Melania Trump in rare public appearance: Pathway to citizenship ‘arduous’ Įlise Stefanik files complaint against federal judge who ruled in Jan. Ĭongress approves bill barring any president from unilaterally withdrawing from. Top evangelical leader says he doesn’t believe poll showing strong Trump. GOP senator says Biden can’t be impeached for pre-presidential actions Giuliani ordered to pay $148M in election workers’ defamation lawsuit This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. If they want to have a notion of having free speech on campus, that’s generally a good thing, but this is their free choice to allow hateful speech on their campuses.” said Nathan Diament, director of Public Policy for the Orthodox Union.Ĭopyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. “They could censor and restrict whatever speech they want to. While all three schools say they have commitments to free speech, each is a private school and not bound by the same First Amendment restrictions as other public institutions. “Of course, one can understand the frustration of critics who rightly observe how quickly college administrators - including those at Harvard, Penn, and MIT - will reach for speech codes when certain disfavored views are expressed, yet don the cloak of free speech when they are more sympathetic to the speech at issue,” the group said. The group argues that the three presidents should in fact be in hot water for their inconsistencies on their harassment and free speech policies. “And as frustrating as it is to hear the college presidents’ appeals to ‘context’ in yesterday’s hearing, particularly when it doesn’t seem to matter to them when other speech is at issue, the truth is that context does matter,” FIRE added. Elise Stefanik asked about during the hearing - no matter how offensive - would qualify given this pervasiveness requirement,” the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) said in statement. ![]() For example, it’s hard to see how the single utterance Rep. ![]() “The bottom line is that harassment is a pattern of targeted behavior. The Anti-Defamation League conducted a survey showing 73 percent of Jewish students and 44 percent of non-Jewish students nationwide have seen or experienced antisemitism since the start of the academic year - up from in 2021, when 32 percent of Jewish students experienced antisemitism aimed at them - and 31 percent of Jewish students say they saw antisemitic activity that wasn’t aimed at them.įree speech organizations, while recognizing how appalling the college leaders’ statements seem, argue that legally the presidents were not wrong in their answers. ![]() Harvard had a student-led group blame the October terrorist attack solely on Israel, MIT Jewish students said they were blocked from going to classes by protesters and Penn was already struggling after hosting a festival that included antisemitic speakers. It’s evil - plain and simple.”Īll three universities were called to testify due to increased antisemitism on their campuses since Oct. “I was not focused on, but I should have been, the irrefutable fact that a call for genocide of Jewish people is a call for some of the most terrible violence human beings can perpetrate. Constitution, which say that speech alone is not punishable,” Magill said in her statement. “In that moment, I was focused on our university’s longstanding policies aligned with the U.S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |