Support for the Palestinians correlates strongly with youth:
The shift is largely driven by respondents under 35 years old, who overwhelmingly said they disapprove of Israel’s response to the Oct. 7 Hamas attack (66 percent), have greater sympathy for Palestinians in the conflict than Israelis (52 percent) and believe the U.S. is too supportive of Israel (50 percent). Older voters, especially those over 65, are far more likely to hold the opposite positions and be more supportive of Israel, as are Republican voters.
Given that students are in the very youngest part of that youngest cohort, it’s a near-certainty that the majority of college students would share the views of the under 35 crowd described above.
Sympathy has not saved many lives. Your poll asked that question. A super majority blames Hamas. Only 21% support agitation. Considering the kids are about 18 to 22 that is not much angst among 79%. Let’s not tar them as the press suggests.
All serious and public calls to genocide are violations.
Satirical calls to genocide are not.
Private conversation calls to genocide are not.
Artistic or comedic calls to genocide are in a grey zone.
Context, context, context.
So what? Saying one should lose weight might also offend. Or “you look good for your age”. Perceptions of rudeness are not grounds to suppress free speech.
The average person. A proper code of conduct should also protect the rights and sensibilities of the majority. There should be a balance between the desires of the majority and those of the many minorities. The religious right might feel marginalized on college campuses but that shouldn’t mean they can ban the use of the term “abortion” from public discourse.
The demonstrations on campuses were meant to be public calls for an end to Israel by the majority of people who took part. Let’s stop kidding ourselves that other contexts are the subject.
What a cartoon said in the school newspaper is not the topic.
Not at all. It’s an important distinction. Whether something is a call to genocide is a matter of context. Whether something that is a call to genocide is a violation of the code of conduct is not.
True. And if your institution’s policy is, “we will never suppress free speech,” then that would be relevant. But no college really operates that way, and there’s plenty of speech that cannot be criminalized that would get you kicked off campus. The government can’t prohibit you from trying to set up an unofficial Natzi club and arguing that the Jews killed Jesus and should be exterminated…but your college can stop you from saying those things on campus.
That’s certainly one position you could take. But it’s not the only position. If the majority is prejudiced or biased or dismissive or ignorant of the harm that can be caused to a disfavored and discriminated-against minority, you might decide that a proper code of conduct protects their rights and sensibilities as well. That one valid role of a college is to teach the students that you shouldn’t be hateful and hurtful towards certain marginalized groups, even if the majority doesn’t care about - or even supports - hating or hurting them.
The stats say a majority of white students sided with Israel. Latinos less so. African Americans good bit less so. With African American enrollment dropping that leaves a lot of white students that blamed Hamas. Or did not care either way.
Only some 11% of students blame it on Israel.
More than half, 52%, of the college students who say they’re aware of the Oct. 7 attack blame it on Hamas. Another 11% blame it on Israel, 12% blame it on other Middle Eastern governments and another 25% blame it on someone else.
Maybe, maybe not. Auburn University tried block Richard Spencer, I believe a white nationalist, from speaking on campus. A federal judge rejected Auburn’s argument, and said that Auburn did not have the excuse to limit Mr. Spencer’s first amendment rights.
I wonder if Havard’s Gay will keep her job after the plagiarism revelations.
Check out the side-by-side comparisons from four of her papers:
From Palmquist and Voss:
“…the average turnout rate seems to decrease linearly as African Americans become a larger proportion of the population. This is one sign that the data contain little aggregation bias. If racial turnout rates changed depending upon a precinct’s racial mix, which is one description of bias, a linear form would be unlikely in a simple scatter plot (resulting only when changes in one race’s turnout rate somehow compensated for changes in the other’s across the graph).”
From Gay:
“…the average turnout rate seems to increase linearly as African Americans become a larger proportion of the population. This is one sign that the data contain little aggregation bias. If racial turnout rates changed depending upon a precinct’s racial mix, which is one way to think about bias, a linear form would be unlikely in a simple scatter plot. A linear form would only result if the changes in one race’s turnout were compensated by changes in the turnout of the other race across the graph.”
Then the Harvard President’s response was acceptable to you? The soundbite exchange got most of the press coverage. The full answers did not get widely reported.
