| ▲ | fabian2k 4 days ago |
| Antisemitism is just an excuse for these actions against universities, it's a pretext. Not a particularly believable one anyway, but that doesn't seem to matter. The Trump administration is punishing institutions that disagree with it, or that it dislikes for some reason. |
|
| ▲ | sitkack 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| MAGA is heavily antisemitic, you absolutely right that this is pretext. They would have picked something else, this is just the best one at the time. |
| |
| ▲ | brookst 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Yep, zero principles at play here. They would has as happily use “mistreatment of transgender people” as a pretext, despite championing such mistreatment. It’s all just words as magic spells to justify bad behavior. Semantic content and beliefs aren’t even part of the equation. | |
| ▲ | wiz21c 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Considering US support to Israel, I wonder if MAGA is Trump or not... | | |
| ▲ | sitkack 4 days ago | parent [-] | | https://www.huffpost.com/entry/christian-zionism-israel-anti... | | |
| ▲ | hermitcrab 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I've never really understood the relationship between the US and Israel. The US gives Israel pretty much whatever it wants and in return the US gets ... nothing? Israel even (deliberately?) attacked a US ship during the 6 day war, with little (if any) consequences: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident >While millions of American evangelical Christians have long been fervent supporters of the Jewish state because of End Times prophecies Is that the main reason for this incredibly one-sided relationship? | | |
| ▲ | griffzhowl 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | There's also the effectiveness of the Israel lobby. Various pro-Israel organisations fund almost all members of congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Fore... | |
| ▲ | lupusreal 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Those apocalyptic prophecies are a big part of it, yes. Many politicians are believers in those prophecies, and many more count on votes from those believers. There's also the whole "God's chosen people" stuff, and a lot of older people think Israel should be given a blank cheque due to WW2 stuff. And of course some of it comes from wealthy donors like Miriam Adelson, a desire to go overboard to distance themselves from the threat of being labelled an antisemite, a desire to paint themselves as more pro-Israel than the other party, etc. | | |
| ▲ | hermitcrab 4 days ago | parent [-] | | It isn't much comfort that people who believe in apocalyptic prophecies have significant power in a country with a lot of nuclear weapons. |
| |
| ▲ | maleldil 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The main reason is geopolitics. Israel is an ally in the Middle East, a key region to US foreign policy. | | |
| ▲ | hermitcrab 4 days ago | parent [-] | | So is Saudi Arabia. The US doesn't have such a one-sided relationship with them, as far as I can see. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | insane_dreamer 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Not a particularly believable one anyway, but that doesn't seem to matter it's well chosen because it's also one that requires no proof, since "anti-semitism" has long been the worst accusation one can make, and one that's very hard to refute without demonstrating unequivocal loyalty to Israel and its actions; it's basically a purity test |
|
| ▲ | lupusreal 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I don't agree, because these actions are part of a bigger pattern of Republicans trying to find ways to ban criticism of Israel. Anti-BDS laws are very popular with the Republican party apparatus and politicians, as well as with older Republican voters. |
|
| ▲ | retinaros 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| it is not an excuse. They are a well represented community in USA and students felt not safe/had different political stance which was enough to push gov to act. How is it different from for instance BLM era with governments, media and democrats punishing some institutions and people that didnt want to say their slogan, were having opposing idea or even just didnt went to publicly bend the knee, ending whole careers and sometimes even killing them without any reason beyond rage? Once again you guys built and used the same tools than Trump is now wielding. A few people that were against biden era politics were pointing this simple fact that by creating a precedent and believing that your cause was righter than the others you just helped your opponent to do the same |
| |
| ▲ | ModernMech 4 days ago | parent [-] | | What precedent? When did the Biden administration pull funding from universities to control speech it didn't approve of? | | |
| ▲ | retinaros 4 days ago | parent [-] | | democrats didn’t need as they controlled those institutions. they however did it to the police to punish them just like trump did to school. For education, It was their funding and they put in power the people that did the coercion, lied on their resume and instead of having the will to educate the students just pushed down their throats propaganda. if you were against BLM or even a bit vocal about the tactics and negative things they were doing your carrier / studies would have ended and violence was also physically ok. why do you think no major company care about it anymore? why diversity HR teams or Sustainability teams are getting disbanded? why do we have “sydney sweeney has good jeans” ads now while we had overweight models during biden Era? we are living through a different propaganda era that the market decided to follow like the previous one just to bank on it. | | |
| ▲ | ModernMech 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Democrats don't actually control those universities though. That's like saying Republicans control churches because churchgoers are more conservative on average. But we all know the Republican party isn't actually directing churches across the country, just as Democrats aren't directing universities. So I don't see what kind of precedent was set as far as use of executive power goes. You're saying because BLM happened (which was under Trump BTW), that gives Trump the right now to control speech at universities? | | |
| ▲ | rahimnathwani 4 days ago | parent [-] | | That's like saying Republicans control churches because churchgoers are more conservative on average.
