It's not an exercise in free speech but a brazen act of hooliganism and dishonesty. I too think that revoking her degree would be an appropriate punishment.
Free speech can be restricted in terms of time, place and manner. Being given the honor to give a graduation speech is clearly one such place. That the bigoted student mistakenly believed it was her place to use this speech for her own political agenda demonstrates that she does not understand the obligations of adulthood. Kicking her out of graduation and withholding her degree are appropriate in this instance as she has clearly demonstrated she lacks the professional understanding to function as such. Is this being too harsh on a single "mistake" no.
Example: Conservation officers in New York State need a 2 year AS degree for their jobs. The last test they face is a field exam in which any plant, rock, animal, weather phenomenon, and even bird calls in a particular patch of woods they have been studying is fair game. The students need to get at least 70% of 50 questions correct. An excellent student had completed 49 of the 50 questions not missing a single question. The examiner, looking around for a last question saw a plant with 3 shiny leaves and white berries. He asked the student to identify the plant. The student looked at the plant, picked a berry and tasted it. The instructor failed him on the spot for poisoning himself by ingesting...poison ivy.
A graduation speech is NOT a venue for free speech any more than a hospital is not a venue for protest.
Since I have never posted anything anywhere about the Pahlavi's or restoring their rule to Iran I must assume this is an Iranian operative attacking anyone with an Iranian name who isn't posting from inside the Islamic Republic. Probably someone who should be removed from access to Heterodox STEM and Heterodox Academy generally.
What others commenting seem to miss is context. MIT has hosted several immense protests of thousands of people calling for the obliteration of Jews from the planet, with chanting and threats, over the last couple of years. Jewish students and faculty have been barred from using certain doors and entering certain buildings.
This is NOT the MIT I remember. This is completely inappropriate.
Also, students getting worked up about MIT collaborating on military problems is ridiculous. If there is one civilian academic institution that is friendly to assorted militaries, it is MIT. And it has been this way for decades. If a student does not like this, they are free to not attend MIT.
In light of this, this student should have had her microphone cut off immediately when she strayed from her prepared speech which she had promised to read. Then security should have escorted her and any students that agreed with her from the premises. She should have been expelled and her degree withheld. The world is a harsh and ugly place, and if she has not learned by the age of 21, it is high time she starts to learn that there are consequences for dishonesty. A message has to be sent.
There were Israeli MIT students who had flown their families across the planet to attend the graduation ceremonies. They were profoundly embarrassed and disturbed by this grandstanding.
I did come across an informal study by someone of the graduation speakers this year at various US universities who engaged in similar stunts. It turned out that in ten separate cases at ten separate institutions, the offenders were all South Asian Brahmin Hindu women. These are high status characters, effectively virtue signaling and aligning themselves with the "victims" of this conflict.
Commentators back in India have taken note of this. Of course, Hindus and other non Muslim Indians are in a life and death struggle with Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and within their own country. It has been like this for many decades. Many senior Indians are wondering why they should send their young people to American institutions to be horribly corrupted in this way. Indian students are coming out of American institutions siding with their dire enemies in some brainless fashion. This is appalling to many in India, as one can imagine.
Islam is not some benign ideology. And we would do well to be on our guard against it.
The idea of free speech applies when the audience is permitted to participate and respond to "bad" speech with more speech. A graduation ceremony commencement address or valedictorian speech does NOT allow for such a responsive speech nor can the attendees simply leave without missing the entire ceremony. As such, it is NOT a venue for unrestricted free speech.
As with small children, activists who misuse rights when its suits them are often best dealt with by demonstrating WHY the right has the restrictions that it does. Part of MIT's response to the speech at this graduation should be to announce that next year's commencement speaker speech will focus on why Zionists have the ONLY legitimate claim to the territory of greater Israel (Sinai to the Euphrates) and how the actions of the Arab invaders, incorrectly called Palestinians, have invalidated their human rights so long as they remain at war with Israel. Announce also that any student who fails to attend that speech will not receive their diploma. Me thinks they would appreciate that misuse of speech works both ways.
It’s difficult to convey how completely wrong and immoral Eric Rasmusen’s arguments for censorship and repression are. Colleges should not censor speech. Colleges should not punish speech. Colleges should not demand preapproved scripts for any statements. If you think it’s inappropriate for someone to discuss political issues in a general public speech, and demand a parade of inane platitudes instead, then you are free to seek to persuade people to self-censor.
