Harvard, UPenn Presidents Grilled in Congress on Antisemitism

Sdílet
Vložit
  • čas přidán 8. 12. 2023
  • New York Rep. Elise Stefanik grilled the presidents of Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania on Wednesday during a congressional hearing on antisemitism.
    The presidents of Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania were forced to issue statements clarifying their responses to a US congressional hearing on antisemitism after a barrage of criticism from business leaders and politicians that shows few signs of abating.
    Harvard’s Claudine Gay and Penn’s Liz Magill were lambasted for refusing to say at the Dec. 5 event that calling for the genocide of Jews is against school policy, instead offering narrow legal responses.
    Magill said late Wednesday in a video message that such language would amount to “harassment or intimidation,” while Gay stated on social media that Harvard won’t condone violent speech against Jewish students.
    --------
    Subscribe to our CZcams channel: trib.al/KM4k5RA
    Subscribe to Bloomberg Originals: trib.al/dJv9Uw8
    Bloomberg Quicktake brings you global social video spanning business, technology, politics and culture. Make sense of the stories changing your business and your world.
    Connect with us on…
    CZcams: / bloomberg
    Breaking News on CZcams: / @bloombergquicktakenow

Komentáře • 904

  • @enjoyitbro
    @enjoyitbro Před 6 měsíci +440

    But if she was asked if calling someone by the wrong pronoun, she would absolutely consider it harrassment.

    • @user-zq4fv8sj6v
      @user-zq4fv8sj6v Před 6 měsíci +1

      😂😂😂 So much for Hillary Clinton’s “college educated voters” she and mainstream media portended to be superior to Trump voters in 2016.. Glad all women aren’t this indoctrinated! 😂😂😂

    • @kennethtopping8953
      @kennethtopping8953 Před 6 měsíci

      Free speech is free speech .... these college representatives are being asked to censor speech...Totally undemocratic....

    • @lm58142
      @lm58142 Před 6 měsíci +12

      Exactly. I commented noting the absurdity of being allowed to explicitly call for genocide but not being allowed to say that men cannot menstruate and the Woketube removed my post.

    • @trianglesandsquares420
      @trianglesandsquares420 Před 6 měsíci +2

      It isn't right to remove everybody's posts either.

    • @jessicawessica1412
      @jessicawessica1412 Před 6 měsíci

      EXACTLY!!

  • @tonik9594
    @tonik9594 Před 6 měsíci +258

    Depends on the context???!!!! When is calling for genocide for anyone acceptable, or not seen as harassment/bullying?? This is disgusting!

    • @EdoBenDor
      @EdoBenDor Před 6 měsíci +18

      When the university is getting donations of billions of dollars from terror organizations or terror supporting countries like Qatar, it depends on the context. The context of who pays your salary.

    • @nadavb1983
      @nadavb1983 Před 6 měsíci +6

      apperantly if its jewish people it's cool

    • @larrym2434
      @larrym2434 Před 6 měsíci +4

      Some people will argue that blinking your right eye is a means of calling for genocide.

    • @nadavb1983
      @nadavb1983 Před 6 měsíci

      some people will argue that going into your home while you sleep and butchering you and your kids is an act of genocide. apperantly you dont@@larrym2434

    • @boudicca7181
      @boudicca7181 Před 6 měsíci +4

      they call right--wrong; wrong-right. they are a confused bunch.

  • @jamesp739
    @jamesp739 Před 6 měsíci +63

    These people should not be allowed to resign. In their resignation letter they no doubt will state their reason is to be able to spend more time with their families or to pursue other interests. BS. They should be fired.

    • @clarkvera6397
      @clarkvera6397 Před 6 měsíci

      Don't worry. EVERYBODY knows what they said. They can't hide it. It's VIRAL!

    • @kennethtopping8953
      @kennethtopping8953 Před 6 měsíci

      Free speech is free speech .... these college representatives are being asked to censor speech...Totally undemocratic....

    • @simka6858
      @simka6858 Před 6 měsíci

      Agree

    • @Abracadabra972
      @Abracadabra972 Před 5 měsíci

      And yet we are here.

    • @JM-yr6fr
      @JM-yr6fr Před 22 dny

      This bully of a congresswoman has no right to try to intimadte and embarrass these University Presidents who have all the right and freedom of speech as do their students to denounce genocide against the Palestinians who are the ones suffering or dying at the hands of the genocidal Netanyahu Zionist regime. This congresswoman does NOT represent millions of Americans who are seeing the genocide of Palestinians in their own land by their Zionist occupiers. The Congresswoman should resign.

  • @mobuseseko557
    @mobuseseko557 Před 6 měsíci +64

    Since light travels faster than sound, some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

    • @bengold7942
      @bengold7942 Před měsícem

      Severely underrated comment

    • @JM-yr6fr
      @JM-yr6fr Před 22 dny

      This bully of a congresswoman has no right to try to intimadte and embarrass these University Presidents who have all the right and freedom of speech as do their students to denounce genocide against the Palestinians who are the ones suffering or dying at the hands of the genocidal Netanyahu Zionist regime. This congresswoman does NOT represent millions of Americans who are seeing the genocide of Palestinians in their own land by their Zionist occupiers.

  • @kellymcclendon6601
    @kellymcclendon6601 Před 6 měsíci +154

    So glad that they showed their true colors.

    • @Retiredstatecop
      @Retiredstatecop Před 6 měsíci +2

      And faces. She could almost be J.J.'s twin.

    • @therapeutate1093
      @therapeutate1093 Před 6 měsíci +1

      The beautiful thing is she’s not JJ’s twin, and if she were, this would mean the Evans have come a long way baby. I would say, it pays to have two strong parents in the household, it will take the disenfranchised to the seat of power in private institutions. Bravo 👏🏼

    • @Philosophyrules77
      @Philosophyrules77 Před 3 měsíci

      Just to be clear here. I’m pretty darn liberal and this is disgusting and disturbing. I would never ever ever endorse this. Ever. Calling for the genocide of ANY ethnic group, race, religion, sexual orientation or identity is categorically unacceptable.

    • @JM-yr6fr
      @JM-yr6fr Před 22 dny

      This bully of a congresswoman has no right to try to intimadte and embarrass these University Presidents who have all the right and freedom of speech as do their students to denounce genocide against the Palestinians who are the ones suffering or dying at the hands of the genocidal Netanyahu Zionist regime. This congresswoman does NOT represent millions of Americans who are seeing the genocide of Palestinians in their own land by their Zionist occupiers.

  • @theinformationcenter9289
    @theinformationcenter9289 Před 6 měsíci +292

    Let’s be honest, regardless of how you feel about what Israel’s doing to Palestine, calling for a genocide is crazy.

    • @SkateAndReview
      @SkateAndReview Před 6 měsíci +2

      Let’s be honest this was just a Israeli puppet trying to stir up propaganda. Good on them for laughing in her face and trolling her back

    • @jondough4682
      @jondough4682 Před 6 měsíci

      That's Democrats for ya. They can call Trump supporters ULTRA MEGA MAGA extremists but can't call out the Lefts far left extremist Biden supporters.

