December 12, 2023

Tuesday, December 12, 2023. Annette’s News Roundup.

I think the Roundup makes people feel not so alone.

To read an article excerpted in this Roundup, click on its blue title. Each “blue” article is hyperlinked so you can read the whole article.

Please feel free to share.

Invite at least one other person to subscribe today! https://buttondown.email/AnnettesNewsRoundup

___________________________

Joe is always busy.

Monday night - Biden hosted a Hanukkah ceremony at the White House as fears mount about rising antisemitism.

___________________________

Kamala is always busy.

___________________________

The GOP is trying to take over our universities.

Yes, the recent conversation at the Hearing of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce was about antisemitism, as it should be. But it turns out it was always been about ending diversity and inclusion, ending free speech and indoctrinating American students.

A transcript of a sub-Committee on Education and The Workforce. November 14, 2023.

When you read the transcript below, pay attention to how the GOP, aided by the Heritage Foundation, put many policies, like Diversity and Inclusion, aimed at making America fairer, into one big pot which they call Marxism. Antisemitism as a concern is secondary. The GOP has bigger fish to fry.

Opening Statement of Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT), Chairman Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development Hearing: "Confronting the Scourge of Antisemitism on Campus.”

Thank you for joining us today for this very timely and consequential hearing. I want to begin by expressing sympathy for the Jewish members of our community who have felt endangered, discouraged, and disappointed by the exposure of antisemitism throughout the country. I also want to thank our witnesses for coming forward to testify and working with our Committee during this difficult time of upheaval.

This Committee is convening today to address the scourge of antisemitism spreading like wildfire on college campuses. As a first step toward eradicating this evil, this Committee has invited Jewish campus and community leaders to help us understand the source of its proliferation.

I recognize that antisemitism is not a new problem. It has taken on various forms throughout history: the most noted, prior to October 7th, were the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust. Both will forever remain a stain in the annals of human history.

The modern form of antisemitism is more subtle, for it is often disguised under progressive political innuendos. For example, Offices of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion steeped deeply in the doctrine of Marxism are anything but inclusive for Jews. Evidence shows that campus DEI bureaucracies play a major role in propagating the spread of antisemitism.

But no, the DEl hierarchy places the Jewish people at the very bottom of its "oppression" spectrum.

A study from the Heritage Foundation explains how diversity officers fuel the antisemitic fire. After searching through the Twitter feeds of 741 campus DEI personnel, Heritage's Jay Greene found that 96 percent of Israel-related tweets were either critical of Israel or explicitly antisemitic.

DEl programs are ideologically antisemitic because they ascribe collective guilt to the entire state of Israel for its mere existence. The core principles of the Marxist ideologue are not diversity, equity, or inclusion. They are instead discrimination, intolerance, and bigotry towards individuals thought to belong to the wrong group.

So rather than curbing discrimination on campus, these DEl bureaucracies stoke racial tensions. A report from the National Association of Scholars found that "DEI offices routinely organize race-segregated events, race-exclusionary affinity groups, race-segregated spaces such as Black-only dorms, and race-specific training." You literally can't make this stuff up. If this reminds anyone of the hate-fueled 1960s, the days of deep south Jim Crow segregation and roaming gangs of KKK bullies, that's because, it is.

Here is the whole opening statement. https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/11.14.23_final_official_document_rep._owens_opening_statement_-_antisemitism_hearing.pdf

—

With regard to the three College Presidents who were grilled by Elise Stefanik last week, do you think it was an accident that all 3 asked to come in were women? and one was a black woman?

Bill Ackman, the Hedge Fund Bilkionaire who has been leading the fight to rid Harvard of Dr Gay, has accused her of being the affirmative action candidate.

Just for your general knowledge, Gay attended Phillips Exeter Academy, a private boarding school in Exeter, New Hampshire, and then attended Stanford University, where she studied economics. She received the Anna Laura Myers Prize for best undergraduate thesis in economics and graduated in 1992.

