Columbia University is colluding with the far-right in its attack on students

[Derec]

“Campus Has Become Unrecognizable”: Columbia Prof. Franke Faces Firing After DN Interview on Gaza

Democracy Now!? Really?

This is a far-left outlet that is highly biased against Israel. And that this Katherine Franke was a guest at DN twice tells you a lot about her views.

 

[Derec]

If Prof Franke is really in danger of being fired fir expressing her views, Columbia University cannot be considered a top notch university.

She most likely will not be fired. But the views that got her in trouble specifically was casting aspersions on Columbia students with Israeli citizenship. It contributed to the hostile campus environment.

 

[Arctish]

The red paint on the statue is a genuine misdemeanor. That is university property that will cost money to properly clean and restore. The defacement should be investigated and the perpetrator(s) prosecuted.

Unfortunately Alvin Bragg is not very keen on prosecuting these creeps.

It is undoubtedly a violation of the Student Code of Conduct, so if a student did it, he or she should be punished according to the system the university has in place to deal with CoC violations of that nature.

Likewise, universities like Columbia have been pressured into taking back disciplinary actions against students that have vandalized property.

Anything that happens off-campus is not something the university can or should police, especially exercises of First Amendment rights like holding signs and handing out pamphlets, even if it happens right outside the gates.

Free speech is one thing. Impeding free access to university grounds through barricades and such is quite another.

It's a misdemeanor taking place off-campus and a matter for the police, not the university, to handle.

Like it or not, Columbia University is now part of the larger controversy over US involvement in the Middle East. Ignoring the issue, or trying to suppress critical speech, isn't going to make it all go away.

How would schools like Columbia act if there were pro-Nazi protesters on campus? Would they be allowed to continue? Pro-Hamas are no better. Glorifying terrorism is not mere "critical speech".

The Right of Free Speech is not absolute, which is why a Code of Conduct against certain kinds of speech can be lawfully enforced. However, it cannot be lawfully enforced in a discriminatory manner. It has to treat all opinions equally.

You probably aren't old enough to remember when Nazis wanted to march in Skokie, Illinois. You should read up on the case. It has direct bearing on what Columbia can and cannot do about pro-Nazi students wanting to have a rally on campus.

Also, you should stop conflating peace activists with people who glorify terrorism. The guy trying to incite the crowd to chant "Kill the Jews" and the one who launched a chemical attack that caused at least 10 people to be hospitalized have a lot more in common with terrorists than the ones peacefully assembled to advocate for a ceasefire and a peace treaty.

 

[laughing dog]

The National Review is a rightwing propaganda rag. Their opinion is laughable.

They are right of center, but far less biased than the far-left rags like The Intercept or Democracy Now! that get posted here all the time.

LoL - it is extremely biased.

Also, can you point to anything in the article that is false or misleading?

Yes, I can point to something that is misleading in that opinion piece.

There is no evidence to suggest that if NYC or Columbia University would have come down harder that protests would not have continued at the same level. Changing a few names will not change the story.

What evidence do you expect? We can't run a controlled experiment.
However, it stands to reason that if you fail to disincentivize bad behavior, you get more of it. The prospect of expulsion and/or criminal prosecution is a good disincentive.

At least you realize you have no evidence to support argument.

The claim that ramping up punishment reduces bad behavior has very little empirical evidence because much bad behavior is driven by emotional(i.e irrational) decision-making.

 

[laughing dog]

If Prof Franke is really in danger of being fired fir expressing her views, Columbia University cannot be considered a top notch university.

She most likely will not be fired.

It should mot even come up at all.

But the views that got her in trouble specifically was casting aspersions on Columbia students with Israeli citizenship. It contributed to the hostile campus environment.

BS. If that is the case any professor publicly pushing for harsher treatment if protesters is contributing to a hostile campus environment . This is simply mollifying snowflakes who share your views. It is an excellent example of cancel culture in action.

 

[bilby]

You probably aren't old enough to remember when Nazis wanted to march in Skokie, Illinois.

I am not (quote) old enough; But I have seen The Blues Brothers more times than is probably healthy, so I am aware of the fact that the Illinois Nazis won their case, and were allowed to march.

The effort required to determine that this famous movie scene was loosely based on true events was minimal.

 

[bilby]

The claim that ramping up punishment reduces bad behavior has very little empirical evidence

But the counter-claim that reduced punishments do not lead to increased bad behaviour is well supported.

Indeed, the modern focus on incarceration as punishment, is itself an example of reducing punishments because more draconian measures - corporal and capital punishments - had been demonstrated to be utterly ineffective as deterrents.

