Israel/Palestine post 10/7 - follow-on events/thoughts as relate to other countries

yes that's also pretty stupid

Jodi Dean from Hobart and William Smith Colleges has also been put on leave, but I'm inclined to think that's slightly less stupid, given that she twisted herself into academic pretzels claiming Hamas is a force for good. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-professor-leave-describing-october-7-attacks-exhilarating

ehh, the Dean case is a textbook violation of academic freedom; doesn't matter what she wrote. The USC story also looks pretty straightforwardly bad on USC's part afaict.

But oof that Berkeley story is a mess. It strikes me as extremely confusing and bad to host university-related events at your private home, to then insist that 1A doesn't apply for that reason, but to then also threaten anyone who protests further university-related events at the dean's home with a violation of the student conduct code. Surely following this incident, the wiser move would be to clearly demarcate the difference between your home and the university? Claiming "assault" is def absurd if the article's description is accurate, but OTOH if you're a professor you absolutely know not to touch students without their consent. None of this excuses those images though; those are definitely antisemitic.

"Academic freedom" isn't some absolute, enshrined constitutional principle, it's just an ideal. A private college especially can put someone on leave for whatever reason, as long as they're not violating the law. I think it's reasonable for a college to put someone on leave for praising the slaughter of civilians.

As for the Berkeley case, Chemerinsky is like one of the world's leading experts on the US Constitution. He wrote what is probably the most used textbook on constitutional law. It might be "confusing" but you don't have an unfettered right to free speech in someone's private home, and the fact that it was "university related" (he invited students to his home to celebrate graduation) doesn't really change that. And it's not actually contradictory that a student conduct code can include off-campus behavior. An obvious (extreme) example would be that a law school could expel a student for murdering someone off campus. 1A and where a code of conduct applies are mostly unrelated.

As far as Prof Fisk, supposedly the students had been disrupting the event for a while and had been repeatedly asked to leave (meaning they were no longer invited and were technically trespassing in a private home). In the video, it looks like the professor got frustrated and briefly put her hands on the student, but did not harm the student. Was it exactly the right thing to do? Maybe not, but it seems pretty minimal, regardless of whatever technicalities of law (e.g. whether it matters that the student was trespassing). We are talking about adults here. Graduating law students are in their 20s. The idea that she or the dean should be dismissed for it is pretty ridiculous. And if she had called the police instead, it would be evil zionist professor calls the police on student.

SCOTUS has long ruled that protesters do not have First Amendment rights on private property, that private property owners are free to restrict speech on their own property as they wish. I think the "it was a school sponsored event" was definitely a big reach, legally.

I wasn't making a legalistic argument. I'm fully aware academic freedom isn't a constitutional right -- it's an important, bedrock principle for the modern academy though. The fact that private institutions can censor scholars within the confines of constitutional law is precisely why it exists! The fact that "it's reasonable for a college to put someone on leave for praising the slaughter of civilians" is only ever applied selectively is a strong argument in favor of fighting for and preserving this principle, even in cases you dislike. No academic is in danger of being put on leave for, e.g., praising the US slaughtering civilians in the Middle East or arguing the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were justified/positive or etc etc. There are countless academic defenses of colonialism, empire-building, and other projects that entailed mass slaughter of civilians -- it's ludicrous to suggest that a ban on this idea is enforced in a reasonable and equitable manner.

Likewise, I understand that the Berkeley couple know the law and use that knowledge to their benefit. But IMO, by hosting academic events in his home Chemerinsky is obfuscating the distinctions between the rights and responsibilities of being a student, professor, dean, university employee, and private citizen. No, that's not illegal but, again IMO, it's not wise or kind to do that, and there are endless examples of this problem in recent decades. And as a reminder, I'm talking about the fact they are planning to continue hosting these events and to threaten the livelihoods of anyone who protests them. I know they're within their rights to do that, I'm just saying they're being dicks.

I didn't realize there was video of the event, and I haven't watched it, so you can ignore that part, though I already said I thought "assault" was absurd, so not sure why you're bringing up calling the cops. ftr I also don't think they should be dismissed from their posts, I'm pretty narrowly suggesting they learn from this incident and stop hosting campus events at their private home.

