Research indicates at least one of the professors may have been actively involved in the encampment resulting in the university's unsuccessful negotiation for protesters to leave so graduation could take place. Irony.
One cannot argue logically with those who act in bad faith. Trump and MAGA are targeting intellectuals, as does any would-be autocrat - as we know from numerous historical precedents. The purpose is to punish, diminish, and disrupt, so that you are too occupied with your own existence to worry about the zone that has been flooded with authoritarian BS.
All very true of course, but kind of beside the point because this jihad against universities is not based in reality, any more than Hitler's belief in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy was based in reality. This hatred of universities as factories of "woke" is a red pill fantasy and its adherents are not open to reason.
Earlier, Columbia and the other East Coast universities did not respond the right way to media and government criticism. They should have come out swinging. It's a little late in the game, but good luck to them in any case.
The questionable pretense here is that there is any good faith recipient in government for any of thise.
The only appropriate response is "see you in court, motherfuckers." If the judiciary still functions, you have a chance, if it doesn't, well, you were screwed anyway.
A response thoroughly and intentionally omitting antisemitism concerns and even the same word "jews" is a perfect vindication of the well grounded government action.
The Columbia Professor's response is a non sequitur. It reinforces the Trump administration's demands and program cancellations rather than counters them.
The issue is Columbia University's anti-Semitism, academic misconduct and compliance with Federal Acquisition regulations.
The Demonstrators chanted, "From the River to the Sea". That was a call for genocide against the Jews in Israel. The historical patterns of actions demonstrate that Hamas and other Palestinian groups have genocide as their top priority, even over having an independent State or a cease-fire in Gaza. The Pro Hamas demonstrators more accurately claimed the power to say who shall live and who shall die. They sat in judgment while suppressing evidence and counterarguments by others. The faculty and administration of Columbia University supported them. Professors have been fired for a lot less, and Universities have lost accreditation for violations of Government laws and research support policies.
The Demonstrators debased Columbia's educational product and the interests of feminists and blacks, too. The Hamas rape and slaughter of women amounts to extreme violence against women and intolerance of minorities in the region. The demonstrations for Hamas, which are equivalent to demonstrations for genocide, are systemically two-faced. Demonstrating in the morning for social justice, followed by protests for genocide and death, makes their subsequent criticism of Whites, Jews, Christians, and America mindless and non-credible.
Columbia's support for these demonstrations defame the sacrifices of all those Americans who died fighting the Nazis and their Arab allies in WWII. It stands "Never Again' on its head. Large swatches of the US citizenry question why tax dollars should be spent supporting an organization that counters this country's history, culture, and governance. Other Universities can and would do the research cited and wouldn't turn out students who would become burdens and underminers of the nation.
The Professor's open letter doubles down on these objectionable policies instead of addressing whether those claims are valid, taking responsibility for their actions, and describing what they will do in the future on these issues. If the Professor's response is representative of the university's response, the questions for me are: why did the Trump Administration not take even stronger measures against Columbia, and why would American citizens pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to get an education that doesn't prepare them to deal effectively with the world?
Here’s the video of the full press conference with President Trump. Needless to say, there was more than just the “good people on both sides” meme. While the entire proceeding is of interest, for those too busy to watch the full 4+ minutes, you can start at the 1:55 mark.
Sometimes going back to the original evidence helps … except to those who would then say “well, of course, he doesn’t mean it.” Yet, for those not as expert in mind reading, Trump said what he said - and it does differ significantly from the narrative being proffered.
By linking to a news report that intentionally edits out that part of Trump’s statement that doesn’t conform with the preferred narrative that he implied neo-Nazis and white supremacists were among the “good people on both sides”, you have simply reinforced my point.
The question is why, in this case ABC, decided on this editorial decision that fundamentally misrepresents what Trump said. You might wish to question his sincerity, but his full comment is pretty clear.
Very unimpressive, abstract phrases that says little and means less. The authors avoid descending into the damning details of the campus assaults, kidnappings, threats, seized buildings, and vandalism all in defense of Hamas terrorists who raped, beheaded, tortured, killed and kidnapped. What a corrupt, deceitful den of radicals who simultaneously demand the “eradication of western civilization” and continued government subsidies to pursue their ugly morality plays!
I can’t believe that these esteemed professors think they caloric with traitors. The people in office are executing a coup and don’t give a dam about laws or process. We’re pooched if we count on logic.
