"When asked whether they would discipline students (or, I suppose, faculty) if they called for the genocide of Jews, each president responded that the answer depends on the context of the utterances."
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/12/fried-free-speech-context/
#harvard #claudinegay #thecrimson #antisemetism #genocide #freespeech #academia #scholarship
@nicholas_saunders There's only one correct answer, when you're asked if you'd condemn calls for the genocide of any people: YES!
No other response!
#RuleOfLaw #Ethics #MoralCompass #Empathy #Compassion #Solidarity #Community #UnitedNations #InternationalLaw #CodeOfConduct #Civilization #Civility #ClaudineGay #Harvard #Antisemitism #Genocide #GenocideConvention
@ArenaCops @nicholas_saunders Wrong.
If people are saying "let's commit a genocide" then sure, but the real world isn't always that cut and dry. Speech is subjective and two people can disagree about whether passionate speech even *is* a call for genocide or not. The context matters, which is why subjective phrases like "nazis don't deserve to live" or "from the river to the sea" shouldn't be punished as such, even if the targets of the speech claim it to be genocidal.
@LouisIngenthron @ArenaCops you're allowed to discuss anything. That's academic freedom.
"When asked whether they would discipline students (or, I suppose, faculty) if they called for the genocide of Jews, each president responded that the answer depends on the context of the utterances."
Prof Fried
That's a first amendment issue. Not academic freedom.
Advocating. Not scholarship.
@nicholas_saunders @ArenaCops It has nothing to do with the first amendment. As a private actor, Harvard is not bound by the restrictions of 1A.
The very quote that you've repeated is a great example of the issue these university presidents were responding to. It leaves out crucial context to push a narrative. If you watch the hearing, you'll hear how the question wasn't posed as described, and was, in fact, a trap question laid by a culture warrior relying on a false premise to try to elicit a sound bite response. In-context, their answers are absolutely correct. Because, as they said on the stand, context matters.
@LouisIngenthron @ArenaCops no, not "...a trap question laid by a culture warrior relying on a false premise,..." at all.
The trap was of her own devising. She had to defend the advocacy and so framed it as a defense of free speech.
The alternative, that this was the view of Harvard itself, would've gone over like a lead balloon.
@LouisIngenthron @ArenaCops
Agreed that "As a private actor, Harvard is not bound by the restrictions of 1A."
Regardless, that's how Prof Fried has framed the issue.
Slippery slope. It's entirely possible to adjudicate whether it's being discussed or advocated.
Harvard has chosen the different route of throwing up their hands and claiming some moral superiority in framing it as a first amendment issue.