Lying is generally wrong, but when someone imposes thought control, it’s entirely appropriate to speak out in defiance of repression. Lying about a public speech is in no way comparable to academic cheating. The speech at a ceremony is not an academic assignment graded for its content. Therefore, you cannot be punished by having a degree withheld because of what is said.
Political speech at a ceremonial event is also not a violation of the rights of others. We must completely reject the belief that expression of controversial ideas is a threat to anyone. The standard of institutional neutrality requires that universities do not ban speech because of the views anticipated, that universities do not compel speech by requiring scripts, and that universities as institutions do not even criticize speech for having the wrong ideas.
Once invited, universities must not disinvite speakers simply because their presence or their ideas might offend someone. That’s a core lesson that MIT (and Rasmusen) should have learned from the Dorian Abbot debacle, and they have failed miserably to support free speech in this case.
If someone invited you into their house to make such a speech, you have the right. She flattered MIT students and said Israelis supported by the administration were bad guys. She's a moron, but a young idealistic moron. Rasmusen is not only against free speech he wants to abolish the word TRAPEZOID from English and geometry discourse. He is a CONTRARY sort of moron. There are young morons and old morons. Don't listen to them if you are easily offended. Don't elect them.
I have to respectfully disagree. The taxpayer is paying for these disastrous, biased and failing institutions. And the public has had just about enough. The last thing we need at this time is more political grandstanding from people who have no idea what they are talking about.
This sort of nonsense will only hasten the demise of these entities. If that is your goal, then, sure, let's burn every conventional US university to the ground. It is coming, with attitudes like yours.
To equate a speech calling for the obliteration of Jews with Dorian Abbot's previous comments on the need for competence and merit in academia is ridiculous. You do not see that these two issues have very little to do with each other? Good heavens.
You argue that colleges should destroy principles of free speech because the public is angry at hearing ideas they hate and will punish them. I don't agree that colleges will burn to the ground if they allow free speech, and I believe they should defend these principles in any case. I equate these two views because both should be protected free speech. You argue that Abbot's views should be protected because you like them, and ideas about Israel that you hate should not be protected. Some leftists would reverse what is censored, but you share with them a common dislike for the principles of free speech.
So you will invite me to tear apart the shibboleths of your useful idiocy? I think not, boyo.
The only repression and oppression in Palestine is that of Hamas, a horrific group that has asserted its rule in Gaza by seizing food (aid) to force Gazans to pay outrageously for food that should be free to them. Hamas asserts its rule with torture of Gazans for any sort of perceived transgressions. Hamas executes anyone who speaks against them. Hamas executes homosexuals. No "Pride" in Gaza. Hamas stages killings of Gazans for the cameras in order to claim that Israel did those killings.
You are one of those idiots who thinks that the only possible reason why Oct 7th could happen is that Israel MUST have done terrible things to to the Gazans. You are the sort of fool that looks at what happened on Oct 7th, and you give Hamas a pass because you cannot imagine that anyone could do that without good cause.
This is simply stupidity standing on ignorance. Hamas, like every other invading muslim armed force in history does what they do for one reason only! DOCTRINE! They hate Jews because Jews are supposed to be hated. Jews are underpeople, and only muslims are allowed to rule. Every act on Oct 7th, from burning people alive and torture, to simple murder, rape, and pillage is specifically blessed by the founder. He did all of that. Islam's founder did all of that in one day. And he commanded it at the height of his power and prestige as "prophet". There is no mistake here. Quran, Ha'dith, and Sira all agree.
Fatwa against all that are founded in one thing, "That was a long time ago and we don't do that anymore." But like the wannabe revolutionaries that come out of classes in Marx, Foucalt, and others at the Ivies every year, such fatwa are often unsatisfying to young men wanting an excuse to fight.
Ms. Vemuri is not a "useful idiot" and she made this clear. Ms. Vemuri is, herself, a violent non-state actor (VNSA), which comes from military parlance for what is commonly referred to as terrorism. Why violent? Because, a spokesperson for a VNSA group such as Hamas, who has not themselves committed a violent act directly, is part of the group, and takes on the actions of the group. The acts of Hamas in Gaza and Israel are clear. Globalizing the intifada means bringing those same acts here and across the globe.