I, myself, am not a professor, but, when I read the summary of a year's work addressing a serious problem, I expect to find one section saying "here's what we have accomplished already" and another saying "here are the steps we will take to complete our task". I'd appreciate it if you add that information.
"We will continue to address legitimate concerns about Title VI in accordance with our principles and with federal law, and we expect the Department of Education and other relevant federal agencies to conduct Title VI investigations in accordance with the procedures set out in the relevant federal statutes."
It sounds like you all agree with the substance of the Trump administration's Dear Colleague letter.
No, they agree with the rule of law governing decisions about free speech, funding for research, evidence for allegations, some direct connection between a wrong and a recompense.
I’m struck by the indirect past participle of their response, although these beleaguered folks have a huge mountain to climb. Indirect in the sense that do they don’t say “No, we will not negotiate over your terms”. That’s certainly the implication of their piece, i.e., no kings in the Boston tea party sense, but why not be bolder, active tense. I don’t envy them their situation so I can at best wish them well.
The number of people in the current admin who seemed to genuinely believe that our universities, legacy media and the bureaucracy have been in a kind of unorganized conspiracy against real research and the real search for the truth shocks me, and I suspect it would shock many of your readers. The letter is perfectly reasonable and rational but totally misunderstand the logic animating the white house. If anyone involved in the cuts / threats / demands actually read the letter, I think they would burst out laughing and high five their closest neighbor. I could try to summarize the view, but here is a link to a short piece Yarvin wrote about the "cathedral" https://graymirror.substack.com/p/a-brief-explanation-of-the-cathedral.
Closing your letter with “Columbia will remain the college of no king” is obviously not going to win over Yarvin, who is a monarchist.
I’ll note that Yarvin’s theory seems to fail when applied to the one example he gives, because there is quite a large market for climate denialism. He doesn’t even have an example of the government outsourcing responsibility.
Extortion, pure and simple. Maybe the professors should have said "we don't negotiate with terrorists..."
But they do. That would be a lie. They negotiated with the person who got moved to Louisiana.
That was the point, yes.
Research indicates at least one of the professors may have been actively involved in the encampment resulting in the university's unsuccessful negotiation for protesters to leave so graduation could take place. Irony.
One cannot argue logically with those who act in bad faith. Trump and MAGA are targeting intellectuals, as does any would-be autocrat - as we know from numerous historical precedents. The purpose is to punish, diminish, and disrupt, so that you are too occupied with your own existence to worry about the zone that has been flooded with authoritarian BS.
All very true of course, but kind of beside the point because this jihad against universities is not based in reality, any more than Hitler's belief in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy was based in reality. This hatred of universities as factories of "woke" is a red pill fantasy and its adherents are not open to reason.
Earlier, Columbia and the other East Coast universities did not respond the right way to media and government criticism. They should have come out swinging. It's a little late in the game, but good luck to them in any case.
The questionable pretense here is that there is any good faith recipient in government for any of thise.
The only appropriate response is "see you in court, motherfuckers." If the judiciary still functions, you have a chance, if it doesn't, well, you were screwed anyway.
A response thoroughly and intentionally omitting antisemitism concerns and even the same word "jews" is a perfect vindication of the well grounded government action.
The Columbia Professor's response is a non sequitur. It reinforces the Trump administration's demands and program cancellations rather than counters them.
The issue is Columbia University's anti-Semitism, academic misconduct and compliance with Federal Acquisition regulations.
The Demonstrators chanted, "From the River to the Sea". That was a call for genocide against the Jews in Israel. The historical patterns of actions demonstrate that Hamas and other Palestinian groups have genocide as their top priority, even over having an independent State or a cease-fire in Gaza. The Pro Hamas demonstrators more accurately claimed the power to say who shall live and who shall die. They sat in judgment while suppressing evidence and counterarguments by others. The faculty and administration of Columbia University supported them. Professors have been fired for a lot less, and Universities have lost accreditation for violations of Government laws and research support policies.
The Demonstrators debased Columbia's educational product and the interests of feminists and blacks, too. The Hamas rape and slaughter of women amounts to extreme violence against women and intolerance of minorities in the region. The demonstrations for Hamas, which are equivalent to demonstrations for genocide, are systemically two-faced. Demonstrating in the morning for social justice, followed by protests for genocide and death, makes their subsequent criticism of Whites, Jews, Christians, and America mindless and non-credible.