SCOTUS has long ruled that protesters do not have First Amendment rights on private property, that private property owners are free to restrict speech on their own property as they wish. I think the "it was a school sponsored event" was definitely a big reach, legally.

― CEO Greedwagon (Neanderthal), Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:23 PM (sixteen minutes ago)

I'm not sure if you're addressing my post or just the story in general (that might be true of man alive's posts too, but they seemed like a direct response to my eyes -- happy to be corrected), so can I ask why are you only, or primarily anyway, concerned with the legal aspect? I have to stop posting now lol and can't really elaborate on this, but I read stories like these through a lens informed by the way power works on campuses. man alive is correct that everyone involved is a legal adult, but they're hardly equals in this world

i was responding to what man alive said regarding the legal angle of it, since there were a lot of amateur lawyers on Twitter claiming their legal rights had been violated.

Likewise, I understand that the Berkeley couple know the law and use that knowledge to their benefit. But IMO, by hosting academic events in his home Chemerinsky is obfuscating the distinctions between the rights and responsibilities of being a student, professor, dean, university employee, and private citizen. No, that's not illegal but, again IMO, it's not wise or kind to do that, and there are endless examples of this problem in recent decades. And as a reminder, I'm talking about the fact they are planning to continue hosting these events and to threaten the livelihoods of anyone who protests them. I know they're within their rights to do that, I'm just saying they're being dicks.

I didn't realize there was video of the event, and I haven't watched it, so you can ignore that part, though I already said I thought "assault" was absurd, so not sure why you're bringing up calling the cops. ftr I also don't think they should be dismissed from their posts, I'm pretty narrowly suggesting they learn from this incident and stop hosting campus events at their private home.

― rob, Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:39 PM (nineteen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Sorry, no, completely disagree. They were not "being dicks." They went above and beyond by hosting students in their home, and they have defendant the free speech rights of pro-Palestine students in the past. The students were being dicks. There was no need to stage a protest in the professors' home, nor were they deserving targets. I don't think that some students being dicks should dissuade them from doing the totally normal and reasonable thing of having adult students as guests in their home, and I hope it won't.

*defended

And it's not actually contradictory that a student conduct code can include off-campus behavior. An obvious (extreme) example would be that a law school could expel a student for murdering someone off campus. 1A and where a code of conduct applies are mostly unrelated.

I teach at a Florida public university, and events like, say, the president's holiday party is considered a Campus Event even when his house is miles away.

"No academic is in danger of being put on leave for, e.g., praising the US slaughtering civilians in the Middle East or arguing the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were justified/positive or etc etc."

There's a pretty big difference between "the bombing of Hiroshima was necessary at the time" (which I'm not defending tbc) and actively cheering for a slaughter that just happened and speaking publicly about how it gave you a huge boner. The latter is about a hair away from encouraging more slaughter, which by extension could easily be targeted at "zionist" or Israeli students in the US.

But also, it's a private university and it's under no obligation to have a "uniform" ban of anything.

Berkley is private?

no he's talking about the Jodi Dean situation

no professor at UC Berkeley Law is advocating for the slaughter of anyone, other than probably John Yoo, who is actually the law professor people should protest

I believe the dinners at Chemerinsky's house are explicitly stated in advance as non-university sponsored or supported. I had dinners at professors' homes when at Cal and they were also very explicit that it wasn't university sponsored. I know these areas can get sticky; those dinners at Yale with Amy Chua and her husband where shitty stuff may have happened was a huge controversy.

generally speaking I think professors and university leadership should simply never do this in this day and age, for all of these reasons.

I think it was supported by Berkeley because everyone with a job was wearing Berkeley name tags and Berkeley paid for the catering. 🤷🏻‍♀️

Tbh I am on Dean’s side and think what is happening to her is ridiculous, but that shouldn’t be a surprise

and they have defendant the free speech rights of pro-Palestine students in the past.

perhaps they have but also:

In 2010, students who were protesting against UCI's invitation of Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren interrupted his speech several times. Chemerinsky, referring to the heckler's veto, asserted that their protest was a form of punishable civil disobedience and not protected by the First Amendment.[14] However, he also strongly criticized the prosecutors' decision to file criminal charges against the students.