Gay earned her Ph.D. in 1998 from Harvard University, where she won the university's Toppan Prize for the best dissertation in political science.

Since 2018, she has been Harvard’s Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

—

Liz Magill, the President of the University of Pennsylvania, who has already been forced to resign, was under attack by a Republican Mega Donor prior to the Congressional Hearing of December 5th.

Yes, the issue ostensibly was her decision to allow a Palestinian Festival with some known antisemites on campus but the attacks on Magill were supported by people for whom antisemitism was not the only issue and for some, not the most important one.

The GOP has other issues in mind too… to end free speech, to demand more “Conservative” faculty and gain access to student minds, to grab Jewish votes, Jewish donors and their supporters to the GOP side.

Another issue that has been percolating in Conservative circles has been who should make major decisions for universities - monied Donors? 3rd Parties? Alumni?

Yes, the Presidents failed us when they acted like lawyers at the Hearing, when the circumstances required they be leaders. But the situation we find ourselves in is this -

We face an authoritarian GOP which seeks to exploit the Congressional Hearing as an excuse and catalyst to gain power at our colleges.

Penn president’s resignation stirs debate about limits of free speech.

The resignation of the University of Pennsylvania’s president following her testimony over how to handle calls for the genocide of Jews has highlighted the tightrope school leaders are walking as students protest the war in Gaza — and fueled instant debate over how far colleges can go to restrict speech.


Liz Magill’s departure, announced Saturday, divided politicians, academics and the nation, with some hailing it as a needed corrective to curb hateful rhetoric on college campuses. Republican lawmakers, who have argued in recent years that America’s most prestigious schools are also its most out-of-touch, were especially eager to paint universities as hotbeds of angry leftist rhetoric where liberal ideologies are tolerated, while conservative viewpoints are shut down.


Democrats and Jewish groups celebrated the exit, too, which came after Magill refused to say, during testimony before Congress last week, that calling for the genocide of the Jews violated her school’s code of conduct. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who himself is Jewish, said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation”: “At the end of the day, when somebody is saying they believe in genocide of the Jewish people ... that is not acceptable.”

Still, others called Magill’s resignation a loss for free speech, predicting that it will imperil the rights of students and professors to speak their minds as donors and politicians step in to shape campus codes of conduct and discussion. University leaders are already balancing policies favoring full and free campus debate with the need to protect students and faculty from violence and harassment — an all-too-real threat in the current discourse that has affected people on both sides of the conflict in recent weeks.

The board of advisers at Penn’s Wharton business school this month proposed a broad policy that would “discipline” students or staff who “engage in hate speech, whether veiled or explicit,” Axios reported. On Sunday, a Penn professor of law and philosophy, Claire Finkelstein, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post calling for the restriction of free speech to protect students — urging university presidents “to rethink the role that open expression and academic freedom play in the educational mission.”

And the Democratic governor of New York issued a letter to state college and university presidents Saturday promising to take “aggressive ... action,” including pulling funding, against schools that “fail to clearly and unequivocally denounce antisemitism and calls for genocide of the Jewish people.”

There are likely to be more such calls for colleges to update their rules on speech, said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education. Although public universities are bound by the First Amendment, private institutions are not, and they have wide latitude to set their own policies governing freedom of speech and discussion of controversial issues.

Mitchell attended a meeting of college presidents from both public and private institutions last week and said many shared that they are anticipating questions and concerns about their speech codes — an expectation, and worry, that he shares.

“There will be more attempts, whether those are by campuses or boards of regents or boards of trustees, to more tightly define the boundaries of protected speech,” Mitchell said. “It’s invited new players to the game.”

Universities watching what happened at Penn are primed to heed those demands, said Keith E. Whittington, a professor of politics at Princeton University, with possibly catastrophic consequences for intellectual freedom in America. “A lot of people are going to learn the lesson from this that we ought to crack down,” he said. “We’re just going to see universities lean further into the idea that, when there’s any doubt, we ought to try to punish people for their speech.”