    • @Nonyabusiness111
      @Nonyabusiness111 Před 6 měsíci +18

      🇮🇱

    • @mindyourbusinesspodcast7353
      @mindyourbusinesspodcast7353 Před 6 měsíci

      It’s not erase those fake Jews

    • @tloks8737
      @tloks8737 Před 6 měsíci +20

      yeah, of course, but is anyone gonna deny that the politician is just jumping on an opportunity to virtue signal over a semantic disagreement

  • @stockjonebills
    @stockjonebills Před 6 měsíci +159

    This is a sad example of academia's habit of overanalyzing something with a common sense answer. Their responses about the context of the message is ridiculous. I would be curious how they would respond with the same question if it was genocide against Palestinians. Regardless of religion or race asking for the genocide of anyone is ethically wrong.

    • @Dr.HarshTruth
      @Dr.HarshTruth Před 6 měsíci +11

      If, however, it involved advocating for the enslavement of Black people, do you think that she would have answered that it depends on the context? In that case there would not be any "overanalyzing process." This has nothing to do with "academia's habit of overanalyzing."

    • @dutube99
      @dutube99 Před 6 měsíci +1

      she didn't analyze it or her interlocutor enough

    • @Dr.HarshTruth
      @Dr.HarshTruth Před 6 měsíci

      @@dutube99 after repeating 17 times the same question?

    • @dutube99
      @dutube99 Před 6 měsíci +1

      @@Dr.HarshTruth yes - she didn't grasp quickly enough that is a simple question, and no amount of equivocating, like saying "context dependent" is going to save her.
      She's not savvy enough to realize that simple and direct is a lot smarter than a bunch of humming and hawwing.

    • @Dr.HarshTruth
      @Dr.HarshTruth Před 6 měsíci

      @@dutube99 I disagree. Did you notice the smirk of the presidents of Harvard and Pennsylvania? This reveals that they know what they were saying, but they thought that the woke culture leads the world enough to protect them while answering that way.

  • @willysbest9242
    @willysbest9242 Před 6 měsíci +88

    Insert blacks or Hispanic instead of jews and these people would be saying yes absolutely. It's like pulling teeth to get answers out of a liberal.

    • @SpeckledChieftain
      @SpeckledChieftain Před 6 měsíci +5

      💯

    • @roberth9814
      @roberth9814 Před 6 měsíci

      They are standing up for free speech and you can't give them any credit because a media echo chamber has turned half your brain off. Also they're women and one of them is black, so I'm sure the idea of rooting for them or appreciating anything the have said or done is beneath you. They are saying they would protect your rights if you were their student, and you insult them. You have to conjure up some BS scenario that never took place becaus you'd rather fight a strawman than find yourself siding with an identity you've been taught to hate and fear

    • @josecolon3185
      @josecolon3185 Před 6 měsíci

      💥💯💥

    • @JM-yr6fr
      @JM-yr6fr Před 22 dny

      This bully of a congresswoman has no right to try to intimadte and embarrass these University Presidents who have all the right and freedom of speech as do their students to denounce genocide against the Palestinians who are the ones suffering or dying at the hands of the genocidal Netanyahu Zionist regime. This congresswoman does NOT represent millions of Americans who are seeing the genocide of Palestinians in their own land by their Zionist occupiers.

  • @mechak326
    @mechak326 Před 6 měsíci +51

    Watching the way those so-called highly educated women intentionally dodging the question made my blood boiled.

    • @urcompnioncube0213
      @urcompnioncube0213 Před 6 měsíci +1

      because there is a more complicated line that we have to cross before we start venturing into thought policing, censorship, political gymnastics and suppression of expression.
      The legal precedent case Matel vs Tam on despairing trademarks established, by Supreme Court Justice James Alito, that speech which demeans on various bases, including race, ethnicity, gender, and religion, is hateful, but the freedom to express "the thought that we hate" is a fundamental aspect of free speech jurisprudence in the United States. Justice Anthony Kennedy also emphasized the importance of protecting speech, even if offensive to some, as a safeguard for minority and dissenting views in a democratic society.
      That the danger of allowing government censorship is that definitions of hate speech can be amorphous and subjective. That the American model leans towards personal accountability and open discourse in society to challenge and overcome hateful ideas, rather than government-imposed restrictions.
      The same precedent also was used to strike down Institutional speech codes as violations of free speech BUT also states that the First Amendment does not protect direct, personal threats of immediate violence. In such cases, speech can be regulated, as in Virginia v. Black (2003), where certain intimidating symbolic actions were considered a form of threat. This is what the uPenn and Harvard was talking about.
      They already got their bells rung by courts that said it depends on the context and if it transform to conduct.

    • @ronaldthered6650
      @ronaldthered6650 Před 6 měsíci +1

      Welcome to adult life, in which people you disagree with have opinions and are not brow beaten by childish games.

    • @user-cb9ul1ds6y
      @user-cb9ul1ds6y Před 6 měsíci

      Claudine is allowed to dodge questions because she is one of the "untouchables". Its sickening.

    • @edclam
      @edclam Před 5 měsíci

      I feel for you. Same here!

  • @alexjames6747
    @alexjames6747 Před 6 měsíci +77

    What "context" ? Genocide has no "context". Genocide IS "genocide" . It is exactly what it means.

    • @infinightsky
      @infinightsky Před 6 měsíci

      Including the Bible?

    • @alexjames6747
      @alexjames6747 Před 6 měsíci

      Yes. Including Bible...conquistadors, inquisition@@infinightsky

    • @alexjames6747
      @alexjames6747 Před 6 měsíci

      extermination of jewish people by Roman Empire@@infinightsky

    • @plaguedeity
      @plaguedeity Před 6 měsíci +1

      The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating:
      "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
      The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

    • @AhmedS-dr8ns
      @AhmedS-dr8ns Před 6 měsíci

      Including what's going on Gaza right now?

  • @JM-bb8xi
    @JM-bb8xi Před 6 měsíci +39

    Wow her little smirk spoke volumes.

    • @plaguedeity
      @plaguedeity Před 6 měsíci +1

      The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating:
      "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
      The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

    • @JM-bb8xi
      @JM-bb8xi Před 6 měsíci

      Not saying shes not allowed, but for ivory towers preaching tolerance, its ironic.

  • @ReactorFour
    @ReactorFour Před 6 měsíci +60

    It’s odd how much context and nuance now seemingly matters to them when discussing the persecution of Jews, but on matters of LGBTQ or black and brown people, it is completely clear without nuance. It’s pretty obvious they are not for racial equality and the respectful treatment of all people, rather they just despise those who aren’t dependent on the government and can’t be controlled by their progressive cult.