In 2023, Chemerinsky defended a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Berkeley Law colleague Steven Davidoff Solomon titled "Don’t Hire My Anti-Semitic Law Students" as free speech. More than 200 alumni signed an open letter asking Chemerinsky, as dean, to address the harm and threats to pro-Palestine students' freedom of speech at the school, such as the death threats and doxxing of student groups named in the op-ed. Chemerinsky wrote a Los Angeles Times op-ed denouncing anti-semitism on college campuses, which critics said ignored the anti-Palestinian racism and genocide in Gaza.

The other thing to note is that not a *single* university president, other than Wesleyan's, has called for a ceasefire. There is no vast anti-semitic conspiracy being led by woke pro-Palestine students— nearly everywhere one looks, one sees the repression of pro-Palestinian voices, people in power both-sidesing a completely asymmetrical conflict with completely asymmetrical losses, and the denial of the tenets of academic freedom to professors if they aren't on the side of the Zionist entity.

I don't think I'm that far off from you. I certainly would hope that if a professor made a speech that could be read as openly and directly hostile to Muslim students, there would be some action taken, and I do think publicly speaking about how excited you were to see 10/7 happen crosses that line, but also as a private college they're going to make whatever call they want to make, and that's going to be based on student perception and comfort.

At the end of the day, I think these flaps are kind of minor and I wish they didn't consume so much energy. Dean Chemerinsky is going to be ok, Prof Fisk (his wife) is going to be ok, and the student is going to be ok. If the student is disciplined at all, I would think it should be minor. I think we all feel angry and sad and powerless and it becomes easy to channel that into some bullshit that blows up on the internet. And in the grand scheme of things, I think this was just some bullshit that blew up on the internet.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/04/16/pro-palestinian-protests-us-biden/

i haven't gone digging to see what she linked to or what she said.

apparently she has posted stuff to instagram stating that jews have no historical connection to the land, which, if so, is pretty dumb coming from a valedictorian.

I wouldn't oppose her as valedictorian for that though. IDK, these lines are hard to draw I guess but I generally lean pro-speech and anti-seeking out petty reasons to take away people's platforms or honors. Valedictorians are allowed to have views some might consider dumb! Deans can be good deans without actively espousing the most righteous views on every issue! Sometimes people's subjective expectations of "feeling safe" in every situation are too high! That doesn't mean that it's always the case!

I think the rhetoric that akm refers to is often in service of highlighting the way that the Zionist entity has treated the land— by exploiting it, bombing its inhabitants, and creating open-air prisons on it. While technically and obviously inaccurate, it’s also a little difficult to see how Israel has respect or appreciation for the land except as a resource to be exploited.

I would have to see the exact statement, but in general it is pretty commonplace to hear denial that the claimed Jewish connection to Israel/Palestine is real. Arafat famously claimed there was no temple at the Temple Mount. The more common claim is that Ashkenazi Jews or some set of Jews aren’t “real Jews,” aren’t really descended from the original Jews, are impostors, etc. and therefore don’t have any connection to the land.

That is obviously ridiculous to me, but I have seen such sentiments, too.

The issue seems to be "connection" versus "claim," and then further between "claim" and "exclusive claim."

A connection to a specific piece of land, as a people, is irrefutable. A claim to that piece of land is a bit more complicated, but seems fine to me. But an *exclusive* claim on a piece of land, especially a piece of land that is also claimed and has connections to the two other major world religions, seems foolhardy, if not insane and violent.

But oof that Berkeley story is a mess. It strikes me as extremely confusing and bad to host university-related events at your private home, to then insist that 1A doesn't apply for that reason, but to then also threaten anyone who protests further university-related events at the dean's home with a violation of the student conduct code. Surely following this incident, the wiser move would be to clearly demarcate the difference between your home and the university?
― rob, Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:37 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

I agree with man alive's read of the situation fwiw, and I think the moment the conversation turns toward what the speech rights of the "protesters" are, the plot has been lost: these sorts of things are meant to be a convivial celebration of the hard work the students have put in there and their relationships with their peers and professors. from what I understand, it was not a mandatory event, just a reason to throw what was probably a pretty expensively catered party the dean probably paid for at least in part himself. I've been to a handful of these sorts of things when I was a medical student and resident. the expectation is that people at these things just...act normal and have a good time. it's not meant to be a public soapbox. but of course acting normal is something completely foreign to a great number of highly ambitious people with elite educational backgrounds...