Note that the nations of the Gulf do not allow such people license. In UAE or Saudi Arabia, for instance, she would be immediately arrested and face charges. Saudi Arabia has what we might call re-education camps for jihadists, which camps have proven successful. Egypt would also take legal action. Muslim Brotherhood and other orthodox VNSAs under that umbrella have faced incarceration for a long time. This is, in fact, why the general category of orthodox muslims who have come to the USA starting in the late 1980's, the ones that created CAIR, ISNA, and MAS, are granted asylum. They claim oppression in their lands, and that they face arrest for their political views. Some face the death penalty.
The islamic VSNAs have foreign nation support, which renders them a Fifth Column force within our country. Of the roughly $100 billion in Qatari money spent on Congress, colleges, think tanks, and corporations, American universities have received $4.7 billion directly, and another $1.3 billion is from sources not all of which are clear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatari_involvement_in_US_higher_education). There is doubtless more money distributed in more clandestine ways to private individuals from time to time. I think that the signature of this is visible at some universities.
However, universities are polyglot, and unlikely to all sing from the same hymnal. I salute NYU and the other universities for termination of VNSAs. I would second the praise of MIT's president for blocking Ms. Vemuri from the graduation ceremony, and think this should have included striking her degree.
This alignment of "leftists" with orthodox islamist VNSAs is a strange historical artifact. This occurred in Iran before the Ayatollahs took power. In that case it was a clear case of Soviet realpolitik. Iran was considered a US/Europe protectorate by the USSR the way the USA considered Cuba a Soviet protectorate. At the time, the USSR's borders abutted Iran on both sides of the Caspian Sea. Soviet actions like supporting any anti-Western government made rational sense. But, the day after the Ayatollah Khomeni arrived in Iran he ordered the slaughter of all the Marxists who had been instrumental in the revolution. Within the doctrine of orthodox islam (some say hyper-orthodox) there is no room for infidels. In addition to the intolerance for infidels, this was also a practical realpolitik move for the Ayatollahs. It is very likely, and I would say a certainty, that the USSR would have helped their Marxist actors within Iran to overthrow the Ayatollahs. At the beginning, it would have been easy.
Hence, the Ayatollahs forced the USSR, and in present time, the Russian Federation, to ally with them, which has always been uneasy.
I find it strange that in the USA, these radical Marxist revolutionary professors (and yes, that is what they are), and the US left in general, do not appear to know these facts about the alliance of the left in Iran with the Ayatollahs against the Shah. The Palestinian Cause, "From the River to the Sea!", and all the rest of it will turn upon, and slaughter any leftist that thinks they will ride to power on the back of the islamist beast. That will not happen. Those are the "useful idiots" in this bizarre play.
So in America today, in the universities, the only left I have ever encountered is the most ignorant, childish, "fruitcake left" that exists. People like Prof. Russell Rickford of Cornell, are effectively suicidal. I think I understand why from my years of studying and in one rare instance, listening to their planning discussion, why. The American revolutionary left absorbs their ideas in college. They are taught Foucalt, Marx, and others uncritically. It is heady stuff, this call to revolution! And young men have an appetite for war. Left to their own devices, teen boys and young men form warring gangs like clockwork. In the Ivies these young men who have eschewed sports pretty much to a man jack find themselves attracted. They want to do revolution! This is cool!
These wannabe revolutionary rulers of the Western world find themselves disappointed, disgusted, and outraged by the fact that the American bourgeoisie do not take to the streets with weapons. They are unable to rally more than nice moms bring food for occupation on a quad. So they search for others who are ready and willing. They think two things that are horribly wrong:
A. They think that any group that attacks with as much horrific ferocity as Hamas did on Oct 7th must have good cause! Many normie Americans tend to assume this because they do not understand the power of indoctrination into a war cult.
B. They think that these brave fighters are motivated by a similar ideology to their own. This is a peculiar conceit of Western young people that attend top universities. They are endlessly provincial and blind to their own bias of thought. So, they defend them, they march with them, like a pack of miniature poodles joining a pack of wolves.
The systemic lack of critical presentation of revolutionary firebrand philosophers is a huge gap within the academy that renders these classes mostly drivel. The lockstep within such departments hermetically seals them against critical thought, and the irony of this is utterly lost on them.