    • @plaguedeity
      @plaguedeity Před 6 měsíci +4

      The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating:
      "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
      The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

    • @ReactorFour
      @ReactorFour Před 6 měsíci +1

      @@plaguedeity r/swoosh

    • @bearmarco1944
      @bearmarco1944 Před 5 měsíci

      @@plaguedeity private universities have no duty to uphold first amendment laws because the first amendment only binds the government. It didn't even bind state governments until it was incorporated against them after the passage of the 14th, which started a doctrine of selective incorporation. it is their right to remove anyone who says anything for any reason, because it's not a public university there are no inherent rights there.

  • @MarkFox88
    @MarkFox88 Před 6 měsíci +11

    These ladies are replying in the same way as Eichmann did. They must be fired, fined and sentenced.

  • @MyLove-uj8zi
    @MyLove-uj8zi Před 6 měsíci +56

    Wow, never send your kids to those colleges!!! How disgusting!!!!

    • @kennethtopping8953
      @kennethtopping8953 Před 6 měsíci

      Free speech is free speech .... these college representatives are being asked to censor speech...Totally undemocratic....

    • @plaguedeity
      @plaguedeity Před 6 měsíci +2

      The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating:
      "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
      The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

    • @TheBasedCanadian
      @TheBasedCanadian Před 6 měsíci +2

      Overpriced education

  • @trocycling1204
    @trocycling1204 Před 6 měsíci +9

    Just when you thought it Universities couldn't possibly be any worse, this. This is where Universities are folks.

  • @imo8249
    @imo8249 Před 6 měsíci +74

    Harvard having it's
    Bud LIte moment

    • @Zero11_ss
      @Zero11_ss Před 6 měsíci +2

      More like the Jews bought these senators already.

    • @jjmars9160
      @jjmars9160 Před 6 měsíci

      Harvard President is a big hypocrite. She needs to go.

    • @neilkurzman4907
      @neilkurzman4907 Před 6 měsíci +1

      No Harvard having a we are never showing up for a congressional hearing again moment. Because Congress only cared about getting us fired.
      Asking question yes or no questions that either one was a bad answer. That’s basic training stuff.

    • @java4653
      @java4653 Před 6 měsíci

      ​@@neilkurzman4907indeed. It shows how there's no conspiracy. They walked in not understanding it's a show trial.

    • @neilkurzman4907
      @neilkurzman4907 Před 6 měsíci

      @@java4653
      Well, every other college president now knows the lesson. And now Congress has one less group of people that are willing to help them, or even deal with them

  • @lisagilmore6311
    @lisagilmore6311 Před 6 měsíci +46

    Funny how these people who call what you say as racist but yet they can say what they want because they are college educated

    • @patrickmcguire2434
      @patrickmcguire2434 Před 6 měsíci

      Academically Brainwashed.

    • @neilkurzman4907
      @neilkurzman4907 Před 6 měsíci

      You can say what you’re allowed to say, according to the constitution of the United States. The head of the university has limited, say over what that is.

    • @WolfHeathen
      @WolfHeathen Před 6 měsíci

      It's only bigotry if it applies to whatever group they decide it should apply to. It's all projection. They call you racist while attacking jews and white people. They call you sexist while attacking men. They call you cruel while supporting genital mutilation of children. They call your speech violent while burning entire neighborhoods. They call you islamophobe while attacking christians. They call you intolerant for wanting border control while sending immigrants straight into homelessness and poverty.

    • @kennethtopping8953
      @kennethtopping8953 Před 6 měsíci +1

      Israel is actually COMMITTING GENOCIDE AS WE SPEAK!!!!! WTF!!!!!

    • @neilkurzman4907
      @neilkurzman4907 Před 6 měsíci +1

      @@kennethtopping8953
      So you’re trying to say is you don’t know what the word genocide means. And you think using the word is going to give your cause power that it doesn’t deserve.
      That’s a powerful word it shouldn’t be used lightly.
      You realize Hamas could stop fighting anytime they wanted to, and the war would be over

  • @marmadukewinterbotham2599
    @marmadukewinterbotham2599 Před 6 měsíci +5

    How on earth did such people rise to such highly-paid positions of authority and influence??

    • @annidashafira4510
      @annidashafira4510 Před 6 měsíci

      O humanity! Indeed, We created you from a male and a female, and made you into peoples and tribes so that you may ˹get to˺ know one another. Surely the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous among you. Allah is truly All-Knowing, All-Aware 1 (Al-Hujurat 13)
      Footnote 1: The Prophet (ﷺ) is reported in a ḥadîth collected by Imâm Aḥmed to have said, "O humanity! Your Lord is one, and your ancestry is one. No Arab is superior to a non-Arab, nor is any non-Arab superior to any Arab. No white is superior to any black, nor is any black superior to any white except on account of their righteousness."

  • @karinaakakpo1274
    @karinaakakpo1274 Před 6 měsíci +6

    What would have been your answer if you were asked “ does calling for black people (I am one by the way) to be lynched violate UPenn, Harvard or MIT’ s code of conduct? You failed on this. It is upsetting.

  • @michellehernandez322
    @michellehernandez322 Před 6 měsíci +2

    Does calling for the genocide of Palestinians violate the code of conduct ?

  • @PlaGueR3FLEX
    @PlaGueR3FLEX Před 6 měsíci +24

    I never would have EVER guessed we could get to a point in society where the head of Harvard couldn't give a straight answer as to whether genocide was right or wrong.

    • @kennethtopping8953
      @kennethtopping8953 Před 6 měsíci

      Free speech is free speech .... these college representatives are being asked to censor speech...Totally undemocratic....

    • @DOC2089
      @DOC2089 Před 6 měsíci +5

      But the question wasn’t a right or a wrong question. It was a loaded question that opened the door to many controversies with free speech. They aren’t defending genocide, they’re defending free speech and preventing multiple civil lawsuits. These people aren’t dummies, they know exactly what their assignment is. Everyone else too triggered to see it.

    • @PaladinAwaits
      @PaladinAwaits Před 6 měsíci

      @@DOC2089 Crazy triggered. Would not be surprised to see them with their pitchforks and torches marching to MA.

    • @plaguedeity
      @plaguedeity Před 6 měsíci +1

      The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating:
      "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
      The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

    • @PlaGueR3FLEX
      @PlaGueR3FLEX Před 6 měsíci +2

      @plaguedeity All of this is known. Here is the thing, you can go to work and cuss your boss out because you have freedom of speech. Chances are you will be written up or fired. Everyone has the freedom of speech, but you are not free of the consequences for what you say. Case in point UPenn's president resigning was the consequence for what someone else said. They had the free speech to call for the genocide of jews and the school had the right to defend the student's free speech. But low and behold, she lost her job because crazy as it sounds, people don't like when people advocate genocide. So that student exercised free speech and the president lost her job for it. Action and consequence...beautiful.

  • @AC-re9ee
    @AC-re9ee Před 6 měsíci +4

    Im more concerned about anti-whiteism, where were the hearings on that 😂😂😂😂

  • @user-uq9rs8mr4w
    @user-uq9rs8mr4w Před 6 měsíci +18

    You go Elise. Your the best.

