Zionists." I found that truly breathtaking.

xpost They’ve definitely chilled the atmosphere for any university thinking of inviting a Palestinian speaker, or anyone else who has been critical of Israel.

― Beyond Goo and Evol (President Keyes), Sunday, December 10, 2023 7:49 AM bookmarkflaglink

If you read the allegations in the entire complaint, this is an arms race that also goes for the symbolism and rhetoric for protests and boycotts of Israel. Campuses papered with flyers with swastikas? I don't think Jewish students want that either.

This is broadly the basis of why so many Israel-critical Jews have adopted the "not in my name" adage; they seek to set a clear boundary between their Jewish ethnicity/beliefs and the present-tense actions of the Israeli state.

And sometimes I want to go beyond this and think “why should I, a Jew, be forced or expected to talk about Israel at all” - it’s rather like expecting someone Muslim to have an opinion on terrorism. Circumstances are dire enough for the Palestinians right now that silence is not an option for me, but I still rankle at the need (in my perception) to set a boundary at all.

You can be opposed to harassment and discrimination without endorsing Stefanik

Then find some other way to express your opposition. The Republican Party harbors actual Nazis and Nazi sympathizers in its ranks. They seek the overthrow of American democracy and the installation of a white Christian theocratic government. Accepting their "help" on the issue of campus anti-Semitism, no matter how important it is to you, is short-sighted to say the least. Their goal is not the protection of Jewish college students; their goal is the destruction of the American university system. They just happen to be saying the words you want to hear right this minute, and the fact that you can't see that is mind-boggling.

I read the complaint up until I saw allegations that ran counter to how some events actually happened at Penn. The protesters who targeted the restaurant in Center City Philadelphia did not ‘rampage’ through the Upenn campus beforehand. After the Goldie’s protest they attempted to march toward the campus and were stopped by University Police. It seems an attempt to tie another highly reported event in the area outside Penn into criticism of the University itself.

Unperson - Please type up a list of topics I am allowed to speak on, and how - paying special attention to the treatment of women and minorities - and have it on my desk by end of business.

My sister in law is African-American and considers herself a NeverTrump Republican. Can you do a list for her as well? Thanks in advance.

I read the complaint up until I saw allegations that ran counter to how some events actually happened at Penn. The protesters who targeted the restaurant in Center City Philadelphia did not ‘rampage’ through the Upenn campus beforehand. After the Goldie’s protest they attempted to march toward the campus and were stopped by University Police. It seems an attempt to tie another highly reported event in the area outside Penn into criticism of the University itself.

― Beyond Goo and Evol (President Keyes), Sunday, December 10, 2023 8:37 AM bookmarkflaglink

I believe you. I wasn't there. I don't blame you for not reading all of it.

The complaint wasn't in my style and there were some iffy seeming characterizations in there. I generally take adjectives with a heavy grain of salt. But I give credence to allegations of names, dates, references to physical evidence such as flyers and the testimony of witnesses who will be under oath. That is what cross examination and the litigation process is for. The firm is aggressive but not disreputable as far as I know.

Respectfully, that does not seem like your call to make. Who is doing this "conflating"? Is it every individual Jewish student, or are you treating them not as individuals? If you care about criticizing Israel to the point that alarm bells go off in your mind and you must bring up Israel every time a Jewish person wants to talk about studying free of garden variety anti-Jewish harassment and discrimination, that seems like a huge issue..

Unperson - Please type up a list of topics I am allowed to speak on, and how - paying special attention to the treatment of women and minorities - and have it on my desk by end of business.

You, like me, are free to speak on any topic of your choice, in any way you see fit. (After all, neither of us are college students.) You are also free to choose any allies you like in your crusade against campus anti-Semitism. When the people you have allied with turn their attention to you, I wish you all the luck in the world.

I appreciate that. Hopefully you have changed and backed off your earlier statement about hating "Zionists."

I would really like criticism of Israel to be a discrete topic that can be discussed separately from anti-semitism. I do agree that people cynically conflate them as a shield. I think we agree and I understand your statement better. If a person injects that into the argument, then it's fair game. I just don't think it should be considered inevitable the people should be bringing Israel up preemptively to Jewish people or on the subject of antisemitism generally if that topic has not been raised.

I agree people can be pro-Palestian and not antisemitic. They can even be pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel, and against the fascistic extremes in both governing bodies.

