Billionaire Donor Calls On Harvard, MIT, Penn Presidents To Resign After They Cited Need For ‘Context’ In Calls For Genocide Of Jews | Eastern North Carolina Now

"This could be the most extraordinary testimony ever elicited in the Congress.”

ENCNow
    Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of the The Daily Wire. The author of this post is Hank Berrien.

    Billionaire Bill Ackman, who gave $26 million to Harvard in 2014, called for the resignation of the presidents of Harvard, UPenn, and MIT after they would not say calling for the genocide of Jews on campus violated their rules against bullying and harassment.

    On Tuesday, New York Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik repeatedly asked Harvard President Claudine Gay, University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill, and MIT President Sally Kornbluth whether calling for the genocide of Jews constituted bullying and harassment. They all dodged the question, citing the need for "context."

    After noting the question that Stefanik repeatedly asked the university presidents, Ackman wrote, "The answers they gave reflect the profound moral bankruptcy of Presidents Gay, Magill and Kornbluth. ... 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."

    "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," he continued. "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."

HbAD0

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

    "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," he concluded.

    During the exchange with Stefanik, Magill said, "If the speech turns into conduct it can be harassment," angering Stefanik, who fired back, "'Conduct' meaning committing the act of genocide? The speech is not harassment? This is unacceptable."

    After Gay was questioned last, agreeing that calling for the genocide of Jews violated Harvard's code of conduct depending on the context, Stefanik declared, "It does not depend on the context. The answer is yes."

    Stefanik then said to the three presidents, "And this is why you should resign. These are unacceptable answers across the board."

    Transcript of the tense exchanges below:

    Stefanik: Dr. Kornbluth, at MIT, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate MIT's code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment? Yes or no?

    Kornbluth: With targeted individuals, not public statements.

HbAD1

    Stefanik: Yes or no? Calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying and harassment?

    Kornbluth: I have not heard calling for the genocide of Jews on our campus.

    Stefanik: But you've heard chants for intifada.

    Kornbluth: I've heard chants which can be anti-Semitic depending on the context when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people.

    Stefanik: So those would not be according to the MIT's code of conduct or rules?

    Kornbluth: That would be investigated as harassment if pervasive and severe.

    Stefanik: Ms. Magill, at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's rules or code of conduct? Yes or no.

    Magill, smiling: If the speech turns into conduct it can be harassment. Yes.

    Stefanik: I am asking, specifically calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying and harassment?

    Magill: If it is directed and severe or pervasive it is harassment.

    Stefanik: So the answer is yes.

    Magill, smiling: It is a context-dependent decision, Congresswoman.

HbAD2

    Stefanik: It's a context-dependent decision? That's your testimony today? Calling for the genocide of Jews is depending on the context? That is not bullying or harassment? This is the easiest question to answer yes, Ms. Magill. So is your testimony that you will not answer yes? Yes or no?

    Magill: If the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment. Yes.

    Stefanik: "Conduct" meaning committing the act of genocide? The speech is not harassment? This is unacceptable, Ms. Magill. I'm going to give you one more opportunity for the world to see your answer. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's code of conduct when it comes to bullying or harassment? Yes or no.

    Magill: It can be harassment.

    Stefanik: The answer is yes. And Dr. Gay, at Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment? Yes or no.

    Gay: It can be, depending on the context.

    Stefanik: What's the context?

    Gay: Targeted as an individual; targeted at an individual.

    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 anti-Semitism? I will ask you one more time: Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment? Yes or no.

    Gay: Anti-Semitic rhetoric -

    Stefanik: And is it anti-Semitic rhetoric?

HbAD3

    Gay: Anti-Semitic rhetoric, when it crosses into conduct, it amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation, that is actionable conduct and we do take action.

    Stefanik: So the answer is yes, that calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard's code of conduct, correct?

    Gay: Again, it depends on the context.

    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.


poll#164
It has been far too many years since the Woke theology interlaced its canons within the fabric of the Indoctrination Realm, so it is nigh time to ask: Does this Representative Republic continue, as a functioning society of a self-governed people, by contending with the unusual, self absorbed dictates of the Woke, and their vast array of Victimhood scenarios?
  Yes, the Religion of Woke must continue; there are so many groups of underprivileged, underserved, a direct result of unrelenting Inequity; they deserve everything.
  No; the Woke fools must be toppled from their self-anointed pedestal; a functioning society of a good Constitutional people cannot withstand this level of "existential" favoritism as it exists now.
  I just observe; with this thoughtful observation: What will happen "when the Vikings are breeching our walls;" how do the Woke react?
845 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?


poll#201
Considering what real news is available for all to witness, and in great specificity, should one pursue what is true outside of the channeled realm of the corrupt corporate /legacy media, and: Is Institutionalized Corruption real, and is it a hindrance to sustaining our Constitutional Republic now, and for future generations of American citizens?
  Yes
  No
  Not sure
450 total vote(s)     What's your Opinion?

Go Back
HbAD4

 
Back to Top