  • @aliasmike2127
    @aliasmike2127 Před 5 měsíci +1

    How is this not anti American, a us congress woman is more worried about a foreign country

  • @user-tf4ho2uo1e
    @user-tf4ho2uo1e Před 6 měsíci +3

    The correct answer is "not only does it violate our policy on bullying and harassment, but it violates federal law and should be reported to the FBI."

    • @vylbird8014
      @vylbird8014 Před 5 měsíci

      Something of an iffy area. First amendment. There's no law against advocating for genocide in the abstract, and if there were it would be struck down as unconstitutional - it's only when advocating for specific criminal actions that such speech may constitute a crime.

  • @milfordmkt
    @milfordmkt Před 6 měsíci +3

    I'm tired of Israel being a sacred trust, being attributed extra-ethical standing. Judaism is a religion. Israel is a state. Can't we talk about Israeli policy without someone trying to co-opt us? Pro-Israel lobby alleging anti-Semitism, asking loaded questions re: hypothetical anti-Semitism, not citing any actual cases of anyone on campuses calling for genocide, or questioning Israel's right to exist. "Intifada" just means "uprising" not genocide. "River to sea" refers to original 1947 UN Palestinian borders -- protest is not hate speech. First they seized their land, now it’s their words too? These are attempts to intimidate innocent people into apologizing for words not said & things that didn't happen to swing focus away from Israel's war in Gaza.

  • @mohammednoordesmukh3784
    @mohammednoordesmukh3784 Před 6 měsíci +2

    What about the call for genocide of Palastinians? & calling them animals, is it not dehumanising?
    Why this extreme hypocrisy?

  • @chrisgoeswest9882
    @chrisgoeswest9882 Před 6 měsíci +5

    Haha from the party that said the “they will not replace us” crowd were good people. You can’t make this stuff up.

  • @HolocoughSurvivor
    @HolocoughSurvivor Před 6 měsíci +26

    Free speech is antisemitic
    Lmao
    😂

    • @Harpo-Chico
      @Harpo-Chico Před 6 měsíci +10

      Yeah kinda like using someones "wrong pronouns" incites violence to gay and trans people. Lol

    • @zesolodar
      @zesolodar Před 6 měsíci +4

      just because you have free speech dosent mean your not or what you said is racist or anti semetic.

    • @sirrevenant1
      @sirrevenant1 Před 6 měsíci +2

      In this context, yes

  • @richardosborne5092
    @richardosborne5092 Před 6 měsíci +17

    What about Islamophobia? and not just calling for the genocide of Muslims but actually doing it? Is that against her code of conduct?

    • @Sad_bumper_sticker.
      @Sad_bumper_sticker. Před 6 měsíci +1

      Unlike Palestinians who use the slogan „Death to Jews”, Israelis nor Jewish people chant „Death to Muslims” nor „Death to Palestinians”. Stop spreading misinformation.
      ​​⁠No, calling for genocide in question during the congressional hearing was not the ambiguous „From the river to the sea” BUT calling chanting „GLOBALIZE INTIFADA” on campuses.
      Intifada is historically terrorist resistance „by any means necessary” like 7.10 and historic past Intifadas which involved mass bus bonbings, suicide bombings of public spaces in Israel, knife murders of civilian Israelis in cafes and parks.
      Inciting violent breeches over free speech rights.
      So the double standard is Harvard conduct laws identifying chanting on campus or addressing Black or Muslim or Chinese or Queer fellow students calling for violence or terrorist death to either Black or Muslim or Chinese or Querr People IS (and rightfully so) inciting VIOLENCE against a minority and DOES breech both right to free speech AND Harvard code of conduct.
      So the issue is Harvard double standards bias against Jewish People wih regard to inciting violence.Shouting Free Palestine or protesting Israel army actions is your lawful and deserved right.

  • @ellew4573
    @ellew4573 Před 5 měsíci +1

    I don’t quite like the Representative from New York’s tone.

  • @jerpmagerp5924
    @jerpmagerp5924 Před 6 měsíci +2

    Ok so the more degrees you have the harder it is to give an answer. Who are the people funding these non learning institutes?

  • @W5w5345
    @W5w5345 Před 6 měsíci +45

    Bravo to congresswoman 👏🫶.
    Thank you for showing this people true face 👏👏🫶🫶❤️❤️👍🇮🇱🇺🇸🇮🇱🇺🇸🇮🇱🇺🇸💯✌️

  • @user-lh2ie8ev6d
    @user-lh2ie8ev6d Před 6 měsíci +16

    These representatives from the two colleges are out of reality in their speech, they should resign

    • @plaguedeity
      @plaguedeity Před 6 měsíci

      The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating:
      "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
      The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

  • @saehian
    @saehian Před 4 měsíci +1

    Those who don't know how answer yes or no is hiding. Hypocrite.

  • @AgeofCraccadilliaassent
    @AgeofCraccadilliaassent Před 6 měsíci +3

    Doesnt include semitic Arabs i guess

  • @HolocoughSurvivor
    @HolocoughSurvivor Před 6 měsíci +57

    To find out who rules over you, find out who you're not allowed to criticize.

    • @dollarstorebarrontrump1141
      @dollarstorebarrontrump1141 Před 6 měsíci +27

      Calling for genocide and criticism are very different things.

    • @CaliDraco
      @CaliDraco Před 6 měsíci

      Jews are criticized every step of the way

    • @catdooley4616
      @catdooley4616 Před 6 měsíci

      @@dollarstorebarrontrump1141 Israel has been saying the same thing about Palestinians for years, if you can go and watch or read some news from Israel you will find examples and more information there, then you will see in the USA news.

    • @QualityInfinite
      @QualityInfinite Před 6 měsíci +3

      @@dollarstorebarrontrump1141 Tell me what is an acceptable criticism of Israel. According to Israel - nothing.

    • @sharpe52312
      @sharpe52312 Před 6 měsíci

      People get pretty upset if you criticize black people, but I do not think they control anything.

  • @jasonhilts2661
    @jasonhilts2661 Před 6 měsíci +2

    Was it just me or did it sound like both president's were actually implying "no, this is not harassment because it's just words not actual action", and the congresswoman who is interpreting these non-answer answers is actually interpreting the answer wrong. They both said it's only harassment when it becomes conduct, that means they're saying calling for the genocide of jews is not harassment. HOW ARE THESE PEOPLE IN CHARGE OF ANYTHING BUT THE CELL BLOCK THEY LIVE IN?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

  • @Philosophyrules77
    @Philosophyrules77 Před 3 měsíci +1

    Man I am as liberal as the day is long and this is just disgusting. This is the clearest question to answer. It shouldn’t even be a question. This makes liberals look bad. This is unacceptable.

  • @bonnenaturel6688
    @bonnenaturel6688 Před 6 měsíci +7

    This congresswoman I out of order. Why is she not asking about Gazan's genocide? it is only a no no when it is against jews, no one else counts. This is the US, not Israel!

