Stop Demanding Dumb Answers to Hard Questions • Hacker News Board

Re: Stop Demanding Dumb Answers to Hard Questions

#31

Post by loeg » Fri, Dec 08, 2023, 3:46 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #9

loeg wrote: post #7

> Discriminatory harassment may be considered to violate this policy when it is so severe or pervasive, and objectively offensive, that it creates a work, educational, or living environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive In what contexts is (explicitly) calling for the genocide of Jews not objectively offensive or hostile? Maybe if you whisper it quietly in an empty room? I…

The phrase "reasonable person" does the heavy lifting here. A reasonable person should be able to understand that others have different opinions that may be distasteful or wrong. Unless those opinions are violent and directed at them personally, they are not hostile.

> Unless those opinions are violent and directed at them personally,

I mean, I think a statement advocating for the genocide of Jews is reflecting a violent opinion and is obviously personal for Jews!

Re: Stop Demanding Dumb Answers to Hard Questions

#32

Post by loeg » Fri, Dec 08, 2023, 3:47 PM UTC

dmvdoug wrote: post #18

loeg wrote: post #7

> Discriminatory harassment may be considered to violate this policy when it is so severe or pervasive, and objectively offensive, that it creates a work, educational, or living environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive In what contexts is (explicitly) calling for the genocide of Jews not objectively offensive or hostile? Maybe if you whisper it quietly in an empty room? I…

The test isn’t simply if a statement is objectively offensive. You ignored that the harassment has to be severe and pervasive.

Read the larger context (I quoted it above). It only has to be severe or pervasive enough to be "intimidating, hostile, or abusive."

Re: Stop Demanding Dumb Answers to Hard Questions

#33

Post by biimugan » Fri, Dec 08, 2023, 5:27 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #2

Excellent legal analysis, but misses the point completely. These college Presidents are getting pilloried because they are perceived as being supportive of the same people who say “words are violence” in other contexts: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/07/nyt-opinion-bennet-... These are the same people who said Trump’s anti-China rhetoric caused anti-Asian hate crimes. If we take them at their word about that,…

I don't understand how your claims here are relevant to anything.

In the hearing, Stefanik kept asking the presidents whether a call to genocide was considered bullying and harassment according to the respective universities' codes of conduct. That's a factual question that has an objective answer, which they gave multiple times: it depends if it's pervasive and severe. Which is exactly what those codes of conduct state, namely that a single instance of someone saying something stupid doesn't constitute bullying or harassment according to those policies. The phrasing 'pervasive and severe' comes directly from Harvard's code of conduct, for instance.

But Stefanik would then would casually change the context of her question, using 'bullying and harassment' in a colloquial sense instead of in the sense of her initial question (i.e. the codes of conduct). Why? Maybe to engender exactly the reactionary response that followed. To try and insinuate that the presidents actually think calls to genocide are A-OK under certain situations, namely when it comes to the genocide of Jews. To insinuate, as some (like you) have, that the presidents think some classes of minority populations are worthier of defense than others. To bring into question the utility of a liberal higher education entire.

I'll give her this: Stefanik was very successful (as evidenced by yours and similar comments, and by the mainstream media's reaction) in generating widespread, reactionary approbation. To some of the most banal, legalistic, administrator-speak imaginable. I'm glad this is the state of discourse in this country.

Re: Stop Demanding Dumb Answers to Hard Questions

#34

Post by onetimeusename » Fri, Dec 08, 2023, 5:38 PM UTC

But despite wall-to-wall propaganda about how American colleges routinely suppress any speech seen as remotely racist, many colleges have speech policies that are either vague or that protect speech rather broadly and robustly.

At UPENN a law professor named Amy Wax invited a white nationalist to speak and the law school dean said this [the invitation] "crosses the line of what is acceptable in a University environment where principles of non-discrimination apply,” in a document where he asked the University to impose a “major sanction” on Wax. https://www.thedp.com/article/2023/12/penn-amy-wax-jared-tay...

Amy Wax is currently under investigation by the university https://www.thedp.com/article/2023/01/penn-carey-law-amy-wax.... I would be curious to see what popehat's analysis of this situation is because the talk itself that Wax invited complies with all the guidelines he outlined but yet I get the feeling this talk would be unacceptable but the speech of the pro-Palestinian side is acceptable on campus despite some claiming that it is a call for genocide.

Re: Stop Demanding Dumb Answers to Hard Questions

#35

Post by rayiner » Fri, Dec 08, 2023, 5:41 PM UTC

biimugan wrote: post #33

rayiner wrote: post #2

Excellent legal analysis, but misses the point completely. These college Presidents are getting pilloried because they are perceived as being supportive of the same people who say “words are violence” in other contexts: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/07/nyt-opinion-bennet-... These are the same people who said Trump’s anti-China rhetoric caused anti-Asian hate crimes. If we take them at their word about that,…

I don't understand how your claims here are relevant to anything. In the hearing, Stefanik kept asking the presidents whether a call to genocide was considered bullying and harassment according to the respective universities' codes of conduct. That's a factual question that has an objective answer, which they gave multiple times: it depends if it's pervasive and severe. Which is exactly what those codes of conduct st…

> whether a call to genocide was considered bullying and harassment according to the respective universities' codes of conduct. That's a factual question that has an objective answer, which they gave multiple times: it depends if it's pervasive and severe.

Are you seriously claiming that, if students had made similar statements about any other group of people (except maybe whites), these universities would be asking “well, but is it pervasive and severe?”

