Is Ivy League university “leadership” morally bankrupt? Bill Ackman says, Congressional hearing removes all doubt

I saw the writing on the wall over a decade ago — which is one reason I relocated to Israeli academia.

https://twitter.com/BillAckman/status/1732179418787783089

The presidents of @Harvard, @MIT, and@Penn were all asked the following question under oath at today’s congressional hearing on antisemitism:

Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate [your university’s] code of conduct or rules regarding bullying or harassment?

The answers they gave reflect the profound moral bankruptcy of Presidents Gay, Magill and Kornbluth. Representative @EliseStefanik was so shocked with the answers that she asked each of them the same question over and over again, and they gave the same answers over and over again.

In short, they said: It ‘depends on the context’ and ‘whether the speech turns into conduct,’ that is, actually killing Jews.

This could be the most extraordinary testimony ever elicited in the Congress, certainly on the topic of genocide, which to remind us all is:

“the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group”

The presidents’ answers reflect the profound educational, moral and ethical failures that pervade certain of our elite educational institutions due in large part to their failed leadership.

Don’t take my word for it. You must watch the following three minutes. By the end, you will be where I am.

They must all resign in disgrace.

If a CEO of one of our companies gave a similar answer, he or she would be toast within the hour.

Why has antisemitism exploded on campus and around the world?

Because of leaders like Presidents Gay, Magill and Kornbluth who believe genocide depends on the context.

To think that these are the leaders of Ivy League institutions that are charged with the responsibility to educate our best and brightest.

On the bright side, our congressional leaders deserve accolades for showing tremendous leadership and moral clarity in their statements, by the questions they asked, and the respectfulness with which they conducted the hearing. It was a masterclass of how our government and democracy should operate.

If you have time, please watch the entire hearing. Throughout the hearing, the three behaved like hostile witnesses, exhibiting a profound disdain for the Congress with their smiles and smirks, and their outright refusal to answer basic questions with a yes or no answer.

The presidents of @Harvard, @MIT, and @Penn were all asked the following question under oath at today’s congressional hearing on antisemitism:

Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate [your university’s] code of conduct or rules regarding bullying or harassment?

The… pic.twitter.com/eVlPCHMcVZ

— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) December 5, 2023

ADDENDUM: what things look like at Cornholio U. Columbia U. : “antisemitism is the new normal“. The world is standing on its head when moderate Arab countries are (away from the media) more reasonable to Israel than college students whose moral narcissism is only exceeded by their ignorance.

Moving outward from Israelis and Palestinians to the wider Middle East, Hamas has demonstrated that its vision of theocratic fascism and Islamic (non) governance has little support, especially among the most progressive Arab countries. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain have all condemned Hamas, officially or unofficially, and kept contacts open with Israel. All are fundamentally threatened by Iran and wish to see Hamas destroyed. The “strong horse” theory of Middle Eastern affairs still prevails, and the signals from these countries have been clear. While lip service has been given to Palestinian civilian casualties, there is no meaningful support from the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Arab League, or other bodies, much less challenges to the Abraham Accords.

ADDENDUM 2: Powerline comments:

The [university] presidents said that calling for genocide could be bullying or harassment, depending on the context. The required context was never made clear. There was a suggestion that a call for genocide would be bullying if directed toward a particular student or group of students, but given the universality implied by genocide, application to a particular individual might seem superfluous.

The presidents also said that it would be bullying or harassment if it turned into conduct. Like actually committing genocide? Stefanik asked. I have no idea what the presidents meant by this. Attempted murder? They didn’t say.

The presidents’ effort here was obviously to preserve their faux role as guardians of free speech–it’s OK if someone just says, in the abstract, that all Jews should be killed–while acknowledging that problems could ensue, like when actual Jewish MIT students had to seek refuge from a hostile mob in the library.

What is striking to me is how unintelligently these three academics answered Stefanik’s questions. There are actually some interesting issues here, which a smart and principled administrator could have spoken about in a compelling way. But these academic hacks had nothing insightful to say, and were just trying to get out of the hearing as fast as they could, smirking all the while. I would only add that a Harvard student who wrote that all blacks should be murdered–say, in a conservative student paper, if Harvard had one–would not have a future at that institution. There would be no discussion of “context.”

If there are still people who think we should defer to the views of academics because they are smarter than we are, this short video segment should help to disabuse them of that idea.

And Victor Davis Hanson speaks of “Weimar America”.