    • @AgeofCraccadilliaassent
      @AgeofCraccadilliaassent Před 6 měsíci +2

      But usfg is a zog

    • @dutube99
      @dutube99 Před 6 měsíci +2

      because it's not genocide. If they wanted to do that, they could have long ago. You are very mixed up.

    • @sirrevenant1
      @sirrevenant1 Před 6 měsíci

      You’re deflecting. These people were allowing students in their colleges to freely shout genocide to Jews. Justice is being served.

    • @bonnenaturel6688
      @bonnenaturel6688 Před 6 měsíci

      they have been doing it for 75 years. Where have you been?@@dutube99

  • @BecauseIWannaComment
    @BecauseIWannaComment Před 6 měsíci +3

    Yall are being dense. What constitutes as "harassment" is clearly conduct dependent as is any other potential hate speech. And the fact that you all have time to boohoo and read into semantics when mentioning "genocide" but don't care about the active genocide wiping out the Palestinian population in Gaza is telling

    • @asdg2271
      @asdg2271 Před 6 měsíci

      Harvard educated wokester right here..
      Allow me to quote the late MLK who once said:
      "To the window, to the walls, 'till the sweat drip down my balls"

  • @user-go7zy3fc5f
    @user-go7zy3fc5f Před 23 hodinami +1

    Isn’t it context dependent tho? Americans make some of the most racist jokes and then they just laugh it off.

  • @rastersplatter
    @rastersplatter Před 6 měsíci +1

    Embarrassing non-leadership.

  • @edgarzuluaga4896
    @edgarzuluaga4896 Před 6 měsíci +10

    2 different standards when it comes to these politicians!!!

  • @SWog617
    @SWog617 Před 6 měsíci +6

    Magill has resigned from Penn. When will the others do the same?

    • @roberth9814
      @roberth9814 Před 6 měsíci

      She resigned her seat, she remains a member of the faculty

  • @arshad25
    @arshad25 Před 6 měsíci +2

    Brave ladies and corrupt congresswoman

  • @user-go7zy3fc5f
    @user-go7zy3fc5f Před 23 hodinami +1

    She’s virtue signaling.

  • @htvlogs80
    @htvlogs80 Před 6 měsíci +7

    This is why our school
    Is failing and why students are in debt with loans.

  • @angelacleveland75
    @angelacleveland75 Před 6 měsíci +7

    Is this really the most important discussion to have right now??? Do your damn jobs and legislate!!

  • @csmith1
    @csmith1 Před 6 měsíci +1

    It's disgusting and infuriating watching this.

  • @a.m.5805
    @a.m.5805 Před 6 měsíci +2

    Ms. Stefanik Great.

  • @CollDott
    @CollDott Před 6 měsíci +3

    This is hard to look at😂😂😂😅

  • @melokey6421
    @melokey6421 Před 6 měsíci +5

    She's harassing the presidents trying to get a answer she likes. Does Congress harass people? The simple answer is yes.

    • @dutube99
      @dutube99 Před 6 měsíci +4

      trying to get a straight answer is harassment? you work in the grown-up world?

    • @sirrevenant1
      @sirrevenant1 Před 6 měsíci +1

      This isn’t harassment. It’s a case and she’s questioning the people being tried. Learn the difference and stop making the law look bad.

  • @H-bi6yyy
    @H-bi6yyy Před 6 měsíci +2

    Can someone explain, why is saying “Free Palestine” is considered equal to calling for Jewish genocide?!
    Calling for any geneocide is terrrrible. However, no one cares when it’s against Palestinians for example!

  • @MrWirelesscaller
    @MrWirelesscaller Před 6 měsíci +1

    How about when they teach about the genocide of Whites? I bet they'd run out of teach staff if that was held to any standard.

  • @sandipanaich
    @sandipanaich Před 6 měsíci +6

    In short, they did not answer. Why .... because they knew theirs was a wrong answer.

    • @plaguedeity
      @plaguedeity Před 6 měsíci

      The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating:
      "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
      The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

  • @yminyru
    @yminyru Před 6 měsíci +30

    That Harvard woman is despicable. Fire her now.

  • @jayceejm
    @jayceejm Před 6 měsíci +1

    Frankly I think this line of questioning IS bullying and harassment. So there!

  • @richardthomas1531
    @richardthomas1531 Před 6 měsíci +1

    Just because it is Easy to find Netanyahu and his policies are anti -2 State solution.Doesn't mean your anti semitic..

  • @billf7062
    @billf7062 Před 6 měsíci +23

    Large demonstrations bring out all types of people. Why do people assign blame to the entire crowd for the behaviors of some demonstrators? Attacking an institution for the egregious behavior of individuals is similar to the policy of Israel, which has attacked an entire populace because of the murderous acts of a group of criminals. Justice requires punishment of perpetrators not the innocent.

    • @dollarstorebarrontrump1141
      @dollarstorebarrontrump1141 Před 6 měsíci +1

      Hamas is a massive group, with 40,000 active members, and inactive members in the hundreds of thousands.

    • @johnnydjiurkopff
      @johnnydjiurkopff Před 6 měsíci +6

      Idk, why'd we treat anyone tangentially related to j6 like they were the ones shattering windows?

    • @jondough4682
      @jondough4682 Před 6 měsíci +10

      Does that also go for Trump supporters?

    • @terrainaholic
      @terrainaholic Před 6 měsíci

      70-90% polled in gaza have no problem firing rockets at Israel and they voted Hamas as its governing body. I see you have been listening to the main stream media which has the lowest rating in truthfulness out of the 46 counties who measure the trust the populous has in their own media.

    • @squidy6785
      @squidy6785 Před 6 měsíci

      The Israeli military literally gave the Palestinian populace notice to evacuate. Many Palestinians did not want to leave. Then, when they tried to leave, Hamas trapped them in Palestine (essentially creating human shields).
      Hamas have purposely built many of their headquarters underneath hospitals and schools.
      For you to say Israel has "attacked an entire populace", is an egregious lie.

  • @rodgerwoods4971
    @rodgerwoods4971 Před 6 měsíci +8

    And why are we actually worried about this??

  • @georgewetzel4380
    @georgewetzel4380 Před 6 měsíci +1

    How is antisemitism an issue for congress, but genocide is not.

  • @Engineersoldinterstingstuff
    @Engineersoldinterstingstuff Před 5 měsíci +1

    The most astonishing is how stupid a principal att a top university can be. Apparantly Harvard is not hiring based on competence anymore, the downspiral from this will be very difficult to manage.

  • @Semper_Iratus
    @Semper_Iratus Před 6 měsíci +6

    Shame! Shame! Shame!

  • @corneliusrupert7354
    @corneliusrupert7354 Před 6 měsíci +64

    Never have I've ever seen a group of people in America being so protected.