I've also seen some suggest that hosting students like this at one's own home is inherently problematic, which I dismiss as infantilizing nonsense: law students are adults, not 18th graders. obviously what transpired is not something one plans for, nor should it need to be. though I am sure this is going to be a pretty durable HR case study

in a normal world I agree. in this world in which we live in, sadly, lots of people continue to act like infants well into middle age and beyond.

I'm not sure the 1A stuff matters that much. It was a civil disobedience protest at the home of an elite and powerful person.

sounds like Columbia's leadership came more prepared for today's house dog and pony show on campus antisemitism than MIT and Harvard.

Still waiting for the alleged investigations into islamophobia which were also supposed to be part of this.

think you'll be waiting a while

a good indication of that never happening is that Tim Walberg, the Michigan rep who said Gaza should be nuked, sits on this committee

Google fired a bunch of employees for protesting their contract with Israel: https://www.theverge.com/2024/4/17/24133700/google-fires-28-employees-protest-israel-cloud-contract

maybe not in an of itself very surprising, but I was surprised by the strict daddy tone of the internal memo. I'm not sure why anyone would want to work at google these days.

do mo evil

How much of an incentive Is there an incentive for - and route to - Netanyahu using Iran as a way of getting rid of Biden in November (via something like higher gas prices)

If you told me Google would address its employees as "googlers" when dressing them down for acting like human beings..... well I'd probably believe you.

Also, good post above Table.

Striking Iran, yikes.

Solid piece by Michelle Goldberg: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/opinion/columbia-antisemitism-hearing.html?ugrp=c&unlocked_article_code=1.lk0.gMDT.rpyfUsAW9kxH&smid=url-share

Shafik appeared with two chairs of Columbia’s board of trustees, Claire Shipman and David Greenwald, and with David Schizer, a former dean of Columbia’s law school who is one of the chairs of the school’s antisemitism task force. The university, said Shipman, was taking steps to restrict student protests: “One of the excellent recommendations of our antisemitism task force is that they have said that if you are going to chant, it should only be in a certain place, so that people who don’t want to hear it are protected from having to hear it.”

Goldberg doesn't mention it, but Claire Shipman is ostensibly a journalist. OTOH she's married to one of Obama's old press secretaries.

And as at many other schools, some at Columbia have celebrated terrorism; in an ugly Oct. 8 essay repeatedly cited at the hearings, Massad, the anti-Zionist professor, wrote of “jubilation and awe” occasioned by the “innovative Palestinian resistance” of Oct. 7.

This bit of testimony was elicited by the aforementioned Tim "turn Gaza into Hiroshima" Walberg, if you want to calibrate this committee's level of hypocrisy.

Google apparently fired people for simply saying 'hello' to the protestors in the office or offering verbal support. California is an at-will employment state, but I think there will be some lawsuits over this because it sounds like retaliation.

https://www.thehandbasket.co/p/google-worker-fired-protest-israel-project-nimbus

Apparently people at my alma mater thought the poster advertising the spring weekend poster was anti-semitic and the student newspaper wrote an article about it, but only had one sentence about the anti-semitic complaints and several paragraphs of students complaining that they didn’t think the concert lineup was good

*spring weekend concert

we have to see the poster now

There are kinder ways to ask for sarah's photo

How much of an incentive Is there an incentive for - and route to - Netanyahu using Iran as a way of getting rid of Biden in November (via something like higher gas prices)

That might be a related benefit but part of the point to enlarge the war and keep it going because Netanyahu is facing trial and jail once it ends

i know sarahell in the real life!

it was a bad joke akm <3

That might be a related benefit but part of the point to enlarge the war and keep it going because Netanyahu is facing trial and jail once it ends

I think the incentives to keep Netanyahu away from trial are fairly well established and understood, this is kind of a side question.about whether theres also a perception getting rid of Biden might be a plus too. I say perception, because I dont know if it a sure fire thing that Trump would be a better bet, with the isolationist wing of the the republicans holding some sway and Biden being pretty pro-Israel (although not so much pro-Netanyahu, which may tie into any calculation regarding the trial factor)