When the people you have allied with turn their attention to you, I wish you all the luck in the world.

Honestly, the fucking nerve of unperson acting like he’s any sort of moral authority. Fuck that.

You, like me, are free to speak on any topic of your choice, in any way you see fit. (After all, neither of us are college students.) You are also free to choose any allies you like in your crusade against campus anti-Semitism. When the people you have allied with turn their attention to you, I wish you all the luck in the world.

― Tahuti Watches L&O:SVU Reruns Without His Ape (unperson), Sunday, December 10, 2023 8:54 AM bookmarkflaglink

Oh spare me the fake concern trolling. I have posted about Trump's plans to dismantle the US Constitution and deploy the military against his enemies in the USPol thread. These people are not my allies.

And posting about women's bodies in a discussion of AI in a "character" so you can use the word "t*ts". You're gross.

Your only contributions to ILX antisemitism discussions to date as far as I remember have been to tell Jewish posters that you're not concerned about Bradley Cooper's fake nose and to raise Stefanik's name repeatedly when I am trying to discuss Title VI campus violations.

You seem really concerned about antisemitism. Great allyship. Hope you get FPed for a week.

Personally, I felt much more threatened at the start of the Trump administration than I have at any other time in my life. I actually considered exit strategies. That is not to say I don't feel threatened now, but when there are extreme standards set by actual Nazis unfurling swastikas (whether in Orlando or Madison), or, say, the Charlottesville march, under the literal banner of armed militias, with actual chants of "Jews will not replace us," I feel more threatened by those organized white supremacists with allies in Washington than I do incoherent student protests. So when outright Trump supporters profess to fight anti-Semitism, I would take their support more seriously if they themselves did not support actual anti-Semites and white supremacists, or support and vote for their ringleader god-emperor.

Which is not to dismiss what is happening on college campuses, which is real and, even if it doesn't always rise to the level of outright hate speech, imo, certainly constitutes at least disconcerting harassment that should not be allowed unchecked. I just wish there was a way to confront it without hyperbolic distortion of the already disturbing facts or resorting to assistance from disreputable politicians. And yeah, Democrats participated in those hearings, too, but they're victims of the same rhetorical trap. If they didn't assail these inept/ensnared college presidents then the same bad faith GOP leaders would accuse *them* of supporting anti-Semitism, which is GOP 101: accuse your enemy of what you yourself have been accused of.

I appreciate that. Hopefully you have changed and backed off your earlier statement about hating "Zionists."

I would really like criticism of Israel to be a discrete topic that can be discussed separately from anti-semitism. I do agree that people cynically conflate them as a shield. I think we agree and I understand your statement better. If a person injects that into the argument, then it's fair game. I just don't think it should be considered inevitable the people should be bringing Israel up preemptively to Jewish people or on the subject of antisemitism generally if that topic has not been raised.

I agree people can be pro-Palestian and not antisemitic. They can even be pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel, and against the fascistic extremes in both governing bodies.

I just wish there was a way to confront it without hyperbolic distortion of the already disturbing facts or resorting to assistance from disreputable politicians.

Yes, which is why I keep suggesting that people view the primary sources and draw their own conclusions. Instead of relying on other posters or the media to digest it for them.

But apparently that suggestion throws people into a rage. So I stopped.

one of the invited speakers at the Palestine Writes Literature Festival stooped to the previously unimaginable low of joking about an Israeli baby Hamas had burned in an oven, asking “with or without baking powder?”

this was poet Refaat Alareer btw, who died in the past few days in Gaza. I know a couple of people who knew and knew of him, and I was unfamiliar with his poetry; I read some after his death and found it rather moving. I also read the NYT story on him that they retracted after more video of him in the classroom came to light. I think you could credibly say he has expressed anti-semitic beliefs, so I understand the upset his being at that festival could have caused.

xp

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that we take Republicans more seriously. It's obvious Stefanik is a ghoul and was asking ridiculous bad faith questions to trap those college presidents. Unfortunately, the presidents handled those questions about as badly as they possibly could, which did not help things whatsoever. Noting that they did a bad job is not the same as siding with Republicans.

that was xp to Josh...

xpost he was targeted for assassination by the IOF, he didn’t just “die.” Also his entire family was killed.

part of the issue with the University presidents and their answers to these questions is that ... they are academics. Welcome to how academics answer questions. There is a lot of rationalizing and context all the fucking time. Was that politically savvy of them? No. They should have done better. Their brains don't work that way. Does it mean they are not invested in the safety of their students? I don't know, but I don't think so. At any given time, any protected group in a University likely feels that institutions are not doing enough for them. I absolutely buy that. I think some standards are going to have to be set on how and what works and is acceptable in the bounds of Title VI and the first amendment. But I get very nervous when we start purging academics. We've seen that play out in other countries.