As an academic specialist in Middle Eastern culture, I judge that you have a good understanding of region and those in our universities who are cosplaying jihadis. Perhaps you should consider writing essays, rather than just posting comments.
I can send you an article I first wrote 10 years ago on the US relationship to jihad. I've updated it over the years. Nobody will run it. I could expand it into a large book if a few rabbit holes are entered that I skip over.
After thinking about this issue a bit more, I believe that a more sophisticated response might be reasonable.
Any students caught advocating violence or other nonsense, particularly during graduation ceremonies, could be offered a chance to redeem themselves. They could still graduate, on the condition that they successfully complete an additional year of study, which they would be required to pay for.
The curriculum would be individualized according to the situation. For example, in the case of these South Asian Brahmin Hindu women exhibiting "suicidal empathy" of sorts, by castigating Jews or some other group for their supposed misdeeds, the year of additional study would be divided into two parts.
The first half of the year, they would be required to document the antisocial behavior of their own ethnic group. For example. Brahmins have been horrible to the lower class Dalits for millennia. And Hindus practiced Sati, or the burning of widows, until the British put an end to the practice. Let these pretentious smug Brahmin women write numerous essays, well-documented with plenty of references, describing the horrendous behavior of their ancestors and their own caste, in great detail.
In the second half of the year, let them be instructed by Zionists and scholars about the history of Israel and its re-establishment in the last century or so. Require them to write essays arguing that Muslim interlopers have no rights to this land. Force them to adequately describe the "other" side of this conflict.
If they can fulfill these requirements, then they can graduate. If not, too bad.
In the case of someone like Greta Thunberg, she should be required to describe how her own Swedish ancestors raped and plundered all of Europe for centuries as Vikings. And then waged numerous wars against their neighbors Finland and Norway and Denmark. And also treated their own indigenous residents the Sami as worse than dirt.
Do not let these arrogant morons grandstand, claiming they and their ancestors are without sin. No group is without sin. Period. We are all human. So, they have to learn a bit of humility and learn about the nuances of history.
This would certainly make a lot of money for colleges: "Any students caught advocating violence" would have to pay for a year learning the "other side." That would include any student advocating Israel's violence against Hamas, or Trump's violence against Iran. It would also include any student advocating violence against the Nazis in World War II, or any student advocating the violence of the American Revolution. And apparently it would include any student with violent ancestors such as Swedes, so even pacifists would not be exempt.
First Amendment free speech is a restriction on government interference with the speech of citizens. It is legally applicable to government and its organs, including state sponsored and funded universities. We should interrogate the idea that "free speech" is necessary or at least desirable in universities. I would suggest that we consider that academic freedom is what is required in universities; in other words, freedom to pursue academic ideas, theories, arguments, and critiques that are pertinent to academic knowledge. Anything beyond that--slogans of ethnic supremacy or villanization, chants to advance political causes, encouragement of political violence and extermination--are not only not needed to advance the academic quest for truth, but actively undermine it.
It's not an exercise in free speech but a brazen act of hooliganism and dishonesty. I too think that revoking her degree would be an appropriate punishment.
Free speech is not the same as being provided with a mic for whatever you want to say.
The most protected form of free speech is the right to dissent. In other words, it’s “divisive” speech.
Do I have a right to march into your house on your birthday and tell your family what a disgusting revolting person you are? It's muh free speech!
“Free speech” refers to public speech.
Free speech can be restricted in terms of time, place and manner. Being given the honor to give a graduation speech is clearly one such place. That the bigoted student mistakenly believed it was her place to use this speech for her own political agenda demonstrates that she does not understand the obligations of adulthood. Kicking her out of graduation and withholding her degree are appropriate in this instance as she has clearly demonstrated she lacks the professional understanding to function as such. Is this being too harsh on a single "mistake" no.
Example: Conservation officers in New York State need a 2 year AS degree for their jobs. The last test they face is a field exam in which any plant, rock, animal, weather phenomenon, and even bird calls in a particular patch of woods they have been studying is fair game. The students need to get at least 70% of 50 questions correct. An excellent student had completed 49 of the 50 questions not missing a single question. The examiner, looking around for a last question saw a plant with 3 shiny leaves and white berries. He asked the student to identify the plant. The student looked at the plant, picked a berry and tasted it. The instructor failed him on the spot for poisoning himself by ingesting...poison ivy.