    • @Jordanbobba
      @Jordanbobba Před 6 měsíci

      Antisemitic statement

    • @user-pi1nw3is2m
      @user-pi1nw3is2m Před 6 měsíci +4

      are you saying that wanting to commit genocide is ok?

    • @richardthomas1531
      @richardthomas1531 Před 6 měsíci +1

      Never seen a dispute last this many decades.

    • @H-bi6yyy
      @H-bi6yyy Před 6 měsíci +6

      Is genocide ok against Palestinians?

    • @hithere4719
      @hithere4719 Před 6 měsíci

      @@user-pi1nw3is2mYes. It absolutely is. If you want to live somewhere without caselaw like Brandenburg v Ohio, then leave America 👍🏻

  • @GeorgeKafantaris
    @GeorgeKafantaris Před 6 měsíci +2

    “[D]oes calling for the genocide of Jews on your campus constitute harassment, yes or no?
    The question is a trap, of course, and for several reasons. The first and most important reason is that there’s no evidence anyone since 7 October, or even in recent history, has called for the genocide of Jews on any American campus, public or private. Stefanik’s question implies that such calls are commonplace, but she offered no proof.
    The second reason this is a trap is that the question can’t be answered with just ‘yes’ or ‘no’’. Public universities, as state actors, are bound by the first amendment, as are private universities which receive federal funding. And the vast majority of private universities guarantee freedom of speech and academic freedom as part of their core mission. The American university is, by tradition and design, precisely where abhorrent ideas can be uttered. So, if someone had called for the genocide of Jews, which they haven’t, that would be extremely disturbing but still protected speech.” - The Guardian

    • @DOC2089
      @DOC2089 Před 6 měsíci

      I had just said in another comment that this isn’t about answering yes or no. The question was loaded and they knew it, that’s why one had smirked. It was a trap. They were protecting free speech and possibly preventing future civil lawsuits. Dr. Gay’s dissertation was in political science lol her “evasive” answer was appropriate considering the question was an attack on free speech.

  • @spdrcrsoncho312
    @spdrcrsoncho312 Před 6 měsíci +1

    this title should said, presidents inquired under oath on Antisemitism on campuses

  • @domingomelchor4902
    @domingomelchor4902 Před 6 měsíci +3

    Where’d they get their doctorates? I’ve learned in grade school how to answer yes or no questions: to answer yes or no, and nothing else, unless there is a follow-up, “why?”

    • @plaguedeity
      @plaguedeity Před 6 měsíci

      The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating:
      "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
      The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

    • @vylbird8014
      @vylbird8014 Před 5 měsíci

      Doesn't work in politics though. Too easy for yes-or-no questions to be carefully crafted to force the subject into a situation where they can't answer without appearing as a monster. The classic example is "Have you stopped beating your wife, yes or no?"
      This is a rather more subtle question, but it's the same idea. The factually correct answer is "Sometimes..." followed by a cumbersome explanation of how the university harassment policy is reconciled with their free speech policy and exactly where the line is drawn before a student's expressed views become a disciplinary matter. The interviewer here took efforts to deliberately rule out this complex an answer though, forcing the yes-or-no response. So the subject was left with no choice but to say either 'yes' which would be a lie, or 'no' which makes her look like a monster.
      This is what happens when you bring academics to a political arena. They just don't have the training or experience for it - they believe that honesty is always the best policy, and the aim of a discussion is to get to the truth. But in politics, the aim of the discussion is to make your side look good in the eyes of the watching voters and the other side look like idiots or criminals. The academic gets thoroughly clobbered.

  • @MrBillagordon
    @MrBillagordon Před 6 měsíci +16

    There would be no consequences if money $$$ wasn't involved either. Donations to the University withheld. If there was anti-arab speech being condoned, or allowed, would there be the same consequences for these administrators? Anti-Immigrant? No consequences. Anti-LGBTQ? No consequences. They'd still have their jobs. When is comes to money, that's where a big line is drawn.

    • @snowowl1343
      @snowowl1343 Před 6 měsíci

      There would be no inquisition. 99% of the students were supporting the Palestinian population, NOT Hamas. This is not anti-semitism, it's pro human rights. Not against any religion or ethnicity.

    • @neilkurzman4907
      @neilkurzman4907 Před 6 měsíci

      No, they still have their jobs if they refuse to talk to Congress. Which is what’s going to happen in the future.

    • @sirrevenant1
      @sirrevenant1 Před 6 měsíci

      Where do you get this from? Back up your “facts”.

    • @trentbateman
      @trentbateman Před 6 měsíci +1

      The thing is they don’t allow anti lgabataq rhetoric on their campuses and would go apeshizz if there was coordinated harassment. The Presidents name is Gay for Crissakes 😂

    • @sirrevenant1
      @sirrevenant1 Před 6 měsíci

      @@trentbateman that’s what I was thinking 🤣😭

  • @Becccab2023
    @Becccab2023 Před 6 měsíci +1

    Does this not have to do with the first amendment-the right to free speech? Are they not just saying that they cannot take action against verbal hate speech? In the same way the KKK can spew racist garbage? I’m truly trying to understand the difference. I agree that demanding genocide sounds threatening, but if they are not taking action, is that not their right to speak freely? I think that is why these woman answered in the way they did. If they condemned free speech they’d be dealing with a different issue. If we change the first amendment to say that we have the right to free speech, except when speaking out against other humans, they could have safely answered that the schools would take action. No?

  • @user-io3xw4hh3l
    @user-io3xw4hh3l Před 6 měsíci

    This is Crazy they should all be sacked. Why do they defend it??

  • @prosay
    @prosay Před 6 měsíci +4

    So these three women must swear an allegiance to Israel to keep their jobs.

    • @zesolodar
      @zesolodar Před 6 měsíci +1

      who said that? having an allegiance to Israel and calling for a genocide of a certain group of people are not remotely the same thing or related

    • @ahegazy9434
      @ahegazy9434 Před 6 měsíci

      Yes. That's literally how it works.

    • @DOC2089
      @DOC2089 Před 6 měsíci

      lol yup that’s exactly what that means.

  • @Jadensurabhi
    @Jadensurabhi Před 6 měsíci +15

    Yes or No questions, they failed to answer 😡

    • @bfattori01
      @bfattori01 Před 6 měsíci +5

      Yes or no questions are "gotcha" questions that do not provide enough information. They are great for sound bites on Fox News

    • @dollarstorebarrontrump1141
      @dollarstorebarrontrump1141 Před 6 měsíci +7

      @@bfattori01She said “Do you condemn people calling for genocide of Jews”. That is a very simple question.

    • @squidy6785
      @squidy6785 Před 6 měsíci +5

      @@bfattori01 If you have to avoid answering the question, you know you are in the wrong.
      They answered saying it, "depends on the context". The congresswoman asked, "What context?", and they still wouldn't give her a clear answer. Asking, "What context?", is not a yes or no question.
      The very fact that you think yes or no questions are "gotcha" questions, points to an underlying sense of guilt.
      As far as Fox News goes, they provided a far better sound bite for Fox News, by avoiding answering yes or no.