Anyone can walk into a church and become part of the congregation.Universities have gatekeepers. | | |
| ▲ | ModernMech 4 days ago | parent [-] | | There are many paths to college, and they require neither membership in nor adherence to ideals professed by the Democratic party. College campuses across America have people from every demographic axis - every race, religion, ethnicity, country, socioeconomic status, etc. Amongst them frequently are conservatives and white men. This is because the gate universities keep is based on merit, not ideology. Indeed, many Republican congresspeople were accepted into and graduated from prestigious ostensibly "Democrat controlled" institutions, despite their conservative beliefs. | | |
| ▲ | rahimnathwani 4 days ago | parent [-] | | This is because the gate universities keep is based on merit, not ideology.
Many US universities have required prospective employees to demonstrate their adherence to preferred ideological stances, during processes for hiring and promotion.This is widely documented: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/fire-statement-use-di... I have read information about these mandatory statements on official web sites of universities themselves, so I know the issue isn't a fabrication. Separately, SCOTUS found in both SFFA vs. Harvard and SFFA vs. UNC, that these universities did not admit students based solely on merit, but also discriminated against some individual students due to their race. Amongst them frequently are conservatives and white men.
Funny you should say that. A few days ago, a conservative white man filed a complaint against Cornell. He alleges (supported by written evidence) that Cornell deliberately set out to hire a non-white person for a particular role, and did so by making a shortlist of candidates without even advertising the role. More details here:https://www.wsj.com/opinion/cornell-university-discriminated... | | |
| ▲ | ModernMech 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Many US universities have required prospective employees to demonstrate their adherence to preferred ideological stances, during processes for hiring and promotion That does not mean the Democrats control hiring decisions at universities. This would be like saying the Republican party controls CFO hiring decisions because corporations might filter for people who are fiscally conservative. All organizations look for "culture fit" when making hiring decisions, and the culture of a university is one that is typically open and accepting of people from all walks of life. It's counterproductive to hire who think "empathy is a fundamental weakness" for example. They don't fit well with fostering a welcoming educational environment for young people, so typically we look for some degree of empathy in candidates, people who want to build community, foster individuals, and yes, who value diversity. Notably, this filter is not very good at preventing conservatives from being hired and promoted and admitted to universities, because that happens every day. > but also discriminated against some individual students due to their race. This thread is about Democrats ostensibly controlling schools. That some schools were found by a court to racially discriminate in their admitting practices is unrelated, nor does not show affiliation to the Democratic party was used as a filter for hiring or admit decisions. > a conservative white man filed a complaint against Cornell. Well, no. From the link you provided: I’m an evolutionary biologist, a liberal
Anyway, diversity statements were never about being a political litmus test. Diverse hiring pools are not a white filter. These are just something butthurt people say when they get an outcome they don't like. This seems more a case of a failed scientist being rejected for a tenure track role and blaming discrimination instead of his middling research agenda. | | |
| ▲ | rahimnathwani 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You said this in an earlier comment: There are many paths to college, and they require neither membership in nor adherence to ideals professed by the Democratic party.
I have examples to show why I believe that to be incorrect.I'm not saying that people have had to show adherence to (or loyalty to) the Democratic Party. But they have had to show support for positions and ideologies that are part of the Democratic Party's platform. In your last paragraph, you dismiss Colin's complaint, without acknowledging the wrongness of the process that I outlined. Instead of seeking the best person for the job, the school made a list of people using race as one of the filtering criteria, and went down the last until someone accepted the job. The fact you didn't engage with the major point I made here suggests you're more interested in winning an argument, than in furthering your or my understanding of the truth. I am not interested in trying to win an argument. Your replies are not helping me to develop my thinking. So this will be my last reply. Have a great day! | | |
| ▲ | ModernMech 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > But they have had to show support for positions and ideologies that are part of the Democratic Party's platform. Even if we just agree that's what's happening here, the overlap of ideology doesn't imply control over the institution or process by the party, because you haven't shown any causality. What's to say university policy isn't influencing the Democratic party's platform? Anyway, that's not what's happening. People qualified for these positions have no problem answering those questions and getting accepted to these institutions despite any conservative political leanings. The evidence for this is that conservatives are well represented on campuses across America. They're not a ideological filter placed there by the Democratic party to keep conservatives out of college. They're a tool that colleges came up with on their own to help with culture fit. > In your last paragraph, you dismiss Colin's complaint, without acknowledging the wrongness of the process that I outlined. Because you're both misrepresented what's going on. He's doing it because he's upset they didn't hire him. Your opinion is on the basis of what he said, so I don't know what else to add except to wait for the verdict. Either way he's wasn't rejected on the basis of his conservative beliefs. > Have a great day! Same. |
| |
| ▲ | retinaros 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Anyway, diversity statements were never about being a political litmus test. Diverse hiring pools are not a white filter. These are just something butthurt people say when they get an outcome they don't like. This seems more a case of a failed scientist being rejected for a tenure track role and blaming discrimination instead of his middling research agenda. hence why Asian community sued multiple universities for discrimination. | | |
| ▲ | ModernMech 2 days ago | parent [-] | | No, those lawsuits were about affirmative action in student admissions, not faculty hiring. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | UncleMeat 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Democrats don't control these institutions. Look at who is on the boards of these universities (both public and private). |
|
|
|