Magill was called to testify before Congress on Tuesday alongside the presidents of Harvard and MIT, as all three confront allegations that antisemitism has run rampant on their campuses since war broke out between Israel and Gaza. The three universities, like schools nationwide, have seen students report a string of antisemitic incidents, from things like bomb threats at Hillel Houses to protests featuring chants of “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” which some interpret as calls for the elimination of Israel and Jews. Reported incidents of Islamophobia have also surged since October.

Two days before the congressional hearing, hundreds of protesters marched through Philadelphia, veering close to Penn’s campus and chanting, “From water to water, Palestine will be Arab!” as some Jewish undergraduates sheltered in their rooms. Students told The Post they felt afraid and unsafe on campus.

During the hearing Tuesday, in a now-viral exchange, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) asked Magill and the two other presidents whether “calling for the genocide of Jews” would violate her school’s rules or code of conduct.

Magill replied, “If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment.”

Stefanik followed up to ask whether calling for the genocide of Jews would amount to “bullying or harassment.” Magill at first said the behavior would have to be “directed and severe or pervasive” to qualify as harassment — and then, pressed further, added: “It is a context-dependent decision, congresswoman.”

Asked a near-identical question, Harvard President Claudine Gay saidsuch speech would be “at odds with the values of Harvard” and, if “speech crosses into conduct, that violates our policies.” MIT President Sally Kornbluth said that calling for the genocide of Jews violates school rules “if targeted at individuals, not making public statements.”

Stefanik’s line of questioning forced the presidents to walk a very narrow line, said Penn professor Jonathan Zimmerman, who studies education history and policy. All three women had to convince lawmakers that they abhor antisemitism and will defend Jewish students, while making clear they are obligated to uphold people’s right to say “odious things,” Zimmerman said.

Zimmerman said the three were really being asked to decide whether chanting something like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is so hateful and antisemitic that it must be disallowed. And that is an extremely thorny question that university presidents are not equipped to decide, he said.

The decades-old rallying cry for Palestinian nationalist aspirations has been chanted at pro-Palestinian rallies on campuses in recent weeks. Many Jews view the phrase as seeking the demise of the state of Israel — even the total annihilation of Jews living there, with echoes of the Holocaust.

Some Palestinians and their supporters say the slogan calls for a peaceful land and promotes Palestinians’ right to return to homes from which they were expelled. It’s “a call for equal rights for Palestinians,” said Tala Alfoqaha, a Palestinian American law student at Harvard, who added that she wishes the university’s president was doing more to protect Palestinian students on campus.

Will Creeley, legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said using the phrase in some contexts is “core protected political expression, no matter how offensive some folks might understandably find it.” People chanting it at a rally is a different context than someone wielding a weapon and yelling it at a person.

With Americans unable to agree on what counts as acceptable language simply to describe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Zimmerman said he worries colleges will be pushed to adopt policies that explicitly define and bar certain kinds of speech as antisemitic or just too hateful — when the point of college discourse is that it should be open and free, so communities can come together and, through informed debate, determine what, if anything, is beyond the pale.

“We should all be ready for an infinite regress of charges and countercharges about what is, or should be seen as, a genocidal statement,” Zimmerman said. “I’m very afraid.”

The presidents’ testimony, especially Magill’s remarks, ignited a firestorm of criticism, earning harsh words from top donors, the White House and the governor of Pennsylvania, among others. On Friday, more than 70 members of Congress called on the governing boards of Harvard, Penn and MIT to fire the presidents.

Stefanik has called for the ouster of Harvard’s and MIT’s presidents, too. “One down. Two to go,” she wrote on X on Saturday afternoon after Magill’s resignation.

The MIT Corporation, the university’s board of trustees, has publicly stated that Kornbluth has its “full and unreserved support” since her testimony. School spokeswoman Kimberly Allen wrote in an email Sunday that the statement of support stands, adding that MIT and Kornbluth “reject antisemitism in all its forms.”