    • @sirrevenant1
      @sirrevenant1 Před 6 měsíci +2

      If they didn’t do anything wrong and hate speech in this context wasn’t allowed they could’ve just said yes, but them making excuses and not saying yes shows enough.

    • @plaguedeity
      @plaguedeity Před 6 měsíci

      The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating:
      "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
      The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

  • @lh-qs4ig
    @lh-qs4ig Před 6 měsíci +1

    What if Miss Gay was asked the same question “ does calling for the genocide of Blacks…”what would her statement be? These cows need to be sacked. Utterly disgraceful.

  • @SamvadSoul
    @SamvadSoul Před 6 měsíci +1

    Calling colored by Ni.. is Ok in context

  • @gallegos5464
    @gallegos5464 Před 6 měsíci +15

    It's disgusting that Israel wants to commit genocide and play the perpetual victim at the same time.

    • @pleurmanga
      @pleurmanga Před 6 měsíci +2

      Israel is not wanting to commiting genocide. It is comitting genocide! And congress has not issue with that . In fact , it is assisting and is complicit to ship bombs and giving diplomatic cover at U.N.

    • @BigJimbo106
      @BigJimbo106 Před 6 měsíci +2

      It’s the YT supremacist playbook 😊

    • @anthonydavid5121
      @anthonydavid5121 Před 6 měsíci +3

      I laugh every time of you whack-a-doodles use Gaza and genocide in the same breath. You are forever a constant source of entertainment. There is not genocide happening in Gaza. 17K is collateral but dear, you can put that on Hamas even if that low number is true.

    • @pleurmanga
      @pleurmanga Před 6 měsíci +1

      Only evil people laugh at death of innocents. @@anthonydavid5121

    • @sirrevenant1
      @sirrevenant1 Před 6 měsíci

      I’d like to see where you get this from. It was self defense against the agitator, Hamas. The people playing victims are Hamas who’s using people from Gaza as human meat shields and saying Israel is evil.

  • @alexjames6747
    @alexjames6747 Před 6 měsíci

    I want know what charges will be laid?

  • @dogmaticent
    @dogmaticent Před 6 měsíci

    I lost it when I see she is visibly laughing SMFH lol

  • @cindipossidento5688
    @cindipossidento5688 Před 6 měsíci +7

    A bully will not answer that question.
    She will not answer …… this is why I tell all parents that have collage age students, don’t waste your money, instead send them to a trade school.
    They have the ability to make a bloody fortune, learning plumbing,
    electrical, construction.

  • @adavikolanupani1
    @adavikolanupani1 Před 6 měsíci +9

    Upenn and harvard should be ashamed

  • @tangentquo7996
    @tangentquo7996 Před 4 měsíci

    they dont know what genocide is...and violence has likely been threatened aginst those giving testimony

  • @carolmartin3028
    @carolmartin3028 Před 6 měsíci

    All need to resign i dont get it was a lawyer responsible for these canned responses?

  • @thomaslawnandlandscape
    @thomaslawnandlandscape Před 6 měsíci +4

    For everyone who thinks she is wrong for what she is saying, just think about this. if you do not have these conversations, how are you going to teach someone the wrongs of their thinking? I think a school is a better place to have these conversations than anywhere else.

    • @jlp2011
      @jlp2011 Před 6 měsíci +2

      Who is “she” here? All 3 ppl in this vid are women. Harvard has anti-bullying rules, does it not? It seems very odd to not apply them to calls for genocide . There really isnt any deep thinking required in this case. Censure the person (not censor), from that code of conduct, will teach them just fine. Not a “conversation”. Or “debate”. The only real question here is whether or not someone really did call for genocide. Otherwise your code of conduct’s best use is in your fireplace.

    • @Retiredstatecop
      @Retiredstatecop Před 6 měsíci

      It should be, but at these indoctrination centers it is expected that students accept what they're told. That is NOT education.

    • @Sad_bumper_sticker.
      @Sad_bumper_sticker. Před 6 měsíci

      A „debate” on whether a Genocide of ANY minority or nation constitutes a breech free speech and a such a „to genocide a minority or not debate” would hold zero pedagogical or educational value.

    • @bearmarco1944
      @bearmarco1944 Před 5 měsíci

      Doing so effectively means that you put the right of Jews to exist up for debate. The next issue is that Jews also are students on the campus and will be significantly affected by people calling for their collective deaths. Also, when they say this sort of thing, there is a likelihood of them convincing someone and letting the ideas spread.

  • @CaptTeamwork
    @CaptTeamwork Před 6 měsíci +9

    2:10 watch dude behind her follow along like reading from a script. These people have every answer lined up before they even know the question. They never have any intention of answering questions honestly.

    • @AgeofCraccadilliaassent
      @AgeofCraccadilliaassent Před 6 měsíci

      Of course it's done in court everyday

    • @plaguedeity
      @plaguedeity Před 6 měsíci

      The First Amendment allows such speech. The Supreme Court ruled on this. In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was a KKK leader who called for violence against blacks and Jews. He was arrested and convicted under Ohio laws. The Supreme Court intervened and overturned his conviction, stating:
      "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
      The above states the "context" where such speech is allowed. So if this type of speech is allowed on public property, why does everyone have their panties in a wad if the same type speech is allowed on private university property??

  • @erikals
    @erikals Před 6 měsíci

    WTF happened to the world.

  • @malcolmsteele1992
    @malcolmsteele1992 Před 6 měsíci +3

    To those who are outraged by the Presidents answer to the question, you have to remember a university can not punish someone for for exercising their free speech. This means some can scream “genocide for Jews” all they want but unless they take ACTION upon those words then they can get disciplined.
    In academia this is a very fine line especially in today’s decisive culture.

  • @ROMANABSOLUT
    @ROMANABSOLUT Před 6 měsíci +1

    Imagine the world after 2030 !

  • @dannyb3663
    @dannyb3663 Před 5 měsíci +1

    The fact she gives them second and third chances, forewarning them that their answers could be taken very negatively, and they STILL give the answer 'only if the genocide is actioned' is really, really, really bad. This is all that matters. Forget all the stuff they said about how much they abhore antisemitism. If their definition of antisemitism is 'actual genocide only, and nothing else' then all their previous words mean nothing. I mean, the congresswoman even summarizes their answers as 'yes' for them, but then they disagree.

  • @SicilianStrega13
    @SicilianStrega13 Před 6 měsíci +4

    I hate elise… she backed and still backs Trump and she has the audacity to pretend that she’s on the right side of bullying

  • @cnuque76
    @cnuque76 Před 6 měsíci +3

    There's an inconvenient truth in this country that hate speech is protected speech. These schools while private also accept federal money in the form of student accepting federal grants. Their school's code of conduct can not supersede the constitution

    • @cnuque76
      @cnuque76 Před 6 měsíci

      Having said that, they could've explained themselves with more empathy and less disdain.