Columbia's support for these demonstrations defame the sacrifices of all those Americans who died fighting the Nazis and their Arab allies in WWII. It stands "Never Again' on its head. Large swatches of the US citizenry question why tax dollars should be spent supporting an organization that counters this country's history, culture, and governance. Other Universities can and would do the research cited and wouldn't turn out students who would become burdens and underminers of the nation.
The Professor's open letter doubles down on these objectionable policies instead of addressing whether those claims are valid, taking responsibility for their actions, and describing what they will do in the future on these issues. If the Professor's response is representative of the university's response, the questions for me are: why did the Trump Administration not take even stronger measures against Columbia, and why would American citizens pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to get an education that doesn't prepare them to deal effectively with the world?
I guess you forgot trump’s “good people” who marched in Charlottesville chanting antisemitic tropes, you should go back and watch those tapes.
Here’s the video of the full press conference with President Trump. Needless to say, there was more than just the “good people on both sides” meme. While the entire proceeding is of interest, for those too busy to watch the full 4+ minutes, you can start at the 1:55 mark.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JmaZR8E12bs
Sometimes going back to the original evidence helps … except to those who would then say “well, of course, he doesn’t mean it.” Yet, for those not as expert in mind reading, Trump said what he said - and it does differ significantly from the narrative being proffered.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F2kPRW6ZuA&pp=0gcJCfcAhR29_xXO
By linking to a news report that intentionally edits out that part of Trump’s statement that doesn’t conform with the preferred narrative that he implied neo-Nazis and white supremacists were among the “good people on both sides”, you have simply reinforced my point.
The question is why, in this case ABC, decided on this editorial decision that fundamentally misrepresents what Trump said. You might wish to question his sincerity, but his full comment is pretty clear.
Christopher fell for the fine people hoax. I’ll bet he believes Trump told people to drink bleach and Joe Biden was sharp as a tack.
Very unimpressive, abstract phrases that says little and means less. The authors avoid descending into the damning details of the campus assaults, kidnappings, threats, seized buildings, and vandalism all in defense of Hamas terrorists who raped, beheaded, tortured, killed and kidnapped. What a corrupt, deceitful den of radicals who simultaneously demand the “eradication of western civilization” and continued government subsidies to pursue their ugly morality plays!
I can’t believe that these esteemed professors think they caloric with traitors. The people in office are executing a coup and don’t give a dam about laws or process. We’re pooched if we count on logic.
I, myself, am not a professor, but, when I read the summary of a year's work addressing a serious problem, I expect to find one section saying "here's what we have accomplished already" and another saying "here are the steps we will take to complete our task". I'd appreciate it if you add that information.
And now for a comment by the Economics Dept.!
"We will continue to address legitimate concerns about Title VI in accordance with our principles and with federal law, and we expect the Department of Education and other relevant federal agencies to conduct Title VI investigations in accordance with the procedures set out in the relevant federal statutes."
It sounds like you all agree with the substance of the Trump administration's Dear Colleague letter.
No, they agree with the rule of law governing decisions about free speech, funding for research, evidence for allegations, some direct connection between a wrong and a recompense.
I’m struck by the indirect past participle of their response, although these beleaguered folks have a huge mountain to climb. Indirect in the sense that do they don’t say “No, we will not negotiate over your terms”. That’s certainly the implication of their piece, i.e., no kings in the Boston tea party sense, but why not be bolder, active tense. I don’t envy them their situation so I can at best wish them well.
The number of people in the current admin who seemed to genuinely believe that our universities, legacy media and the bureaucracy have been in a kind of unorganized conspiracy against real research and the real search for the truth shocks me, and I suspect it would shock many of your readers. The letter is perfectly reasonable and rational but totally misunderstand the logic animating the white house. If anyone involved in the cuts / threats / demands actually read the letter, I think they would burst out laughing and high five their closest neighbor. I could try to summarize the view, but here is a link to a short piece Yarvin wrote about the "cathedral" https://graymirror.substack.com/p/a-brief-explanation-of-the-cathedral.
Closing your letter with “Columbia will remain the college of no king” is obviously not going to win over Yarvin, who is a monarchist.
I’ll note that Yarvin’s theory seems to fail when applied to the one example he gives, because there is quite a large market for climate denialism. He doesn’t even have an example of the government outsourcing responsibility.
Fine, but I would have preferred “You can have my answer now, if you like”.
💙💙💙