The history of reducing crime shows clearly that the severity of punishment is almost completely unimportant; What matters is not how harshly people are punished, but how likely it is that they will be punished at all.

It is far more effective to spend money on detection and investigation of crime, than it is to spend money keeping convicts in prison for long sentences. Short sentences are typically just as effective at lowering crime rates as long ones.

But, of course, we have put democracy, rather than knowledge or intelligence, in charge. So we get sentences that are designed to sate the public thirst for vengeance, not ones designed to minimise offending.

And fundamental to Derec's position here is that a freely expressed opinion that he disagrees with is deserving of punishment (or even disincentivisation) at all. Which is an odd position for an American to take, given that it directly opposes your first amendment.

 

[Derec]

You probably aren't old enough to remember when Nazis wanted to march in Skokie, Illinois.

I am not (quote) old enough; But I have seen The Blues Brothers more times than is probably healthy, so I am aware of the fact that the Illinois Nazis won their case, and were allowed to march.

I did think of this movie too, but the first association I had with "Skokie, Illinois" was a certain barbershop quartet.

 

[Derec]

It's a misdemeanor taking place off-campus and a matter for the police, not the university, to handle.

If it is a misdemeanor by a student, then university is affected too. Especially if it affects access to campus.

The Right of Free Speech is not absolute, which is why a Code of Conduct against certain kinds of speech can be lawfully enforced. However, it cannot be lawfully enforced in a discriminatory manner. It has to treat all opinions equally.

True. They would not allow Nazis to have "Next targets of the SS" banners. And neither should they allow this.

You probably aren't old enough to remember when Nazis wanted to march in Skokie, Illinois. You should read up on the case. It has direct bearing on what Columbia can and cannot do about pro-Nazi students wanting to have a rally on campus.

You are right. It was before my time. All the same, this was on public property, which is very different than a private university campus. Columbia can ban Nazis and Islamofascists alike.

Also, you should stop conflating peace activists with people who glorify terrorism.

I am not the one conflating them. The "peace activists", if there are any significant number who can be described as such, are not doing anything to distance themselves from the pro-terrorism protesters.

The guy trying to incite the crowd to chant "Kill the Jews" and the one who launched a chemical attack that caused at least 10 people to be hospitalized have a lot more in common with terrorists

The alleged "chemical attack" turned out to be a Halloween fart spray. And I have seen no good evidence that anybody was hospitalized because of it.

than the ones peacefully assembled to advocate for a ceasefire and a peace treaty.

That's a bit disingenuous. Those calling for "ceasefire" at these demonstrations are still anti-Israel. They do not call for Hamas to release hostages for example. Or to stop attacking Israel and seeking its destruction.

 

[Derec]

LoL - it is extremely biased.

Far less so than the sources favored by you and other left wing posters.

Yes, I can point to something that is misleading in that opinion piece.

And yet, you have not. Why?

At least you realize you have no evidence to support argument.

You made a claim that sanctioning bad behavior does not affect it. So you should back it up.

The claim that ramping up punishment reduces bad behavior has very little empirical evidence because much bad behavior is driven by emotional(i.e irrational) decision-making.

Depends on who it is. Presumably somebody studying at Columbia would be smart enough to realize that getting prosecuted and expelled for (for example) breaking and entering into Hamilton Hall would severely impact one's career prospects. They are also presumably ambitious enough to care about this. However, when they see people commit crimes and violations of Columbia rules and get away with it, that changes the calculus.

Just like how you get more teenagers stealing cars when they see their peers getting released to their parents over and over again instead of being prosecuted.

 

[Derec]

It should mot even come up at all.

Why?

BS. If that is the case any professor publicly pushing for harsher treatment if protesters is contributing to a hostile campus environment .

No. This is talking about a professor expressing an opinion of people doing things like vandalizing statues or breaking and entering into campus buildings. Katherine Franks was disparaging all Israeli students at Columbia instead.

This is simply mollifying snowflakes who share your views.

I see that you still don't understand what that word means.

It is an excellent example of cancel culture in action.

Not as fun when the shoe is on the other foot, is it?
But no, it is not like the cancel culture during the woke purges of 2020 and 2021. Back then people were cancelled for daring to go against the received opinion on #BLM matters. Not even posting true facts providing context about a case shielded one from it.
Arizona State University radio station votes to remove manager over Jacob Blake tweet

 

[laughing dog]

LoL - it is extremely biased.

Far less so than the sources favored by you and other left wing posters.

No.

Yes, I can point to something that is misleading in that opinion piece.

And yet, you have not. Why?

Because you asked if i can point to anything. I answered that question. This answers your question of why.

You made a claim that sanctioning bad behavior does not affect it. So you should back it up.