A graduation speech is NOT a venue for free speech any more than a hospital is not a venue for protest.
how far is Pahlavis 🍆 down your throat?
he is never returning to 🇮🇷
Do you really think this is appropriate for this forum? Where do you think you are posting this?
Since I have never posted anything anywhere about the Pahlavi's or restoring their rule to Iran I must assume this is an Iranian operative attacking anyone with an Iranian name who isn't posting from inside the Islamic Republic. Probably someone who should be removed from access to Heterodox STEM and Heterodox Academy generally.
How does this relate to the topic in question?
ask pahlavai
I know no such individual.
What others commenting seem to miss is context. MIT has hosted several immense protests of thousands of people calling for the obliteration of Jews from the planet, with chanting and threats, over the last couple of years. Jewish students and faculty have been barred from using certain doors and entering certain buildings.
This is NOT the MIT I remember. This is completely inappropriate.
Also, students getting worked up about MIT collaborating on military problems is ridiculous. If there is one civilian academic institution that is friendly to assorted militaries, it is MIT. And it has been this way for decades. If a student does not like this, they are free to not attend MIT.
In light of this, this student should have had her microphone cut off immediately when she strayed from her prepared speech which she had promised to read. Then security should have escorted her and any students that agreed with her from the premises. She should have been expelled and her degree withheld. The world is a harsh and ugly place, and if she has not learned by the age of 21, it is high time she starts to learn that there are consequences for dishonesty. A message has to be sent.
There were Israeli MIT students who had flown their families across the planet to attend the graduation ceremonies. They were profoundly embarrassed and disturbed by this grandstanding.
I did come across an informal study by someone of the graduation speakers this year at various US universities who engaged in similar stunts. It turned out that in ten separate cases at ten separate institutions, the offenders were all South Asian Brahmin Hindu women. These are high status characters, effectively virtue signaling and aligning themselves with the "victims" of this conflict.
Commentators back in India have taken note of this. Of course, Hindus and other non Muslim Indians are in a life and death struggle with Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and within their own country. It has been like this for many decades. Many senior Indians are wondering why they should send their young people to American institutions to be horribly corrupted in this way. Indian students are coming out of American institutions siding with their dire enemies in some brainless fashion. This is appalling to many in India, as one can imagine.
Islam is not some benign ideology. And we would do well to be on our guard against it.
lol the antisemitism card doesn’t work anymore
Nothing in the comment to which you reply mentions or has anything to do with antisemitism. Do you have a brain malfunction?
u seem a bit thick try reading again
Wow you are some kind of god apparently. I am not impressed. Run away, child.
your likely an indian child on a fake account 🤣
The idea of free speech applies when the audience is permitted to participate and respond to "bad" speech with more speech. A graduation ceremony commencement address or valedictorian speech does NOT allow for such a responsive speech nor can the attendees simply leave without missing the entire ceremony. As such, it is NOT a venue for unrestricted free speech.
As with small children, activists who misuse rights when its suits them are often best dealt with by demonstrating WHY the right has the restrictions that it does. Part of MIT's response to the speech at this graduation should be to announce that next year's commencement speaker speech will focus on why Zionists have the ONLY legitimate claim to the territory of greater Israel (Sinai to the Euphrates) and how the actions of the Arab invaders, incorrectly called Palestinians, have invalidated their human rights so long as they remain at war with Israel. Announce also that any student who fails to attend that speech will not receive their diploma. Me thinks they would appreciate that misuse of speech works both ways.
It’s difficult to convey how completely wrong and immoral Eric Rasmusen’s arguments for censorship and repression are. Colleges should not censor speech. Colleges should not punish speech. Colleges should not demand preapproved scripts for any statements. If you think it’s inappropriate for someone to discuss political issues in a general public speech, and demand a parade of inane platitudes instead, then you are free to seek to persuade people to self-censor.
Lying is generally wrong, but when someone imposes thought control, it’s entirely appropriate to speak out in defiance of repression. Lying about a public speech is in no way comparable to academic cheating. The speech at a ceremony is not an academic assignment graded for its content. Therefore, you cannot be punished by having a degree withheld because of what is said.
