Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Education United States

Harvard, MIT and UPenn's Presidents Should 'Resign in Disgrace', Bill Ackman Says (businessinsider.com) 503

An anonymous reader writes: Bill Ackman has called for the resignation of Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania's presidents following their congressional hearing on antisemitism on Tuesday. The billionaire singled out the three college presidents in a post written on X, formerly Twitter, after their testimonies on Capitol Hill. "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," Ackman wrote on X. "They must all resign in disgrace," he added.

The three presidents were repeatedly asked by Rep. Elise Stefanik during the Tuesday congressional hearing if calling for the genocide of Jews violated their universities' rules on bullying and harassment. "If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment," said University of Pennsylvania president Liz Magill. Harvard and MIT presidents Claudine Gay and Sally Kornbluth replied similarly to Stefanik's question. "It can be, depending on the context," Gay replied when asked the same question. "I have heard chants which can be antisemitic depending on the context when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people," Kornbluth said earlier when Stefanik asked if she'd heard chants of "Intifada" on campus. The term is a reference to previous Palestinian uprisings in Gaza.

Ackman wrote in response to the clip: "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," Ackman continued. The hedge fund manager added in a later post that the three institutions would be far better off if they ditched their presidents -- quickly. "The world will be able to judge the relative quality of the governance at Harvard, Penn, and MIT by the comparative speed by which their boards fire their respective presidents," he wrote on X.

More Info: Reactions continue to viral video that led to calls for college presidents to resign
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Harvard, MIT and UPenn's Presidents Should 'Resign in Disgrace', Bill Ackman Says

Comments Filter:
  • by Gideon Fubar ( 833343 ) on Wednesday December 06, 2023 @01:59AM (#64059071) Journal

    It... looks like Ackerman is trying to get a group of people whose job relies on them understanding what a citation is to effectively say that citing an instance of a hate crime is itself a hate crime... and if they don't he's going to accuse them of hate crimes.

    Is that... correct?

    • by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Wednesday December 06, 2023 @02:48AM (#64059125) Homepage

      I think he's implying that they are tolerating, or more actively supporting, a "hostile educational environment" in violation of civil rights laws.

      These universities are all private (including Penn), so they are not strictly bound by the First Amendment, but the traditional US approach to freedom of speech, especially in universities, does allow people to argue stupidly racist ideas without being jailed or expelled. The answers that the university presidents gave are consistent because US courts have consistently said that action-rather-than-speech is the actual threshold for a hostile environment under civil rights laws.

      • by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Wednesday December 06, 2023 @03:00AM (#64059133) Homepage

        ... but conversely, some of the protests have allegedly [foxnews.com] clearly crossed the line from speech into action -- with the MIT administration specifically walking back enforcement of their policies because of student-visa concerns for the students who acted out. Contrast with Columbia University [columbia.edu], which did enforce its policies.

      • by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Wednesday December 06, 2023 @07:18AM (#64059521)

        The answers that the university presidents gave are consistent because US courts have consistently said that action-rather-than-speech is the actual threshold for a hostile environment under civil rights laws.

        Rather hard (and by hard I mean fucking ignorant) for these universities to claim a threshold has not been reached when they are forced to secure pro-Israel teachers behind locked doors in order to protect them from all that speech-not-action.

        Quite frankly, there is another standing question that remains unanswered. IF the entire purpose of university and higher education in general is to prepare the next generation to enter society and the workforce, then why in the FUCK do they ignorantly assume that creating some kind of non-reality bubble on their campus selling indoctrination rather than education, best represents that charter?

        These students are already being blackballed by corporations before they even land their first real job based on the delusional bubbles wrapped around university, which that corporate action represents actual reality. Freedom of speech does NOT come with freedom of consequence, which is exactly what universities are still trying to sell.

        And we wonder why more and more grown-ass adults are not taking even a 22-year old degree-holding graduate seriously.

      • by WDot ( 1286728 )
        I don’t have much of a dog in this particular fight, but I would say that the public/private distinction is increasingly blurred due to federal funding. UPenn may be “private” but I guarantee you that much of their research activity (and perhaps a substantial portion of non-research activity) depends on government funding. This is also the case at many “private” corporations for whom federal grants and contracts are a major source of income, which is not just defense contractor
    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by fatwilbur ( 1098563 )
      Their responses are equivocal in a situation they should not be, and so for most intents and purposes I’d side with Ackerman here and say this moral rot at the top is part of the problem. That said, as we’ve seen before, one side of this altercation is all too willing to use horrific violence and terrorism to achieve their end, so perhaps I don’t blame them for holding their words when they have a campus to go back and work on. Scary stuff - I’ve never witnessed such an open call for
    • by e3m4n ( 947977 )
      Lets put this in perspective. If I were to advocate the genocide if all black people, or the removal of the 23rd amendment to restore slavery of black people, would these same presidents condemn the writings? Why does picking on jews get a pass when no other comparable does? Remember after 9/11 when everyone said we should wipe out all forms of islam? These same schools quickly condemned it as islamaphobia. Its funny how that word still gets used even by Rep Omar in defense of her very antisemitism. Its lik
    • by necro81 ( 917438 ) on Wednesday December 06, 2023 @08:23AM (#64059617) Journal

      Bill Ackman has called for the resignation...

      My first reaction was "Who the hell is Bill Ackman, and why should I care what he thinks?" Then I read the summary a bit further:

      The billionaire...in a post written on X, formerly Twitter,....

      And I really stopped paying attention. I'm still watching what's happening in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. I'm paying attention to what's happening in response here at home. But the opinion of a billionaire hedge fund manager doesn't hold much sway to me, in almost any context, and X is a place for spouting opinions, not changing minds.