No, I didn’t.

The claim that ramping up punishment reduces bad behavior has very little empirical evidence because much bad behavior is driven by emotional(i.e irrational) decision-making.

Depends on who it is. Presumably somebody studying at Columbia would be smart enough to realize that getting prosecuted and expelled for (for example) breaking and entering into Hamilton Hall would severely impact one's career prospects. They are also presumably ambitious enough to care about this. However, when they see people commit crimes and violations of Columbia rules and get away with it, that changes the calculus.

Again, you are presuming a necessary frame of mind which need not be present.

Just like how you get more teenagers stealing cars when they see their peers getting released to their parents over and over again instead of being prosecuted.

You mean how the death penalty reduces murders?

 

[laughing dog]

It should mot even come up at all.

Why?

Because she is entitled yo her opinions. She is not advocating violence .

BS. If that is the case any professor publicly pushing for harsher treatment if protesters is contributing to a hostile campus environment .

No. This is talking about a professor expressing an opinion of people doing things like vandalizing statues or breaking and entering into campus buildings. Katherine Franks was disparaging all Israeli students at Columbia instead.

Unresponsive to my point.. I read the transcript - there is nothing disparaging at all. But two professors who disagreed made a complaint. Pretty much par for the course for snowflake professors and their dupes.

It is an excellent example of cancel culture in action.

Not as fun when the shoe is on the other foot, is it?

What is that is supposed to mean?

But no, it is not like the cancel culture during the woke purges of 2020 and 2021. Back then people were cancelled for daring to go against the received opinion on #BLM matters. Not even posting true facts providing context about a case shielded one from it.
Arizona State University radio station votes to remove manager over Jacob Blake tweet

Of course it is cancel culture. The difference is your double standard: you disapprove of her views, so it is okay to go after her.

 

[Arctish]

You probably aren't old enough to remember when Nazis wanted to march in Skokie, Illinois. You should read up on the case. It has direct bearing on what Columbia can and cannot do about pro-Nazi students wanting to have a rally on campus.

You are right. It was before my time. All the same, this was on public property, which is very different than a private university campus. Columbia can ban Nazis and Islamofascists alike.

Only if it bans Zionists, Christofascists, NeoCons, and Proud Boys alike as well. Which IMO is fine, but I suspect a lot of rightwingers would be unhappy about being "silenced".

Also, you should stop conflating peace activists with people who glorify terrorism.

I am not the one conflating them. The "peace activists", if there are any significant number who can be described as such, are not doing anything to distance themselves from the pro-terrorism protesters.

Sure they are.

They hold up signs that are easy to read, expressing their individual views and group messaging, calling for an immediate ceasefire, the return of the hostages, a genuine peace deal, for Columbia to divest from businesses that profit from war and theft of land and resources in the Occupied Territories and elsewhere, for respecting and upholding human rights, etc.

Just because you ignore what the overwhelming majority are saying so you can focus on the fringe doesn't mean other people can't clearly see their signs, hear their speeches, or understand their messages.

The guy trying to incite the crowd to chant "Kill the Jews" and the one who launched a chemical attack that caused at least 10 people to be hospitalized have a lot more in common with terrorists

The alleged "chemical attack" turned out to be a Halloween fart spray.

Where did you get that information?

The news reports I've seen indicate it was a very strong, nausea-inducing chemical spray suspected to be something developed by the IDF that was deployed by an IDF reservist in order to disrupt a peaceful protest. That was no Halloween prank spray that sent people to the hospital, and even if it was, the guy can still be criminally charged for the physical distress people suffered because of his actions.

BTW, Columbia [is] under investigation amid allegations of anti-Palestinian discrimination. We have only been hearing about Jewish students feeling unsafe and harassed on campus, even though most posters here have enough real-life experience to know the harassment of Muslims is probably more extensive. And it appears that quite a lot of hate speech directed at the protesters has been openly expressed without repercussion:

Who Gets to Protest at Columbia? What led the university to suspend pro-Palestinian student groups.

Soon after the first pro-Palestine rally on campus, the school-owned radio station, WKCR, played an interview with someone at the rally who identified himself as an administrator at Columbia’s medical center. “I’m Jewish, okay? I’m a Zionist, okay? I hope every one of these people die,” he said.

That interview unnerved Maryam Alwan, a Palestinian American undergrad. Before October, she’d been outspoken and welcomed tense exchanges with Zionist classmates. But there was something more sinister about how campus felt in recent weeks. “Swinging from a rope,” said the subject line of one email she read in SJP’s inbox. “That’s where islamic trash belong. We have plenty of rope for you,” read the body of the email. Alwan deleted her social-media accounts, and when she attended rallies, she removed jewelry that might identify her and wrapped her entire head with a keffiyeh. “I was fully covered to the point that I looked scary — because I was scared,” she said.