The Harvard Corporation has remained publicly silent, although Gay said in an interview Thursday with student newspaper the Harvard Crimson that she retains the goodwill of Penny S. Pritzker, senior fellow of the Corporation, which is the university’s highest governing body.

The Harvard Corporation and the Board of Overseers met Sunday, but for a regularly scheduled gathering, the Crimson reported. Some Harvard faculty have recently spoken out to share their hope that Gay stays in the job. A Harvard spokesperson did not directly answer questions about Gay’s job status.

Free-speech debates on campuses are not new. In the past, colleges have canceled or postponed appearances by right-wing provocateurs. Harvard and Penn also have been embroiled in other controversies over speech by people on campus, including an ongoing fight at Penn over controversial statements by law professor Amy Wax.

On Sunday, prominent Republicans took to the morning shows to applaud the Penn resignation — and in some cases to call for stricter campus regulation of speech.

“These universities have failed,” Sarah Isgur, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department during the Trump administration and a Harvard law graduate, said on ABC News. “This wasn’t a messaging problem with the congressional hearing — it’s a policy problem.”

Students and others at Harvard and Penn watched the testimony, resignation and national fallout with a mix of hope, worry and trepidation.

Rachel Miller, a 21-year-old Penn senior, said she believes Magill made the right decision to leave. Miller, who is studying communication, said Magill proved she was unable to support Jewish students, including Miller herself, in their time of greatest need.

“Antisemitic acts have gone unpunished at Penn for far too long,” Miller said. “Hopefully, Penn picks someone who can ... take a stronger stance on antisemitism.”

But Vinay Khosla, a 20-year-old junior at Penn studying English and political science, said Magill’s departure sends a concerning message — setting a precedent that powerful donors can make decisions for the school, rather than professors or administrators.

It makes Khosla worry for the future: “I think that whoever they replace her with is going to be a lot harsher towards student activism and free speech.”

Jennifer van Frank, a Penn alum and mother of a freshman there, said that going forward, it is “very important to me that all students on campus feel safe, feel heard and feel like they can get the education that they came here to get, which includes having conversations about difficult things, but keeping it at a level where people are respectful and listen to each other and above all feel protected.”

At Harvard, meanwhile, freshman Maverick Yasuda said he does not think Gay could have given any answers during the congressional hearing that would have satisfied everybody. His school has a diverse student and faculty body, he said, representing a wide range of strong opinions on the war.

“No matter what, it’s going to be controversial,” Yasuda said. “There’s always going to be that conflict.” (The Washington Post).

Penn leadership upheaval could have a ‘chilling effect’ on college presidencies and university operations nationally.

Sophia Rosenfeld, professor of history at Penn and chair of the department, said of President Magill at Penn, “She became a pawn in a much larger political battle that was unwinnable. She was damned if she did, and damned if she didn’t on almost all fronts. What is most worrisome is what her forced resignation spells for the future not just of Penn, but of higher education.”

“Whether or not Magill made mistakes, that’s not what led to her downfall, she said.

“It’s about how she got caught up in essentially a hostile takeover of the university by outside forces who took advantage of a tragic situation in the world,” she said. “Penn cannot remain a great university if wealthy donors and board members can determine who’s hired or fired, what can be said on campus or in the classroom, and which students are permitted to remain or face expulsion.” (Philadelphia Inquirer).

—

At Harvard, Claudine Gay will probably remain President because there is recognition that the debate is about academic freedom, not only antisemitism.

Why Defenders of Harvard’s President Are Focused on Academic Freedom.

The petition that emerged on Sunday as Claudine Gay, the president of Harvard University, faced escalating pressure to resign took only two sentences to make its case to the institution’s leaders.

The statement in support of Dr. Gay urged the university to “resist political pressures that are at odds with Harvard’s commitment to academic freedom.” It added: “The critical work of defending a culture of free inquiry in our diverse community cannot proceed if we let its shape be dictated by outside forces.”

