Indeed, "pervasive and severe" is a term of art in discrimination law. But it isn't obvious it's a term of art, so her audience would think she meant the words in their everyday sense.
Chants at rallies are obvious speech, and OK. Your second example is an easy one, because non-compliance with cease-and-desist is contempt of court (or otehrwise criminal) and MIT rules wouldn't even be needed to put the person in jail. The problem comes with things like having a rally at a place MIT says is OK by the rules, and a large group chanting, "All Jews should be dead" and then asking a passerby if he was Jewish. That is a realistic enough threat to be against university rules, tho I don't know if it could get a *criminal conviction* past a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Good essay. One place I part company with the author is at, "The only problem with her answers is that she weakened a little at the end and said that possibly this kind of political speech might be investigated if it was 'pervasive and severe.' " Pardon me, but that's the US law. And by your own copy of what she said, she said "would be investigated" not "might be investigated." I expect you know all that and will agree with me, albeit with a sense perhaps that I am nit picking. But if so, then let me give a couple hypothetical examples. A) a chant at a rally, or B) a student knocking on another student's dorm room door each morning and greeting them with a smirk and saying, "river to the sea" even after the student has filed a cease and desist order against that harassment. As the three presidents expressed, context matters, except to performative ninnies like Representative Stefanik. The only thing better than her chastising the presidents would have been her hero George Santos doing so, because he's self-described as Jew---ish. https://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/opinion/editorials/2023/12/stefaniks-vote-to-keep-santos-was-a-big-misfire/
Thank you, Mr. McCullough. That SNL sketch is equal to their very best over their history. The acting was great, as well as teh concept and the writing. Everyone should watch it for a good laugh, on either side of the debate.
Your welcome! I loved the surprise of U of Phoenix in the sketch. It's definitely a good laugh for anyone who still retains a sense of humor.
My favorite in this genre comes from a different comic, Steven Colbert, here interviewing Rudi Rudi Rudi.... the entire 7 minutes is hilarious but this most-watched segment 'shhhhh...shhhh....hold on let me consult my research department...' always makes me hysterical. https://youtu.be/zcAVs7S4hAY?si=8iEnU5S_vcl2pq7u&t=319
Yes, that was what they said. He said they said otherwise to him. When it's the word of a university administrator against anyone else in the world, you generally ought to trust the "anyone else".
Eric, Thank you for your detailed assessment of President Kornbluth's exact wording. Thanks, too, for mentioning the use of "sexual harassment" against Roland Fryer to achieve other political goals. You see the individual trees. But do you see the broad forest? Yes, you do. MIT and many U.S. universities promote the simplistic notion of the oppressed and oppressor, allowing kangaroo courts to discriminate against white males, Jews, and Asians. Yes, the DEI apparatchiks and certain DEI "rules" allow firing of faculty and the dismissal of students - in biased decisions. Yes, President Kornbluth and MIT officials should apologize. More importantly, the people fired or expelled should be invited back to campus, to recognize the Soviet-style use of "Codes of Conduct" to "disappear" people. People's professional lives were destroyed. Good people.
Your claim that "its not really the business of college president to get into politics..."is a pontification rather than an argument. What's your argument, if any?
I don't have time to do more than pontificate today, except to refer you the U. of Chicago Kalven Report (googleable), which explaisn why it is U of Chicago policy.
That's not enough. It's just words, and it's too easy. Also, it's not really the business of college presidents to get into politics, even or maybe especially when it's obvious who the good guys are. College presidents didn't need to denounce the Nazis for killing Jews in 1945; it was obviously evil.
Pretty disingenuous to say MIT cancelled pompeo's talk because he might "offend China". The article you link to says that MIT cited COVID as the reason for the cancellation.
Good point Andy. And FIRE and the NY Post were on this story in 2023, a couple years late, after publication of Pompeo's book. Here's an article approximately contemporaneous with Pompeo's speech in Georgia in December 2020. https://www.globalatlanta.com/pompeo-warns-of-chinese-influence-on-u-s-campuses-in-georgia-tech-speech/ It also mentions US govt opposition to TikTok and WeChat. Possibly good ideas, but not very free-speechy.
Below is a contemporaneous transcription of Pompeo's speech, which includes some words about MIT. He doesn't mention MIT's COVID restrictions, but that would make sense for a high official in the Trump administration giving a talk at another university (here, Georgia Tech). Parsing his words (below) carefully, I see that he doesn't directly express MIT's reason(s) for not hosting his speech but lets the listener/reader infer the reason.
Why do schools censor themselves? They often do it out of fear of offending China.
Indeed I must tell you that MIT wasn’t interested in having me to their campus to give this exact set of remarks. President Raphael Reif implied that my arguments might insult their ethnic Chinese students and professors. But of course nothing could further from the truth. These are the very people that this set of remarks is intended to protect, to protect their freedoms.
And I must say, the yielding to the objection of hurt feelings plays right into the Chinese Communist Party’s hands.
Indeed, "pervasive and severe" is a term of art in discrimination law. But it isn't obvious it's a term of art, so her audience would think she meant the words in their everyday sense.