    • @Sad_bumper_sticker.
      @Sad_bumper_sticker. Před 6 měsíci

      No, you are uninformed. Inciting violence against ANY minority breeches over the right of free speech.

    • @cnuque76
      @cnuque76 Před 6 měsíci +1

      @@Sad_bumper_sticker. From what I gather that prior to this questioning the speech that was in question was "From the river to the sea"? In Brandenburg vs. Ohio they're differentiating advocacy vs incitement. That phrase was interpreted by different groups over the years and even Israelis have used a slightly different version of it. But I agree, if the actual statement is "Kill all Jews" that's an incitement.

    • @PaladinAwaits
      @PaladinAwaits Před 6 měsíci

      @@cnuque76 The Brandenburg v. Ohio primary holding:
      "A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
      The key is inciting or producing "imminent lawless action".

  • @arunkumarrajamani
    @arunkumarrajamani Před 6 měsíci

    They all thought its an intellectual question....so much lack of moral compass....all got schooled!

    • @PaladinAwaits
      @PaladinAwaits Před 6 měsíci

      Wrong. You need to get schooled regarding the First Amendment which protects such hate speech, and why it is somehow wrong to afford these private universities with the same type of free speech protections.

  • @Brian_Collins
    @Brian_Collins Před 6 měsíci

    The road to hell is paved by Ivy League professors

  • @kevingriener7441
    @kevingriener7441 Před 6 měsíci +3

    Insufficient Islamophobia =/= antisemitism

    • @foipa1
      @foipa1 Před 6 měsíci

      Lol

    • @kevingriener7441
      @kevingriener7441 Před 6 měsíci

      It's a equal sign with a slash through it. Doesn't take the Rosetta stone.

    • @kevingriener7441
      @kevingriener7441 Před 6 měsíci

      @celticpride9311 hey, did you google it? Maybe people who don't know how to communicate online shouldn't try.

  • @saladbreath607
    @saladbreath607 Před 6 měsíci +30

    Jews aren't the only Semites. There are at least 30 Semitic tribes in the region, including Palestinians, so supporting Palestinian causes while denouncing Israel's (a country, NOT a tribe) policies is not "antisemitism", it's anti-Zionism. Difference.

    • @dutube99
      @dutube99 Před 6 měsíci

      what cause are they supporting?

    • @TurdFerguson43
      @TurdFerguson43 Před 6 měsíci

      The question was “is it considered harassment to call for the genocide of Jews”. The question was not “are the Jews the only semites”.
      Also Palestinians are genetically non-existent. They are indistinguishable from Arabs because they are Arabs.

  • @rynolascavio3381
    @rynolascavio3381 Před 6 měsíci

    I keep waiting for her to get up and do the Humpty Dance

  • @g.c.5065
    @g.c.5065 Před 21 dnem

    I don't understand why people even go to these hearings to get humiliated like that. What's there to gain? Is it illegal to not go?

  • @alikoubrujup_Italia
    @alikoubrujup_Italia Před 6 měsíci +4

    Hidden Context:
    Elise Stefanik : I emphasize on PREVENTIVE ACTION
    Three Presidents: We emphasize on CORRECTIVE ACTION.
    Explanation:
    Corrective action prevents RECURRANCE , while preventive action prevents OCCURANCE. Corrective action is carried out after a nonconformity/INCIDENT has already occurred, whereas preventive action is planned with the goal of preventing a nonconformity/INCIDENT in its entirety.
    In Oct 7 incident - the corrective ( too late) is taken and preventive actions will follow suit.
    Lesson learnt : Elise Stepanik was correct to emphasize PREVENTIVE measures.

  • @neilkurzman4907
    @neilkurzman4907 Před 6 měsíci +11

    Well, it appears Congress decided that they needed a show for their constituents. Embarrassing the heads of several universities. Losing at least one her job. So now in the future, none of them will come to testify and if they do, they’re not going to answer any questions. That’s what happens when you stop being a government and you become a television show.

    • @425oldsmar
      @425oldsmar Před 6 měsíci +5

      There answers were disgusting on a simple question

    • @TurdFerguson43
      @TurdFerguson43 Před 6 měsíci +4

      They will come and testify. Because Congress will subpoena them to testify. And if you don’t listen to that, you get prosecuted. It is against the law to ignore a congressional subpoena. “Asking” them to testify id the polite way of ordering them under the implication “we will be nice but this is one step before we send the congressional sergeant at arms to drag you to Congress”.

    • @rocketmans3603
      @rocketmans3603 Před 6 měsíci

      The Alphabet agencies discovered in 1976, don't let them know about operation MK Ultra and Operation Mockingbird (Church hearings). So now they don't say anything. These College Presidents hadn't taken the training.

    • @neilkurzman4907
      @neilkurzman4907 Před 6 měsíci +2

      @@425oldsmar
      No, they were not simple answers. Because they were complicated questions. Where does hate speech and what is protected? Speech are pretty close sometimes.
      So you would need the exact phrasing to make it determination. And you may need to consult a lawyer. None of that was available in the answer. My question now yes or no environment

    • @CT-pi2gl
      @CT-pi2gl Před 6 měsíci +1

      Basically all Congressional hearings are for that purpose. The govt has been a television show for a long time.

  • @denysdmytrenko3817
    @denysdmytrenko3817 Před 5 měsíci

    Probably call for genocide doesn't violate law on free speech, but there is a code of conduct at universities and rectors have to know what's written there

  • @heliosabbot838
    @heliosabbot838 Před 6 měsíci +5

    We will never put an end to anti-semitism without putting an end to antiwhitism. Calling for the complete eradication of vanilla people is ubiquitous. It's only problematic when it harms non-vanilla groups.

    • @keralytekid
      @keralytekid Před 6 měsíci

      I'm confused. Who is calling for eradication?

    • @java4653
      @java4653 Před 6 měsíci

      LOL. Found the secret racist.

    • @stephenbergeron6268
      @stephenbergeron6268 Před 6 měsíci

      1) Who hurt you, and are you talking to anybody about it?
      2) How long have you been off your meds?
      3) Are you in a safe location, do you know where you are, does EMS need to be called? Your state has local resources you can find out aboit by dialing 211 if you need assistance.
      4) You can dial the national suicide hotline at 998.
      5) You may need to award any dependent(s) temporarily to the state depending on how long (and it will be long, judging by you) you may stay in state-run care.
      6) Are their any fire arms, drugs (prescription or otherwise), or any other weapons/sharp objects near you? Please secure them, for your own safety.
      7) After safely receiving treatment, google your states education programs and finish getting your GED.
      8) Attend one of the online seminars by the Anti-Defamation League to learn more about racism, xenophobia, and other forms of discrimination.
      9) Success! You're no longer the beleagured, psychotic, conspiratorial danger to society that you once were. Now you are stable and successful where your life was once a shambled mess. I am so proud of you! :)

    • @trentbateman
      @trentbateman Před 6 měsíci

      Js only started caring when they came for them. Elon is right they are duplicitous