UPenn’s Liz Magill voluntarily resigned after she faced widespread criticism for appearing to dodge a question at a congressional hearing about campus antisemitism.
House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y. — who recently went viral for engaging in a contentious exchange with university presidents at a congressional hearing on antisemitism — on Saturday praised the resignation of University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill.
“One down. Two to go,” Stefanik wrote on X. “This is only the very beginning of addressing the pervasive rot of antisemitism that has destroyed the most ‘prestigious’ higher education institutions in America.”
"In a contention exchange at the House Education and the Workforce Committee hearing on antisemitism on college campuses, Stefanik asked Magill, Claudine Gay of Harvard and Sally Kornbluth of MIT whether “calling for the genocide of Jews” would violate the codes of conduct at their schools. "
Easy answer: Yes, just as calling for any genocide such as genocide of the Palestinian people. Yes, that would violate the codes of conduct at our school.
It was an incredibly stupid showing, but to speak to their perspective, the question they thought they were answering was “Does a call to genocide violate First Amendment protections of free speech, to which universities are somewhat bound in order to receive federal funding?”, and the answer to that question, strictly legally, is indeed no. The government cannot punish someone for calls to genocide. The threshold for criminalizing speech is incredibly high, and anything short of “Go kill these specific Jews!” is generally going to be protected speech. In the context of trying to minimize any possible legal exposure, this was essentially the correct answer.
That said, it’s unconscionably stupid that the presidents did not realize that they were in a Congressional hearing, not a courtroom, and that in that context, they were not speaking to a judge but rather to a glorified hostile PR agent. It would not have been hard to give an unambiguous “yes” response, and then only if pressed wade into some of the nuance of what necessarily counts as a call to genocide, since that it legitimately a complex question.
Exactly.
"I, and the university abhor hate speech and antisemitism. Such things are unwelcome on campus.
That said, I would have to confer with the university legal council, and law enforcement to understand events in a case by case basis to ensure we do what we must to keep students and faculty safe. As president it is my job to understand the concerns of my staff and students, and to follow the guidance of experts in their respective fields. With those elements in hand I provide leadership in challenging times. It would be imprudent for me to take action unilaterally without my team."
“why can’t you just say yes or no?” will be the whine. It’ll be followed up with the “why do you love genocide?”
“adult questions often require more than a yes or no, even if prompted as such. Genocide is abhorrent and hate is not welcome on campus. I have no further reply than that”