Political speech at a ceremonial event is also not a violation of the rights of others. We must completely reject the belief that expression of controversial ideas is a threat to anyone. The standard of institutional neutrality requires that universities do not ban speech because of the views anticipated, that universities do not compel speech by requiring scripts, and that universities as institutions do not even criticize speech for having the wrong ideas.
Once invited, universities must not disinvite speakers simply because their presence or their ideas might offend someone. That’s a core lesson that MIT (and Rasmusen) should have learned from the Dorian Abbot debacle, and they have failed miserably to support free speech in this case.
Do I have a right to march into your house on your birthday and tell your family what a disgusting revolting person you are? It's muh free speech!
If I turn my house into a university, then, yes, you do, because colleges must defend free speech even if it's offensive.
Great. Then let's exercise our free speech rights, which the left has defined as synonymous with violence. Against you.
Do you understand that the ideology you are defending is bankrupt? We have had enough of it.
If someone invited you into their house to make such a speech, you have the right. She flattered MIT students and said Israelis supported by the administration were bad guys. She's a moron, but a young idealistic moron. Rasmusen is not only against free speech he wants to abolish the word TRAPEZOID from English and geometry discourse. He is a CONTRARY sort of moron. There are young morons and old morons. Don't listen to them if you are easily offended. Don't elect them.
That is a bizarre take. I looked for evidence of this strange claim and found this webpage: https://www.rasmusen.org/rasmapedia/index.php?title=Definitions
He does not make the claim you say he does. I expect you to retract your false claim.
Take a look here at, quote, "ABOLISH TRAPEZOIDS":
https://substack.com/@ericrasmusen/p-155802875
Now you may retract your own false claim.
I have to respectfully disagree. The taxpayer is paying for these disastrous, biased and failing institutions. And the public has had just about enough. The last thing we need at this time is more political grandstanding from people who have no idea what they are talking about.
This sort of nonsense will only hasten the demise of these entities. If that is your goal, then, sure, let's burn every conventional US university to the ground. It is coming, with attitudes like yours.
To equate a speech calling for the obliteration of Jews with Dorian Abbot's previous comments on the need for competence and merit in academia is ridiculous. You do not see that these two issues have very little to do with each other? Good heavens.
You argue that colleges should destroy principles of free speech because the public is angry at hearing ideas they hate and will punish them. I don't agree that colleges will burn to the ground if they allow free speech, and I believe they should defend these principles in any case. I equate these two views because both should be protected free speech. You argue that Abbot's views should be protected because you like them, and ideas about Israel that you hate should not be protected. Some leftists would reverse what is censored, but you share with them a common dislike for the principles of free speech.
Who pays?
If you are willing to fund the universities personally, then great. Otherwise...
So you will invite me to tear apart the shibboleths of your useful idiocy? I think not, boyo.
The only repression and oppression in Palestine is that of Hamas, a horrific group that has asserted its rule in Gaza by seizing food (aid) to force Gazans to pay outrageously for food that should be free to them. Hamas asserts its rule with torture of Gazans for any sort of perceived transgressions. Hamas executes anyone who speaks against them. Hamas executes homosexuals. No "Pride" in Gaza. Hamas stages killings of Gazans for the cameras in order to claim that Israel did those killings.
You are one of those idiots who thinks that the only possible reason why Oct 7th could happen is that Israel MUST have done terrible things to to the Gazans. You are the sort of fool that looks at what happened on Oct 7th, and you give Hamas a pass because you cannot imagine that anyone could do that without good cause.
This is simply stupidity standing on ignorance. Hamas, like every other invading muslim armed force in history does what they do for one reason only! DOCTRINE! They hate Jews because Jews are supposed to be hated. Jews are underpeople, and only muslims are allowed to rule. Every act on Oct 7th, from burning people alive and torture, to simple murder, rape, and pillage is specifically blessed by the founder. He did all of that. Islam's founder did all of that in one day. And he commanded it at the height of his power and prestige as "prophet". There is no mistake here. Quran, Ha'dith, and Sira all agree.
Fatwa against all that are founded in one thing, "That was a long time ago and we don't do that anymore." But like the wannabe revolutionaries that come out of classes in Marx, Foucalt, and others at the Ivies every year, such fatwa are often unsatisfying to young men wanting an excuse to fight.
