In the wake of the public outcry following the shocking failure of the presidents of “elite” universities to unequivocally condemn calls for the genocide of the Jewish people, University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill posted a video statement on Wednesday.
Magill said, among other things, that she “should have been focused on the irrefutable fact that a call for the genocide of the Jewish people is a call to the most terrible violence that human beings can perpetrate.
Several social media users commented that Magill’s scripted statements reminded them of “hostage videos.” Many people are demanding the resignation of Magill, along with Harvard President Claudine Gay and MIT President Sally Kornbluth.
Congresswoman Elise Stefanik responded to the video by stating: “This pathetic PR clean-up attempt by Penn shockingly took over 24 hours to try to fix the moral depravity of the answers under oath yesterday. And there was not even an apology. By the way, the questions were asked over and over and over again. No statement will fix what the world saw and heard yesterday. There is zero question that the world knows that the only answer is for Penn to deliver accountability and bring in new leadership immediately.”
Yad Vashem issued a statement saying: “The positions taken by the three university presidents in their testimonies highlight a basic ignorance of history, including the fact that the Holocaust did not start with ghettos or gas chambers, but with hateful antisemitic rhetoric, decrees and actions by senior academics, among other leaders of society.”
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla stated: “I was ashamed to hear the recent testimony of three top university presidents. In my personal opinion, it was one of the most despicable moments in the history of U.S. academia. The three presidents were offered numerous opportunities to condemn racist, antisemitic, hate rhetoric and refused to do so hiding behind calls for ‘context.’ The memories of my father’s parents, Abraham and Rachel Bourla, his brother David, and his little sister Graciela, who all died in Auschwitz, came to mind. I was wondering if their deaths would have provided enough ‘context’ to these presidents to condemn the Nazis’ antisemitic propaganda.”
1 comment:
As valiant an effort as Rep. Stefanik's intense questioning of the 3 university presidents had been, I fear that it did not go far enough.
The feet of these academic miscreants should have been put to the fire. Among the questions that should have been asked would have been:
If the burning of an Israeli flag is considered protected free speech and not harassment of its Jewish students, would the burning of a Palestinian flag elicit the same apathy, or would it be considered a form of islamophobia?
Particularly regarding President Gay of Harvard, an obvious African-American, why was she not asked if cross burning would be in concert with Harvard's code of conduct? And Gay's insistence that Harvard promotes free expression of any ideas regardless of how abhorrent so long as that speech or march on Harvard's campus does not actually result in prohibited conduct, should have been met with the challenge whether calling for the repeal of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments be repealed and that all blacks be enslaved, would the same criteria be applied?
Additionally, but not finally, Gay's absurd argument that although Harvard would not tolerate harassment or bullying, the chants demanding the genocide of the Jewish people is not incongruent with Harvard's code of conduct, because since no individual Jewish student was singled out, the student could not claim to feel unsafe, went unchallenged. Why was Gay not asked if by inference would that not mean that although if someone called for Stefanik's murder it would be unacceptable, but if someone called for the annihilation of all Jews including Stefanik, then that's in line with Harvard's policy of tolerance.
Rep. Stefanik did a fine job, but in my opinion she could have done better.
Post a Comment