Actually, the population in the Gaza Strip today is 2.3 million….
Considering this self-hating kapo Jew tweeted a clear threat to the physical well being of “Zionists”, that language is no longer considered protected free speech.
I like the "use common sense" note at the bottom of this article. I couldn't find the sense in the article and just read 2 comments and think I am in the majority. Regardless of the authors odd arguments, if this professor said similar things about blacks or gays, she would have been terminated much faster and much ruder. Stop defending racists.
Free Press: do better. This take is facile. This is a private college so their decision to fire this unhinged professor is entirely legitimate and warranted. Savodnik dismisses this in one sentence saying the college “should” be free speech absolutists regardless, but who is he to tell a private college what speech they should or shouldn’t tolerate. Even a public university is under no obligation to allow this kind of speech and behavior by its professors, which among other things would violate Title VI protections.
Consider Popper’s paradox of tolerance: "unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance... We must therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate intolerance".
It’s a private university. Her constitutional protections with regard to speech pertain only to government infringement. She has the absolute right to say what she wants, and she did. The government didn’t stop her. (Instagram, incidentally a private entity, didn’t stop her either.). She doesn’t have the absolute right not to be fired from her private university for speech or any other reason; the terms of her employment, and her tenure, are governed by a private contract. If she’s going to spill antisemitic bile, the university doesn’t have to let her teach that to her students. What is it about the First Amendment, and its application only to government infringement on certain enumerated freedoms, that people don’t understand? The author appears to understand this, and yet seems to believe infringement by private universities should also fall under the Constitution’s ambit. What’s next? Walmart?
1. Completely ignores the violently genocidal "Don’t normalize Zionists taking up space." That is NOT "criticism" of anything, but rather--in the context of current events--a clear call for violent ejection, if not more. Slimeworm John Mearsheimer's libelous tirades against the "Israel lobby" can be characterized as "criticism," but this cannot. Yes, like all Americans, she should be, and is, free to lie and say heinous hateful things without fear of retaliation by the government, but, like any outspoken racist, she should be shunned by polite society.
2. Uni -- as any institution -- is free to fire any employee that violates its codes of conduct and causes serious reputational harm. Disallowing it violates ITS First Amendment rights.
3. You might have heard her saying "widespread critical mass of folks..." but we all know she was saying FOLX.
I guess so much of whether this crosses a line depends on what "taking up space" means. Is that literal? Figurative? If it's literal, and it might be if she thinks Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself, I'm not sure the college erred in taking action against a professor who doesn't think Zionist students should "take up space" in her classroom.
Love the way 'lefties' always view suppression of speech, movement, religion etc as 'fascist' when history shows us - and is showing us right now - that the loss of our freedoms is inexorably a consequence of the collectivisation brought about by socialism/communism, aka 'the left'.
“A college education is not necessarily designed to make you feel safe,” ???
I would hazzard to guess that's not what a majority of parents who are paying upwards of $60k a year to send their children to Muhlenberg would want to hear! Especially considering a Muhlenberg has a very large Jewish student body.
Thinking in Acedemia is often similar to thinking in by many in gov't. "We know what's best for you".
When you having paying customers, education needs to think like a business. In business you try not to alienate your paying customers, else you risk losing them. It's that simple.
Another reason not to allow government too deep into higher education. The customer has even less say.
The author misses a clear distinction that takes what the professor did out of the realm of protected speech, and into the realm of inciting violence against Jews. I do not believe ANY employer should be forced to continue employing someone who calls for the erasure (“genocide” is so over-used) of the Jewish people.
The phrase is the retweet of Kanazi’s post “Don’t normalize Zionists taking up space“ is a clear call for the mass extinction of Jews. THAT is over the line. It certainly would not be tolerated if it said “Don’t normalize black people taking up space here,” or some such.
I am a free-speech absolutist. But professors above all do not make innocent mistakes about rhetoric like this. Her termination was justified. The explanation appears inadequate.
Employers can terminate for cause including “moral turpitude” or violation of corporate policies. I don’t know the schools policies, but repeating that line is beyond moral degeneracy.
A lot of what goes on on campus is political activism disgused as academics. Finkelstein is an anthropology professor, not a specialist in Middle Eastern affairs. Just imagine, what would happen to any academic who advocated for the re-establishment of lynching of blacks in the South. I doubt that Savadnick would defend the rights of such an "academic." Of course, postulating such a hypothetical occurrence is obviously absurd, but unfortunately, advocating the murder, torture and rape of Jews is acceptable, as long as we pretend that it's the exercise of academic freedom.
Some anthropologists were Middle East specialists. I am. But that was before, when anthropology was an academic field of study. Now it is a far-left, extremist cult devoted to pro-jihadist and antisemitic activism. My old department is a hotbed of palestinian, refusalist absolutism. Anthropologists have become jihadist crusaders in a religious war on behalf of a religion that they do not believe in. What a spectacle!
Mr. Savadnick correctly recognizes that, as a private institution, Muhlenbeg Colleges is not constitutionally bound to tolerate any and all speech, no matter how abhorrent. Nevertheless, he argues, an educational institution should place no limits on acceptable speech.