  • Call it antisemitism and you are islamophobic. Don't, and you're an antisemite.

    Pick your poison. One thing's for sure, though, you will swallow it.

  • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Wednesday December 06, 2023 @02:43AM (#64059119)

    At least, I don't know if there's a good answer that everyone is willing to live with. Our constitution does protect free speech, even heinous speech. But lots of people only support free speech when it's at least somewhat aligned with their own biases. And, frankly, I work on a campus and it's been pretty obvious the pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinan protestors are basically talking past each other, completely ignoring valid points raised by the other side.

    I will say if I'd been on the committee (this is a thought exercise - no one would ever vote for me), I'd have been tempted to take some of the more hateful slogans and replace the words Jews/Zionists/Israeli with gays/women/immigrants, and asked the presidents if they would support the right for that speech to be freely made on campus. If they answered "yes", then they're at least being consistent.

    • Likewise I have to agree with free speech, it at least lets us know who the idiots are.

      I can understand the plight of both sides here from a theoretical basis too, but there’s a pragmatic reality that needs to be acknowledged. Israel exists, and that’s not going to change. None of the people who are fighting for a return of “Palestinian” land were even around to experience displacement, thus it’s a learned hatred. This would be like indigenous reservation launching terrorist
      • I find your line of argument unconvincing. You are using a "fait accompli" (aka "facts on the ground") to argue that the inertia for change is too high. The trouble with facts on the ground is that they remain unchanged until someone or something changes them. This is how history unfolds, some things are not predictable. Take Israel, it was a complete figment of a few people's imagination until it happened. It could disappear again through another change. The world is a complex system, changes and realignme
        • Where do you live? Has your people lived in that land since the dawn of time?

          Unlikely.

          Are you agitating to give up that land to the people you stole it from?

          When you do, let us know and your same argument about other places can be taken more seriously than a college freshman's dorm debate talking point.

    • by Tom ( 822 ) on Wednesday December 06, 2023 @04:48AM (#64059303) Homepage Journal

      Our constitution does protect free speech, even heinous speech.

      But strangely, the answers given by the presidents were not along the lines of "yes, students on our campus are saying terrible things. As much as we disagree with it, the 1st amendment gives them the right to do so."

    • by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Wednesday December 06, 2023 @06:52AM (#64059477) Journal

      I'd have been tempted to take some of the more hateful slogans and replace the words Jews/Zionists/Israeli with gays/women/immigrants, and asked the presidents if they would support the right for that speech to be freely made on campus. If they answered "yes", then they're at least being consistent

      Exactly. (And you forgot "/blacks" in your substitute list.)

      And you know perfectly well, of course, that their answers wouldn't be the same (if they were being honest, anyway).

      Hateful slogans chanted against favored groups would result in forceful university leadership action and condemnation.

      There is no principle behind the differences at all, other than "these groups are favored, and these are not".

  • Crazy US lawmakers. (Score:5, Informative)

    by laughableideasintech ( 10472820 ) on Wednesday December 06, 2023 @03:47AM (#64059205)
    US House has voted to equate anti-zionism with being anti-semitic. This means that Palestinians who don't agree with the settlers/Jewish state of Israel to taking their land are by default are considered to be racist. Nothing to see here....
  • by SlashDotCanSuckMy777 ( 6182618 ) on Wednesday December 06, 2023 @04:32AM (#64059285)

    Free speech: Not OK.

    Actual Genocide: OK.

    Maybe he should resign as a war crime supporter.

  • by ruddk ( 5153113 ) on Wednesday December 06, 2023 @04:49AM (#64059305)

    Well I suppose it is the death of having problems micro aggressions. :D

  • by Phillip2 ( 203612 ) on Wednesday December 06, 2023 @05:52AM (#64059377)

    The senator asked repeatedly about whether calling for genocide is bully or harrassment. That was the cause of the difficulty in response. Bullying and harrassment are specific things in law, with specific definitions. You can see all three of them trying to explain that the law makes clear that this is context dependent; you cannot be bully or harrassing in general, there has to be someone who is bullied or harrassed. In addition to these laws, there are also clear laws on free speech, which the Universities may have a legal obligation to uphold also.

    If she had asked "is calling for genocide wrong", she would have got a much clearer answer. But, then I am sure she was aware of this, and this is the reason she asked the question as she did.

    • If the same students said, "We don't think kids should be transed" they'd be drummed off campus by the same administrators because they preach that "words are violence". But when it comes to Jews they're ok with calls for genocide and threats against Jewish students.

      Action has nothing to do with it. That's a red herring.

      • Maybe, but that wasn't the question. I don't know the definitions in the US as it is not my jurisdictiion, but threatening someone with harm or death is not necessarily harrassment or bullying in the UK. It is, however, threatening behaviour and it is illegal. But again, this has to be against a specific person, it cannot be a general statement, although these kind of general calls could be considered hate speech, which is also illegal, but it's a different law. So, we have a legal minefield.

        You are correct

      • You're spot on. The hypocrisy of and anti-semitism of these schools is absolutely breathtaking. The comments here verify that all of the "anti-racists" are, in fact, racists.
  • by ThumpBzztZoom ( 6976422 ) on Wednesday December 06, 2023 @07:48AM (#64059563)

    Why should I care what this guy thinks? I have no idea who he is, and the post describing him as a hedge fund manager makes me care about his opinion even less.

    This isn't news. This doesn't matter. It has the same relevance as posting a Tweet from a Kardashian.

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Working...