By Monday afternoon, nearly 700 members of Harvard’s faculty — almost a third — had signed, buttressing support for Dr. Gay, who had come under fire for her answers last week at a congressional hearing on antisemitism.

The principle of academic freedom has been a contested cornerstone of the American academy for more than a century. Supporters believe that helping to insulate teachers from interference can make faculty members more likely to foster debate, take on thorny subjects and champion ideas that might ultimately advance scholarship.

With a broad range of views at Harvard about the Israel-Hamas conflict, the faculty members who organized the petition backing Dr. Gay predicted that an appeal focused on academic freedom would resonate most deeply, said Melani Cammett, a leader of the effort and professor of international affairs.

The notion of academic freedom can be traced to European universities. But in 1915, with American academia reeling from episodes like the firing of a Stanford professor whose views ran afoul of the university founder’s widow, the newly formed American Association of University Professors detailed three tenets of the concept. They were “freedom of inquiry and research; freedom of teaching within the university or college; and freedom of extramural utterance and action.”

Twenty-five years later, in 1940, the group and what is now known as the American Association of Colleges and Universities advanced another treatise on the principle, arguing, “The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition.”

The statement argued that professors were “entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject.” And it urged protections for professors so they could teach and research without fear of being fired.

The constitutional protection of freedom of speech is related to academic freedom but considered distinct by experts, in part because freedom of speech protects individuals from the government, while academic freedom relates to a professor’s employer. (Though in the case of state universities, there may be overlap.)

Still, academic freedom is not quite a blank check. Even the 1940 declaration that remains sacrosanct to many professors acknowledged that there were “special obligations” for teachers “when they speak or write as citizens.” Those included accuracy, showing respect for the opinions of others, and making “every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.”

Many conservatives have long been skeptical of the seeming broadness of the concept. Some have accused teachers and professors of cloaking themselves in principle to dodge repercussions for marginalizing conservative thinkers, and Republican policymakers have targeted the tenure policies that can shield professors. Restrictions on classroom materials and lesson plans have also fueled worries about censorship.

Debates about the nature of academic freedom have also unfolded on campuses, with dozens of disputes over the years about whether administrators were properly balancing discipline and academic independence. The University of Pennsylvania has recently grappled with the fate of Amy Wax, a law professor who has written, for instance, that “on average, Blacks have lower cognitive ability than whites.”

Harvard has not been immune to concerns about academic freedom, even as hundreds of faculty members have now rallied to Dr. Gay on that basis. In May, the month after dozens of professors announced what they christened the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard, the campus newspaper published an article headlined: “Does Harvard Have an Academic Freedom Problem?”

According to a recent survey published by the newspaper, The Harvard Crimson, more than a third of Harvard faculty said they thought the university should place “greater emphasis” on academic freedom.

But as Dr. Gay headed to Capitol Hill last week, she told lawmakers in a written submission that she believed Harvard prized “open academic inquiry.”

“We believe the best path to uncover truth is through open inquiry and robust debate,” Dr. Gay wrote. “Harvard understands that hatred is a symptom of ignorance. The cure for ignorance is knowledge. But the pursuit of truth is possible only when freedom of expression is protected and exercised. At Harvard, we will not allow discomfort or disagreement with opinions fairly expressed to impede this pursuit.” (New York Times).

Several hundred faculty members voice support for Harvard president. (More than 700).

Two more things.

Jamie Raskin asked how Republican Elise Stefanik, (who, at last week’s Hearing, seemed to have taken lessons from Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan) can question anyone about antisemitism when she supports Trump.

(https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4353409-raskin-stefanik-antisemitism-support-trump/).

Another university is under attack.

Antisemitism is not the issue. Republicans are simply trying to take over our colleges and limit freedom. Ron DeSantis is not alone.

Wisconsin GOP leader vows hard line on university pay raises-diversity deal.

Wisconsin Democratic Governor. Tony Evers.