Chants at rallies are obvious speech, and OK. Your second example is an easy one, because non-compliance with cease-and-desist is contempt of court (or otehrwise criminal) and MIT rules wouldn't even be needed to put the person in jail. The problem comes with things like having a rally at a place MIT says is OK by the rules, and a large group chanting, "All Jews should be dead" and then asking a passerby if he was Jewish. That is a realistic enough threat to be against university rules, tho I don't know if it could get a *criminal conviction* past a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Good essay. One place I part company with the author is at, "The only problem with her answers is that she weakened a little at the end and said that possibly this kind of political speech might be investigated if it was 'pervasive and severe.' " Pardon me, but that's the US law. And by your own copy of what she said, she said "would be investigated" not "might be investigated." I expect you know all that and will agree with me, albeit with a sense perhaps that I am nit picking. But if so, then let me give a couple hypothetical examples. A) a chant at a rally, or B) a student knocking on another student's dorm room door each morning and greeting them with a smirk and saying, "river to the sea" even after the student has filed a cease and desist order against that harassment. As the three presidents expressed, context matters, except to performative ninnies like Representative Stefanik. The only thing better than her chastising the presidents would have been her hero George Santos doing so, because he's self-described as Jew---ish. https://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/opinion/editorials/2023/12/stefaniks-vote-to-keep-santos-was-a-big-misfire/
The SNL opening last weekend was funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep-OnsDieFQ
Thank you, Mr. McCullough. That SNL sketch is equal to their very best over their history. The acting was great, as well as teh concept and the writing. Everyone should watch it for a good laugh, on either side of the debate.
Your welcome! I loved the surprise of U of Phoenix in the sketch. It's definitely a good laugh for anyone who still retains a sense of humor.
My favorite in this genre comes from a different comic, Steven Colbert, here interviewing Rudi Rudi Rudi.... the entire 7 minutes is hilarious but this most-watched segment 'shhhhh...shhhh....hold on let me consult my research department...' always makes me hysterical. https://youtu.be/zcAVs7S4hAY?si=8iEnU5S_vcl2pq7u&t=319
OK. We should ahve an article wtih arguments up on the MFSA website https://members.mitfreespeech.org/ .If we don't now, we should write one.
One practical reason is taht it avoids university presidents using up all their energy on political questions, as has happaned with Prof. Kornbluth.
Yes, that was what they said. He said they said otherwise to him. When it's the word of a university administrator against anyone else in the world, you generally ought to trust the "anyone else".
Eric, Thank you for your detailed assessment of President Kornbluth's exact wording. Thanks, too, for mentioning the use of "sexual harassment" against Roland Fryer to achieve other political goals. You see the individual trees. But do you see the broad forest? Yes, you do. MIT and many U.S. universities promote the simplistic notion of the oppressed and oppressor, allowing kangaroo courts to discriminate against white males, Jews, and Asians. Yes, the DEI apparatchiks and certain DEI "rules" allow firing of faculty and the dismissal of students - in biased decisions. Yes, President Kornbluth and MIT officials should apologize. More importantly, the people fired or expelled should be invited back to campus, to recognize the Soviet-style use of "Codes of Conduct" to "disappear" people. People's professional lives were destroyed. Good people.
Hi Ian
I think college faculties should return to the practice of seeking truths by exchanging arguments.. This is what they did when I was a student.
Terry Oldberg
Engineer/Scientist/Public Policy Researcher
Los Altos Hills, Ca
Dear Eric:
Thank you for the citation to the Kalven Commission Report. I In reading this report I found a number of different pontifications but no arguments.
Cordially,
Terry Oldberg
Engineer/Scientist/Public Policy Researcher
Dear Eric
Your claim that "its not really the business of college president to get into politics..."is a pontification rather than an argument. What's your argument, if any?
Cordially,
Terry Oldberg
Engineer/Scientist/Public Policy Researcher
Los Altos Hills, CA
I don't have time to do more than pontificate today, except to refer you the U. of Chicago Kalven Report (googleable), which explaisn why it is U of Chicago policy.
She should denounce Hamas and antisemitism.
That's not enough. It's just words, and it's too easy. Also, it's not really the business of college presidents to get into politics, even or maybe especially when it's obvious who the good guys are. College presidents didn't need to denounce the Nazis for killing Jews in 1945; it was obviously evil.
Pretty disingenuous to say MIT cancelled pompeo's talk because he might "offend China". The article you link to says that MIT cited COVID as the reason for the cancellation.
Good point Andy. And FIRE and the NY Post were on this story in 2023, a couple years late, after publication of Pompeo's book. Here's an article approximately contemporaneous with Pompeo's speech in Georgia in December 2020. https://www.globalatlanta.com/pompeo-warns-of-chinese-influence-on-u-s-campuses-in-georgia-tech-speech/ It also mentions US govt opposition to TikTok and WeChat. Possibly good ideas, but not very free-speechy.
Below is a contemporaneous transcription of Pompeo's speech, which includes some words about MIT. He doesn't mention MIT's COVID restrictions, but that would make sense for a high official in the Trump administration giving a talk at another university (here, Georgia Tech). Parsing his words (below) carefully, I see that he doesn't directly express MIT's reason(s) for not hosting his speech but lets the listener/reader infer the reason.
Why do schools censor themselves? They often do it out of fear of offending China.
Indeed I must tell you that MIT wasn’t interested in having me to their campus to give this exact set of remarks. President Raphael Reif implied that my arguments might insult their ethnic Chinese students and professors. But of course nothing could further from the truth. These are the very people that this set of remarks is intended to protect, to protect their freedoms.
And I must say, the yielding to the objection of hurt feelings plays right into the Chinese Communist Party’s hands.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201210004510/https://www.state.gov/the-chinese-communist-party-on-the-american-campus/