Ms. Vemuri is not a "useful idiot" and she made this clear. Ms. Vemuri is, herself, a violent non-state actor (VNSA), which comes from military parlance for what is commonly referred to as terrorism. Why violent? Because, a spokesperson for a VNSA group such as Hamas, who has not themselves committed a violent act directly, is part of the group, and takes on the actions of the group. The acts of Hamas in Gaza and Israel are clear. Globalizing the intifada means bringing those same acts here and across the globe.
Note that the nations of the Gulf do not allow such people license. In UAE or Saudi Arabia, for instance, she would be immediately arrested and face charges. Saudi Arabia has what we might call re-education camps for jihadists, which camps have proven successful. Egypt would also take legal action. Muslim Brotherhood and other orthodox VNSAs under that umbrella have faced incarceration for a long time. This is, in fact, why the general category of orthodox muslims who have come to the USA starting in the late 1980's, the ones that created CAIR, ISNA, and MAS, are granted asylum. They claim oppression in their lands, and that they face arrest for their political views. Some face the death penalty.
Unfortunately, those processing these applications did not understand the real situation. Our politicians do not understand it as a rule, even today. These people are no more oppressed than the Symbionese Liberation Army (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbionese_Liberation_Army), the Weathermen (https://www.armywarcollege.edu/iwatch/downloads/Vignettes/Weatherman%2520Underground%2520(JAN75)%2520FINAL.pdf), or the United Freedom Front (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Freedom_Front) were oppressed.
The islamic VSNAs have foreign nation support, which renders them a Fifth Column force within our country. Of the roughly $100 billion in Qatari money spent on Congress, colleges, think tanks, and corporations, American universities have received $4.7 billion directly, and another $1.3 billion is from sources not all of which are clear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatari_involvement_in_US_higher_education). There is doubtless more money distributed in more clandestine ways to private individuals from time to time. I think that the signature of this is visible at some universities.
However, universities are polyglot, and unlikely to all sing from the same hymnal. I salute NYU and the other universities for termination of VNSAs. I would second the praise of MIT's president for blocking Ms. Vemuri from the graduation ceremony, and think this should have included striking her degree.
This alignment of "leftists" with orthodox islamist VNSAs is a strange historical artifact. This occurred in Iran before the Ayatollahs took power. In that case it was a clear case of Soviet realpolitik. Iran was considered a US/Europe protectorate by the USSR the way the USA considered Cuba a Soviet protectorate. At the time, the USSR's borders abutted Iran on both sides of the Caspian Sea. Soviet actions like supporting any anti-Western government made rational sense. But, the day after the Ayatollah Khomeni arrived in Iran he ordered the slaughter of all the Marxists who had been instrumental in the revolution. Within the doctrine of orthodox islam (some say hyper-orthodox) there is no room for infidels. In addition to the intolerance for infidels, this was also a practical realpolitik move for the Ayatollahs. It is very likely, and I would say a certainty, that the USSR would have helped their Marxist actors within Iran to overthrow the Ayatollahs. At the beginning, it would have been easy.
Hence, the Ayatollahs forced the USSR, and in present time, the Russian Federation, to ally with them, which has always been uneasy.
I find it strange that in the USA, these radical Marxist revolutionary professors (and yes, that is what they are), and the US left in general, do not appear to know these facts about the alliance of the left in Iran with the Ayatollahs against the Shah. The Palestinian Cause, "From the River to the Sea!", and all the rest of it will turn upon, and slaughter any leftist that thinks they will ride to power on the back of the islamist beast. That will not happen. Those are the "useful idiots" in this bizarre play.
So in America today, in the universities, the only left I have ever encountered is the most ignorant, childish, "fruitcake left" that exists. People like Prof. Russell Rickford of Cornell, are effectively suicidal. I think I understand why from my years of studying and in one rare instance, listening to their planning discussion, why. The American revolutionary left absorbs their ideas in college. They are taught Foucalt, Marx, and others uncritically. It is heady stuff, this call to revolution! And young men have an appetite for war. Left to their own devices, teen boys and young men form warring gangs like clockwork. In the Ivies these young men who have eschewed sports pretty much to a man jack find themselves attracted. They want to do revolution! This is cool!