AP reported answer: “At issue was a line of questioning that asked whether calling for the genocide of Jews would violate the universities’ code of conduct. At the hearing, Gay said it depended on the context, adding that when “speech crosses into conduct, that violates our policies.””
The slightly longer actual answer given (minute 17): “The rules around bullying and harassment are quite specific, and if the context in which that language is used amounts to bullying and harassment, then we take action against it.”
Or when asked again (minute 26): “Antisemitic rhetoric when it crosses into conduct and amounts to bullying and harassment, intimidation, that amounts to actionable conduct and we do take action.”
Watch the hearing at minutes 17 and 27:
at minute 17 in this video:
Rep. Stefanik: “Dr. Gay, does calling for the geocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules on bullying and harassment?”
Dr. Gay: “The rules around bullying and harassment are quite specific, and if the context in which that language is used amounts to bullying and harassment, then we take action against it.”
Rep. Stefanik: “Can you say yes to that question of does calling for the geocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules on bullying and harassment?”
Dr. Gay: “Calling for the geocide of Jews is anti-semitic.”
Rep. Stefanik (interupting): “So yes.”
Dr. Gay: “and that is anti-semitic speech and as I’ve said”
Rep. Stefanik (interupting): “And it’s a yes.”
Dr. Gay: “and when speech crosses into conduct”
Rep. Stefanik (interupting): “And it’s a yes. I’ve asked for.”
Dr. Gay: “we take action.”
Rep. Stefanik: “So is that a yes? Is that a yes? The witness hasn’t answered.”
and continuing at minute 27:
Rep. Stefanik: “Dr. Gay, at Harvard does calling for the geocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules on bullying and harassment? Yes or no?”
Dr. Gay: “It can be depending on the context.”
Rep. Stefanik: “What’s the context?”
Dr. Gay: “Targeted at an individual.”
Rep. Stefanik: “It’s targeted at Jewish students. Jewish individuals. Do you understand your testimony is dehumanizing them? Do you understand that dehumanization is part of antisemitism? I will ask you one more time. Does calling for the geocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules on bullying and harassment? Yes or no?”
Dr. Gay: “Antisemitic rhetoric”
Rep. Stefanik (interupting): “And is it antisemitic rhetoric?”
Dr. Gay: “Antisemitic rhetoric when it crosses into conduct and amounts to bullying and harassment, intimidation, that amounts to actionable conduct and we do take action.”
Rep. Stefanik: “So the answer is yes, calling for the geocide of Jews violates the code of conduct. Correct?”
Dr. Gay: “Again, it depends on the context.”
Rep. Stefanik: “It does not depend on the context. The answer is yes, and this is why you should resign. These are unacceptable answers across the board.”
Neat debate trick. Demand a yes or no answer to a question that can’t be answered always yes or always no. Interupt the answer to try to confuse things.
The correct answer…" We have seen protests we can not allow any longer because of the conduct of some of the protesters towards the Jewish students and their security concerns. Along with a dialog in the classroom that is not conducive to learning discussing genocide or falling away from supporting Israel that would lead to genocide that we are now finding more than questionable to teach. Harvard realizes that the need to support democratic republics is under fire".
Is that impossible to say? What the hell does she think Harvard is there for?
Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules on bullying and harassment? Yes or no?
There have been peaceful protests, and there has been some limited bad behavior that is being looked into. Saying there can be no peaceful protests is not covered in the rules on harassment. It’s not clear the actual protests can be seen as harassment. War is a terrible thing, and people are stressed. Threatening students with expulsion because they attended a protest seems extreme.
Oh, and by the way, you fail the test. The only answers allowed are YES or NO. (Or maybe only YES. I will continue asking you until you say YES or lose your job.)
We can talk around in circles but the goal of Palestinian protests is not peaceful. The goal is not a negotiated two-state solution. The goal is not a democratic republic for the Palestinian public.
None of those have ever been the goal.
Do we allow Russian communist party members to have dozens of students enroll at Harvard and then lead authoritarian marches in Cambridge? Why not? Peaceful marches included?
The answer was not supposed to be to the question. It is obtuse to think the answer was supposed to be yes or no just because the request was yes or no. The intent was to show up a lack of support for a democratic process and a violent wish against Israel and specifically Jews but moreover Westerns.