MADISON, Wis. -- Wisconsin's top Republican lawmakers said Monday that they are done negotiating with the Universities of Wisconsin over a deal that would have given the university system's employees a pay raise and paid for the construction of a new engineering building in exchange for reductions in staff positions focused on diversity, equity and inclusion.

The UW Board of Regents rejected the deal in a hastily called special meeting on Saturday after regents voiced concerns about its targeting of DEI efforts. The regents are meeting again Tuesday in closed session to “deliberate and negotiate funding proposals and matters.”

The fight in Wisconsin comes amid a broader cultural battle playing out across the nation over college diversity initiatives.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, who reached the deal with UW President Jay Rothman, said Monday on WISN-AM that he hopes the regents will reconsider, but that he's not open to making any changes. Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu concurred, saying in a statement that the current proposal “is the legislature’s last and best offer.”

“This deal was negotiated in good faith,” Vos said. "We’re not changing one thing in this deal. We are not going backwards. If anything, I’d prefer to go forward. But a deal is a deal, you’ve got to keep your word. This is not forever. If they want to walk away, they can walk away.”

Neither Rothman nor UW-Madison Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin immediately responded to Monday requests for comment.

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers on Saturday said he supported the regents' decision but wanted the negotiations to continue. In the meantime, he called on the Legislature to release funding for the pay raises and engineering building. Evers' spokeswoman, Britt Cudaback, referred to those comments Monday when asked to react to Vos' statements.

Vos said there was “zero chance” of him softening his position.

“I will do everything in my power to make sure we enforce this deal or wait until the next budget to talk about it again,” Vos said. “We are not going to give the raises. We are not going to approve these new building programs. We are not going to approve the new money for the university unless they at least pass this deal.”

Vos took a similar position in May, saying he was “done negotiating” a local government funding deal only to later continue talks and reach a bipartisan agreement.

UW leaders negotiated with Vos and other Republican lawmakers for months on the deal that was released publicly on Friday. Rothman urged the regents to accept it, calling it a fair compromise.

Also on Monday, Republican Senate President Chris Kapenga appeared to raise the threat of firing members of the Board of Regents who have not yet been confirmed by the Senate because of their rejection of the deal. Only five members of the board have been confirmed by the Senate. Seven of the nine who voted against the deal have not been confirmed.

“It’s good to know before their upcoming Senate confirmation votes that several Regents chose their sacred ideology over getting our students ready for their careers,” Kapenga posted on X.

Evers’ spokeswoman, Cudaback, responded by posting that Republicans wanted “to manufacture an excuse to fire capable, qualified Wisconsinites for simply doing their jobs. It’s about punishing anyone who dares to disagree with them or threatens their power — and they’re saying that out loud.”

At its core, the rejected deal would have allowed for 4% pay raises for all 35,000 UW employees to take effect retroactive to July 1 when they were supposed to start. The pay increases were approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature in the state budget that was signed into law by Evers.

But those raises would also need to be approved by a GOP-controlled legislative committee. Vos has blocked them as he's attempted to reduce university positions dedicated to diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Evers, in response, has filed a lawsuit with the Wisconsin Supreme Court arguing that the Legislature had overstepped its constitutional authority by blocking the raises.

Under the deal, in addition to the pay raises, the university would get funding for a variety of construction projects, most notably about $200 million to build a new engineering building on the flagship UW-Madison campus. That project was a top priority for the university and was backed by the state's business community. But Republicans did not fund it.

The deal also called for the university system to freeze hiring for DEI positions through the end of 2026 and shift at least 43 current DEI positions to focus on “student success.” The system also would have eliminated any statements supporting diversity on student applications. The deal also would have dropped an affirmative actionfaculty hiring program at UW-Madison and created a position focused on conservative thought. (ABC News).
___________________________

An aspirational anniversary was just celebrated.

First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt oversaw the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,at the newly-formed United Nation, adopted on Dec. 10, 1948.

___________________________