These wannabe revolutionary rulers of the Western world find themselves disappointed, disgusted, and outraged by the fact that the American bourgeoisie do not take to the streets with weapons. They are unable to rally more than nice moms bring food for occupation on a quad. So they search for others who are ready and willing. They think two things that are horribly wrong:
A. They think that any group that attacks with as much horrific ferocity as Hamas did on Oct 7th must have good cause! Many normie Americans tend to assume this because they do not understand the power of indoctrination into a war cult.
B. They think that these brave fighters are motivated by a similar ideology to their own. This is a peculiar conceit of Western young people that attend top universities. They are endlessly provincial and blind to their own bias of thought. So, they defend them, they march with them, like a pack of miniature poodles joining a pack of wolves.
The systemic lack of critical presentation of revolutionary firebrand philosophers is a huge gap within the academy that renders these classes mostly drivel. The lockstep within such departments hermetically seals them against critical thought, and the irony of this is utterly lost on them.
And here we are.
As an academic specialist in Middle Eastern culture, I judge that you have a good understanding of region and those in our universities who are cosplaying jihadis. Perhaps you should consider writing essays, rather than just posting comments.
I can send you an article I first wrote 10 years ago on the US relationship to jihad. I've updated it over the years. Nobody will run it. I could expand it into a large book if a few rabbit holes are entered that I skip over.
Please contact me through my university email.
you’re an utter scumbag and bring shame to MIT Economics
its wonderful that a brown woman has triggered you and exposed your white supremacy so brilliantly
ROTFL!!!!
You really have a problem, apparently.
And your grammar is atrocious, in addition.
After thinking about this issue a bit more, I believe that a more sophisticated response might be reasonable.
Any students caught advocating violence or other nonsense, particularly during graduation ceremonies, could be offered a chance to redeem themselves. They could still graduate, on the condition that they successfully complete an additional year of study, which they would be required to pay for.
The curriculum would be individualized according to the situation. For example, in the case of these South Asian Brahmin Hindu women exhibiting "suicidal empathy" of sorts, by castigating Jews or some other group for their supposed misdeeds, the year of additional study would be divided into two parts.
The first half of the year, they would be required to document the antisocial behavior of their own ethnic group. For example. Brahmins have been horrible to the lower class Dalits for millennia. And Hindus practiced Sati, or the burning of widows, until the British put an end to the practice. Let these pretentious smug Brahmin women write numerous essays, well-documented with plenty of references, describing the horrendous behavior of their ancestors and their own caste, in great detail.
In the second half of the year, let them be instructed by Zionists and scholars about the history of Israel and its re-establishment in the last century or so. Require them to write essays arguing that Muslim interlopers have no rights to this land. Force them to adequately describe the "other" side of this conflict.
If they can fulfill these requirements, then they can graduate. If not, too bad.
In the case of someone like Greta Thunberg, she should be required to describe how her own Swedish ancestors raped and plundered all of Europe for centuries as Vikings. And then waged numerous wars against their neighbors Finland and Norway and Denmark. And also treated their own indigenous residents the Sami as worse than dirt.
Do not let these arrogant morons grandstand, claiming they and their ancestors are without sin. No group is without sin. Period. We are all human. So, they have to learn a bit of humility and learn about the nuances of history.
This would certainly make a lot of money for colleges: "Any students caught advocating violence" would have to pay for a year learning the "other side." That would include any student advocating Israel's violence against Hamas, or Trump's violence against Iran. It would also include any student advocating violence against the Nazis in World War II, or any student advocating the violence of the American Revolution. And apparently it would include any student with violent ancestors such as Swedes, so even pacifists would not be exempt.
If you want to advocate for violence, then great.
Go ahead. And then we will impose consequences on you.
First Amendment free speech is a restriction on government interference with the speech of citizens. It is legally applicable to government and its organs, including state sponsored and funded universities. We should interrogate the idea that "free speech" is necessary or at least desirable in universities. I would suggest that we consider that academic freedom is what is required in universities; in other words, freedom to pursue academic ideas, theories, arguments, and critiques that are pertinent to academic knowledge. Anything beyond that--slogans of ethnic supremacy or villanization, chants to advance political causes, encouragement of political violence and extermination--are not only not needed to advance the academic quest for truth, but actively undermine it.
Dear Eric,
Thanks for this essay. I am still wresling with the questions you pose and your essay has been helpful for me.
thanks,
randy