I disagree. If anything, an educational institution, representing the ideals of scholarship and reason, should not bless with tolerance speech at odds with the universally held beliefs of its society and to which no decent person could subscribe.
The First Amendment to the Constitution generally prevents the government from from abridging free expression. For example, one cannot be sentenced to jail for advocating racist views, or even genocide. Institutions other than the government may also be limited in their ability to sanction speech when their involvement with arms of the government is sufficiently significant for such retribution to be deemed “state action.” An example would be the acts of a university that receives significant government funding.
But as private individuals, we are under no obligation to associate with those whose views we find despicable or even just disagreeable. The same is true of private institutions. If a corporation doing extensive business with China prohibits its employees from criticizing the country’s human rights record, it is acting wholly within its rights, however much we may deplore its policy in this regard.
In all of the circumstances, Maura Finkelstein’s statements can reasonably be taken as justifying the sadistic murder, torture and rape of Israeli civilians, including the beheading of babies. Whatever the rights and wrong of the Israel-Palestine conflict, such justification goes beyond what should be considered acceptable opinion among decent people. Certainly a school should be free to decide that a person of this kind should not be instructing it students. Muhelenberg College was corrected courageous ending its association with Maura Finkelstein.
There is the thought that teachers and professors should keep their politics and their sexual preferences to themselves. Certainly, a student (at any level of education) has to listen to their lecturer. If that person is preaching hate, they should have their platform removed. There should never be a time when a student is forced to listen to hate speech, especially when it calls Zionism a bad thing. Why should a Jewish student have to listen to such trash?
If a professor had a problem with a different race, making them racist, would a student who is of that race still have to politely listen to the rants?
Polite Society is our collective goal for the world. We will never get there, but it remains an ideal we can work towards. Hate speech counters this, and it has consequences. If there is a rabble-rouser standing on a soapbox on a corner I must pass, I can choose to listen, or I can walk away. A student in a classroom does not have that choice if they want to pass the course.
Wonder what Savodnik would think if she were a white nationalist who posted the “n word” all over her social media accounts. The excuses made for antisemites (professors, students) in the university setting (“free speech!”) are tiresome and dangerous. Zionism is the Jewish people’s movement for self determination and justice in their homeland and defense against antisemitism. It is not a “political” movement anymore than the civil rights movement was “political.” Jewish agency and liberation is only a problem for antisemites.
Actually, the population in the Gaza Strip today is 2.3 million….
Considering this self-hating kapo Jew tweeted a clear threat to the physical well being of “Zionists”, that language is no longer considered protected free speech.
Sorry, but no dice
Maura should also be fired because she’s stupid. Her statement about Judaism having nothing to do with Zionism is idiotic.
I like the "use common sense" note at the bottom of this article. I couldn't find the sense in the article and just read 2 comments and think I am in the majority. Regardless of the authors odd arguments, if this professor said similar things about blacks or gays, she would have been terminated much faster and much ruder. Stop defending racists.
Free Press: do better. This take is facile. This is a private college so their decision to fire this unhinged professor is entirely legitimate and warranted. Savodnik dismisses this in one sentence saying the college “should” be free speech absolutists regardless, but who is he to tell a private college what speech they should or shouldn’t tolerate. Even a public university is under no obligation to allow this kind of speech and behavior by its professors, which among other things would violate Title VI protections.
Consider Popper’s paradox of tolerance: "unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance... We must therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate intolerance".
It’s a private university. Her constitutional protections with regard to speech pertain only to government infringement. She has the absolute right to say what she wants, and she did. The government didn’t stop her. (Instagram, incidentally a private entity, didn’t stop her either.). She doesn’t have the absolute right not to be fired from her private university for speech or any other reason; the terms of her employment, and her tenure, are governed by a private contract. If she’s going to spill antisemitic bile, the university doesn’t have to let her teach that to her students. What is it about the First Amendment, and its application only to government infringement on certain enumerated freedoms, that people don’t understand? The author appears to understand this, and yet seems to believe infringement by private universities should also fall under the Constitution’s ambit. What’s next? Walmart?
You can fire a professor for endorsing the wrong Halloween costume but not for spewing the most vile antisemitic messages.
Poor take, Peter:
1. Completely ignores the violently genocidal "Don’t normalize Zionists taking up space." That is NOT "criticism" of anything, but rather--in the context of current events--a clear call for violent ejection, if not more. Slimeworm John Mearsheimer's libelous tirades against the "Israel lobby" can be characterized as "criticism," but this cannot. Yes, like all Americans, she should be, and is, free to lie and say heinous hateful things without fear of retaliation by the government, but, like any outspoken racist, she should be shunned by polite society.
2. Uni -- as any institution -- is free to fire any employee that violates its codes of conduct and causes serious reputational harm. Disallowing it violates ITS First Amendment rights.
3. You might have heard her saying "widespread critical mass of folks..." but we all know she was saying FOLX.
I guess so much of whether this crosses a line depends on what "taking up space" means. Is that literal? Figurative? If it's literal, and it might be if she thinks Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself, I'm not sure the college erred in taking action against a professor who doesn't think Zionist students should "take up space" in her classroom.