Harvard is bending over to teach Muslim students regardless of how crappy the indoctrination in Middle Eastern nations are. Those indoctrinations are a huge problem. Again do Russian students feel they should march through Cambridge with Russian flags so we learn their cause?
I don’t know what the goal of the protests is. Do you have links supporting your view that the protests are somehow calling for genocide? Some of the chants get interpreted differently.
War is not peaceful. The October 7 attack’s goal may have been to stop the Israel and Saudi Arabia agreement. Sometimes war is needed, but protests about war can be peaceful. Many people want peace.
Stefanik demanded a YES answer many times. Not really a request. More of a shouted demand.
Still obtuse in that university presidents do not dance to yes or no answers. The presidents were free to answer as they wished. And did.
Wanting peace is not what we have. If not war today war tomorrow. There have been no moves towards a two-state solution by the Arabs. There have been outside of Jordan no moves towards founding democratic republics. We owe them nothing.
You just requested a link. I will absolutely not give you one. If you want to see a link use Google.
The problem is the indoctrination. Whether it is Russia or most Arab nations.
Honestly, no one here should ask for a link at all. Do some research foryourselves on the topic if you want information. Why ask someone else? If the other person is wrong present on the topic. Until then no one should have to prove honest statements.
I only asked for links so you could convince me. If you don’t want to provide them, that is fine. I’ve looked and haven’t found any examples of college students calling for genocide. I can easily find links, but you might have better sources. The links I found do not call for genocide. Many call for an end to the bloodshed. There are some chants that get interpreted differently. Wishing you all the best in these difficult times. Many people are suffering. War is hell. I am wishing for peace.
=== links ===
This CBS video reported that calls were to “end Israel’s occupation in Palestinian territories” and “to end the killing on all sides”. It concluded with “a vast majority of the people here tonight said they do not want to see any more bloodshed.”
Supporters of Israel, Pro-Palestinian demonstrators clash in Cambridge
This ABC video says there were calls for Palestinian statehood.
Supporters of Palestine met by pro-Israel counterprotesters during Mass. rally
This “Middle East Eye” video shows someone chanting “From the River to the Sea”
Cambridge students protest against israeli ambassador
“The Palestinian territories are the two regions of the former British Mandate for Palestine that have been occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War of 1967, namely the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip.”
‘From the river to the sea’: Why these 6 words spark fury and passion over the Israel-Hamas war
“But like so much of the Mideast conflict, what the phrase means depends on who is telling the story — and which audience is hearing it. Many Palestinian activists say it’s a call for peace and equality after 75 years of Israeli statehood and decades-long, open-ended Israeli military rule over millions of Palestinians. Jews hear a clear demand for Israel’s destruction.” https://apnews.com/article/river-sea-israel-gaza-hamas-protests-d7abbd756f481fe50b6fa5c0b907cd49
The first video “Palestine will be free”. Palestine is not an Arabic word. These are Syrian tribesmen. Greater Syria is a proxy war between the US and Russia. The Syrians are holding out because no one is going anywhere either way.
The next two videos no one is calling for a two-state solution. There is no intent of peace.
In the three videos, no students at all are calling for a democratic republic for the Palestinians. That is not an issue for any of the Palestinian students.
You have not proved anything. There are things called background issues that you have not remotely come close to disproving.
If Russian students marched through Cambridge against Germany?
If Chinese students marched through Cambridge against Japan?
Same things. Just having a nice sunny day and some sweet signs does not make it so.
How would I feel if Russian students marched through Cambridge against Ukraine? I don’t know. The details matter. Not happening as far as I know. We have enough problems in the world without making up new ones.
Cambridge students are not calling for genocide. And so that is a made-up problem.
There is war in the world. Several in fact. There might be protests, because that is one way people cope with the stress. You claim knowledge of the goals of Palestinian protests. I don’t think you have a clue. You do seem stressed out. Sorry about that. Many are stressed out in this time of war.
Found something interesting a one-sided story about five days into this war. More than half of Israel’s bombs did not kill anyone.
In 2008, 1,385 Palestinians were killed over 22 days, while in 2014 Israel’s 50-day bombardment killed 2,251 Palestinians, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
In the five days following October 7, Israel dropped over 6,000 bombs on the densely populated territory, more than it did in 50 days in 2014. Gaza’s death toll as a result 20 days into the current conflict is numerous times higher than in the past.