I don't at all think they should lose their jobs based on their testimony, nor do I think that they don't care about the safety of their students. Their answers were reasonable from a highly legalistic and academic perspective, just utterly misguided based on the venue. If you are going in front of congress to answer questions about a loaded topic like this, you need to be prepared for ridiculous, OTT bad faith questions.

Right. One would hope they would have prepared better or known what was coming. It's like they never watched a congressional hearing before.

I do not think any of these presidents are antisemitic. But this probably cost Magill any chance for a federal judicial nomination.

She had a very good background for it - RBG clerk, constitutional law professor, daughter of an 8th Circuit judge. But no way would anyone nominate her now.

She seems like a nice person. But it's a bit hard for me to be too upset for her. She has tenure and she'll have good jobs and there are many qualified candidates for federal judge and university professor jobs.

Whoever told her to smile should be fired though.

Josh, I am sympathetic to your daughter's "at least" view a bit because, as a female in the legal field, I often don't have the luxury of automatically commanding attention and having everyone sit up and listen when I start speaking, or taking me seriously and crediting me with my ideas or assuming I am lead counsel the way my white, male colleagues do.

So just throwing out the entire hearing because of who some of the questioners were, when a lot of people (maybe Muslim Americans or students) would probably love to have such a hearing. It seems a bit luxurious when the purpose of Congressional hearings is to shed light on things.

one of the invited speakers at the Palestine Writes Literature Festival stooped to the previously unimaginable low of joking about an Israeli baby Hamas had burned in an oven, asking “with or without baking powder?”

---
xpost he was targeted for assassination by the IOF, he didn’t just “die.” Also his entire family was killed.

― butt dumb tight my boners got boners (the table is the table), Sunday, 10 December 2023 bookmarkflaglink

Body hasn't been found either, from what I've seen. Any mention of him has that quote of his in the twitter comments, purely deployed as an attempt to stop humanising him.

xpost I don't disagree, but the clip that got the most traction was predicated on something that (fortunately) I don't really see out there that much: the outright explicit call to harm Jews, or similar. That I think explains why the presidents struggled to answer what seemed to be a straightforward question: does calling for the genocide of Jews constitute bullying or harassment? But in this context it's not so straightforward, imo. If someone answers "yes," then the follow-up would be: then why haven't all these people been punished/expelled/fired for saying (example x/y/z)? If someone answers "no," then the follow-up would be: you don't think (example x, y, z) rises to the level of bullying or harassment? In both cases skipping right past any proof that anyone actually was "calling for the genocide of Jews," the explosive claim at the heart of the original question, and leading to pressure for action without even an investigation.

I looked at the transcript, and I guess it was the MIT president that dodged this line of questioning most successfully:

Congresswoman Stefanik: Yes or no, calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying and harassment?

President Kornbluth: I have not heard calling for the genocide for Jews on our campus.

Congresswoman Stefanik: But you've heard chants for Intifada.

President Kornbluth: I've heard chants which can be antisemitic depending on the context when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people.

Congresswoman Stefanik: So those would not be, according to the MIT's code of conduct or rules.

President Kornbluth: That would be investigated as harassment if pervasive and severe.

Imo, Stefanik was invoking her ad hominems and hypotheticals in service of less transparent goals: the future stifling of speech *she* doesn't like. I welcome those aforementioned lawsuits, because maybe they will shed light on this issue in a more neutral setting. That said, I am not a lawyer, but I would be shocked if some of those most damning charges - that a school tolerated student/faculty chants of "gas the Jews," that UPenn formally informed Jewish students to hide their Jewishness, things along those lines - were proven in court. But if they *are* proven, then like I said, things are worse than even I thought.

(xpost)
unfortunately when you put something like that out into public it's going to stick

Yes. His poetry and his lectures will be widely read, and others will stop at that quote.

Pound and Eliot are still widely read despite their horrible views on Jewish people so it's possible the work can transcend the person. Maybe not for a while.