Love the way 'lefties' always view suppression of speech, movement, religion etc as 'fascist' when history shows us - and is showing us right now - that the loss of our freedoms is inexorably a consequence of the collectivisation brought about by socialism/communism, aka 'the left'.
“A college education is not necessarily designed to make you feel safe,” ???
I would hazzard to guess that's not what a majority of parents who are paying upwards of $60k a year to send their children to Muhlenberg would want to hear! Especially considering a Muhlenberg has a very large Jewish student body.
Thinking in Acedemia is often similar to thinking in by many in gov't. "We know what's best for you".
When you having paying customers, education needs to think like a business. In business you try not to alienate your paying customers, else you risk losing them. It's that simple.
Another reason not to allow government too deep into higher education. The customer has even less say.
Freedom of speech? Sure.
Freedom from consequences? Nope.
The author misses a clear distinction that takes what the professor did out of the realm of protected speech, and into the realm of inciting violence against Jews. I do not believe ANY employer should be forced to continue employing someone who calls for the erasure (“genocide” is so over-used) of the Jewish people.
The phrase is the retweet of Kanazi’s post “Don’t normalize Zionists taking up space“ is a clear call for the mass extinction of Jews. THAT is over the line. It certainly would not be tolerated if it said “Don’t normalize black people taking up space here,” or some such.
I am a free-speech absolutist. But professors above all do not make innocent mistakes about rhetoric like this. Her termination was justified. The explanation appears inadequate.
Employers can terminate for cause including “moral turpitude” or violation of corporate policies. I don’t know the schools policies, but repeating that line is beyond moral degeneracy.
A lot of what goes on on campus is political activism disgused as academics. Finkelstein is an anthropology professor, not a specialist in Middle Eastern affairs. Just imagine, what would happen to any academic who advocated for the re-establishment of lynching of blacks in the South. I doubt that Savadnick would defend the rights of such an "academic." Of course, postulating such a hypothetical occurrence is obviously absurd, but unfortunately, advocating the murder, torture and rape of Jews is acceptable, as long as we pretend that it's the exercise of academic freedom.
Some anthropologists were Middle East specialists. I am. But that was before, when anthropology was an academic field of study. Now it is a far-left, extremist cult devoted to pro-jihadist and antisemitic activism. My old department is a hotbed of palestinian, refusalist absolutism. Anthropologists have become jihadist crusaders in a religious war on behalf of a religion that they do not believe in. What a spectacle!
Mr. Savadnick correctly recognizes that, as a private institution, Muhlenbeg Colleges is not constitutionally bound to tolerate any and all speech, no matter how abhorrent. Nevertheless, he argues, an educational institution should place no limits on acceptable speech.
I disagree. If anything, an educational institution, representing the ideals of scholarship and reason, should not bless with tolerance speech at odds with the universally held beliefs of its society and to which no decent person could subscribe.
The First Amendment to the Constitution generally prevents the government from from abridging free expression. For example, one cannot be sentenced to jail for advocating racist views, or even genocide. Institutions other than the government may also be limited in their ability to sanction speech when their involvement with arms of the government is sufficiently significant for such retribution to be deemed “state action.” An example would be the acts of a university that receives significant government funding.
But as private individuals, we are under no obligation to associate with those whose views we find despicable or even just disagreeable. The same is true of private institutions. If a corporation doing extensive business with China prohibits its employees from criticizing the country’s human rights record, it is acting wholly within its rights, however much we may deplore its policy in this regard.
In all of the circumstances, Maura Finkelstein’s statements can reasonably be taken as justifying the sadistic murder, torture and rape of Israeli civilians, including the beheading of babies. Whatever the rights and wrong of the Israel-Palestine conflict, such justification goes beyond what should be considered acceptable opinion among decent people. Certainly a school should be free to decide that a person of this kind should not be instructing it students. Muhelenberg College was corrected courageous ending its association with Maura Finkelstein.
There is the thought that teachers and professors should keep their politics and their sexual preferences to themselves. Certainly, a student (at any level of education) has to listen to their lecturer. If that person is preaching hate, they should have their platform removed. There should never be a time when a student is forced to listen to hate speech, especially when it calls Zionism a bad thing. Why should a Jewish student have to listen to such trash?
If a professor had a problem with a different race, making them racist, would a student who is of that race still have to politely listen to the rants?
Polite Society is our collective goal for the world. We will never get there, but it remains an ideal we can work towards. Hate speech counters this, and it has consequences. If there is a rabble-rouser standing on a soapbox on a corner I must pass, I can choose to listen, or I can walk away. A student in a classroom does not have that choice if they want to pass the course.
Wonder what Savodnik would think if she were a white nationalist who posted the “n word” all over her social media accounts. The excuses made for antisemites (professors, students) in the university setting (“free speech!”) are tiresome and dangerous. Zionism is the Jewish people’s movement for self determination and justice in their homeland and defense against antisemitism. It is not a “political” movement anymore than the civil rights movement was “political.” Jewish agency and liberation is only a problem for antisemites.