And I have seen no good evidence that anybody was hospitalized because of it.

than the ones peacefully assembled to advocate for a ceasefire and a peace treaty.

That's a bit disingenuous. Those calling for "ceasefire" at these demonstrations are still anti-Israel. They do not call for Hamas to release hostages for example. Or to stop attacking Israel and seeking its destruction.

Obviously you haven't spent much time looking into what the demonstrators are actually saying. The second article I linked to has some direct quotes, if you're at all interested in hearing those messages.

 

[Derec]

Nessel charges 11 pro-Palestine protesters for University of Michigan encampment

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced criminal charges for 11 pro-Palestinian protesters linked to rallies on the University of Michigan campus in Ann Arbor.
The 11 charged are mostly students or alumni, Nessel said in a Sept. 12 statement. Nessel’s office got involved after Washtenaw County Prosecutor Eli Savit and university President Santa Ono supported her office’s review, she said.
[...]
“The right to free speech and assembly is fundamental, and my office fully supports every citizen’s right to free speech under the First Amendment,” Nessel said in a statement. “However, violent and criminal behavior, or acts that trample on another’s rights, cannot be tolerated. I hope today’s charges are a reminder to everyone who chooses to assemble, regardless of the cause, that the First Amendment does not provide a cover for illegal activity.”

Of course, the insufferable Rashida Tlaib is opposed to criminals she agrees with being prosecuted.

U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Detroit, criticized Nessel’s decision to file charges.
“The AG failed to deliver justice for the victims of the Flint Water Crisis but has time to bring frivolous charges that only serve to silence those speaking out against a genocidal apartheid regime? This shameful attack on students’ rights will fail. Follow the Consutution,” Tlaib wrote on X.

There are more who have not been charged, at least not as of yet.

No charges came from the March 25 disruption by protesters at the Honors Convocation inside Hill Auditorium, nor an April 22 protest outside the university’s Museum of Art. One individual was arrested by local police from the April 22 protest, but it is not clear if those charges were referred to Nessel’s office.
Protesters placed fake corpses and bloody toys in front of eight regents’ homes around 6 a.m., May 15, according to the university student organization Tahrir Coalition. Nessel’s office is still investigating these incidents, she said.
[...]
The fall semester started with more conflict between protesters and officers. Four protesters were arrested on Aug. 28 while participating in a “die in,” which involved protesters lying on the Diag ground to simulate the people who have died in the ongoing war in Gaza.

 

[Arctish]

Nessel charges 11 pro-Palestine protesters for University of Michigan encampment

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced criminal charges for 11 pro-Palestinian protesters linked to rallies on the University of Michigan campus in Ann Arbor.
The 11 charged are mostly students or alumni, Nessel said in a Sept. 12 statement. Nessel’s office got involved after Washtenaw County Prosecutor Eli Savit and university President Santa Ono supported her office’s review, she said.
[...]
“The right to free speech and assembly is fundamental, and my office fully supports every citizen’s right to free speech under the First Amendment,” Nessel said in a statement. “However, violent and criminal behavior, or acts that trample on another’s rights, cannot be tolerated. I hope today’s charges are a reminder to everyone who chooses to assemble, regardless of the cause, that the First Amendment does not provide a cover for illegal activity.”

Of course, the insufferable Rashida Tlaib is opposed to criminals she agrees with being prosecuted.

U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Detroit, criticized Nessel’s decision to file charges.
“The AG failed to deliver justice for the victims of the Flint Water Crisis but has time to bring frivolous charges that only serve to silence those speaking out against a genocidal apartheid regime? This shameful attack on students’ rights will fail. Follow the Consutution,” Tlaib wrote on X.

There are more who have not been charged, at least not as of yet.

That article quotes Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel saying that the charges were ultimately about "violent and criminal behavior" by protesters, but the article reports 2 people were charged with misdemeanor trespassing, 2 were charged with misdemeanor disturbing the peace, one with misdemeanors for ethnic intimidation and destroying protester's flags, and that 7 were charged with trespassing and resisting and obstructing an officer when the cops in riot gear marched through the encampment in a wall formation to remove the tents.

Is that the violent and criminal behavior Nessel was talking about?

Don't get me wrong, I think misdemeanor offenses can and should be ticketed when they occur. The accused can argue in court whether or not they violated a local ordinance and pay the fine if the court rules that they did. But the Michigan AG was implying something much worse happened. If it did, these particular individuals don't appear to have been the perpetrators.