Re: Stop Demanding Dumb Answers to Hard Questions

#36

Post by rayiner » Fri, Dec 08, 2023, 5:45 PM UTC

olliej wrote: post #17

JamesBarney wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a huge oversimplification of the conflict. The Israel-Palestine conflict is not like US native American conflict where we landed somewhere we'd never lived before, killed as many people as possible, and broke treaty after treaty. The Jews has been living there for 2000+ years. The Ottoman empire was the last empire in control of that area. It lost a war and gave up that land to the British. The British propos…

>The Jews has been living there for 2000+ years. No, the area currently named Israel had not been a jewish state in centuries when the British occupiers gave it to a new set of jewish colonizers of what was an occupied Arab state. The jewish population of the area label Israel was less than 10% jewish until 1910 or so (after Britain had control and started encouraging colonization before explicitly assigning it to a…

It wasn’t colonization. It was a partition. Arabs colonized the area first. Then Turks. After the Ottomans were defeated, the British created multiple countries that hadn’t existed before. Arabs were given several: Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon. There was also to be a Palestine. Jews were to be given one small piece of the overall territory. Then the Arab countries tried to wipe out Israel and it was only then you had the occupation of what was supposed to become Palestine.

It was similar to the partition of India, which was also something that had only ever existed in that form due to millennia of colonization.

Re: Stop Demanding Dumb Answers to Hard Questions

#37

Post by CogitoCogito » Fri, Dec 08, 2023, 6:11 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #35

biimugan wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how your claims here are relevant to anything. In the hearing, Stefanik kept asking the presidents whether a call to genocide was considered bullying and harassment according to the respective universities' codes of conduct. That's a factual question that has an objective answer, which they gave multiple times: it depends if it's pervasive and severe. Which is exactly what those codes of conduct st…

> whether a call to genocide was considered bullying and harassment according to the respective universities' codes of conduct. That's a factual question that has an objective answer, which they gave multiple times: it depends if it's pervasive and severe. Are you seriously claiming that, if students had made similar statements about any other group of people (except maybe whites), these universities would be asking…

Do you have specific examples of the universities in question acting in contradiction to these statements or are you just supposing they would? If you have specific examples, it would be interesting to compare the universities' response.

Re: Stop Demanding Dumb Answers to Hard Questions

#38

Post by raincom » Fri, Dec 08, 2023, 7:22 PM UTC

onetimeusename wrote: post #34

But despite wall-to-wall propaganda about how American colleges routinely suppress any speech seen as remotely racist, many colleges have speech policies that are either vague or that protect speech rather broadly and robustly. At UPENN a law professor named Amy Wax invited a white nationalist to speak and the law school dean said this [the invitation] "crosses the line of what is acceptable in a University environme…

The issue boils down to double standards. When certain opinions are 'reasonable' to those in power, it doesn't "cross the line of what is acceptable in a University environment". Whenever one says "double standard", use that cudgel of whataboutism.

Re: Stop Demanding Dumb Answers to Hard Questions

#39

Post by RestlessMind » Fri, Dec 08, 2023, 7:22 PM UTC

biimugan wrote: post #33

rayiner wrote: post #2

Excellent legal analysis, but misses the point completely. These college Presidents are getting pilloried because they are perceived as being supportive of the same people who say “words are violence” in other contexts: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/07/nyt-opinion-bennet-... These are the same people who said Trump’s anti-China rhetoric caused anti-Asian hate crimes. If we take them at their word about that,…

I don't understand how your claims here are relevant to anything. In the hearing, Stefanik kept asking the presidents whether a call to genocide was considered bullying and harassment according to the respective universities' codes of conduct. That's a factual question that has an objective answer, which they gave multiple times: it depends if it's pervasive and severe. Which is exactly what those codes of conduct st…

I think you are missing the context of why Stefanik's questioning is resonating with so many people, including centrists and democrats - for many years now, American liberals have gone unhinged on "words are violence". Multiple professors are criticized or fired for far more benign stuff and multiple speakers are booed and barred from speaking on campuses. On that backdrop, current events stand in stark contrast.

Just a hint for you - president of Univ of Chicago will not have suffered this fate because that school stands for true free speech and didn't disinvite or ban any speakers from its campus. You live by "words are violence", you die by "words are violence".

Re: Stop Demanding Dumb Answers to Hard Questions

#40

Post by RestlessMind » Fri, Dec 08, 2023, 7:28 PM UTC

CogitoCogito wrote: post #37

rayiner wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> whether a call to genocide was considered bullying and harassment according to the respective universities' codes of conduct. That's a factual question that has an objective answer, which they gave multiple times: it depends if it's pervasive and severe. Are you seriously claiming that, if students had made similar statements about any other group of people (except maybe whites), these universities would be asking…

Do you have specific examples of the universities in question acting in contradiction to these statements or are you just supposing they would? If you have specific examples, it would be interesting to compare the universities' response.

Here you go: "Harvard gets worst score ever in FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings" - https://www.thefire.org/news/harvard-gets-worst-score-ever-f...

Many examples there, like: "From 2019 to this year, Harvard sanctioned four scholars, three of whom it terminated." or "In 2020, Harvard revoked conservative student activist Kyle Kashuv’s acceptance over comments he made on social media as a 16-year-old, for which he had since apologized. "

Some other colleges as well:

Yale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Christakis#Yale_Hallo...

Stanford: https://stanforddaily.com/2023/04/05/judge-duncan-stanford-l...