[wat0n]

Thus far all donors you've mentioned have been Jewish, @Pants-of-dog

[Pants-of-dog]

I never looked at or mentioned their religion or ethnicity. It does not seem relevant, except for the obvious correlation.

Institutions like Colt (the rifle company), Ford, Caterpillar, Google, are probably also exerting leverage on whichever institutions they support through donations. They are simply not tweeting about it on social media.

[wat0n]

"Probably"? Do you have some evidence of that?

It's quite some coincidence, you know? Although I'd not find it surprising many donors would want to rein antisemitism in.

[Pants-of-dog]

Weapon companies and other companies that have ties to both the IDF and universities have reason to keep quiet about it, since taking a public position would shine a spotlight on the ties between defense and universities, a relationship which has traditionally not benefited from public attention.

Individual donors who are trying to champion what they see as social justice feel that they benefit from publicly explaining their actions and motives.

[wat0n]

Now you're sounding as a conspiracy theorist @Pants-of-dog

The truth is out there!

[Pants-of-dog]

Please explain how it is a conspiracy theory to say that weapon companies (and other companies tied to the current war and genocide) have ties to universities, and that divestment (which the protesters are asking for) would either cut off said ties or (more likely) bring them under public scrutiny. And this public scrutiny can lead to a decrease in profits.

[QatzelOk]

It is also not "peaceful protest" to disrupt university operations and taking over university property.

Here, you are saying: "Hate the conspiracy-theory believers!"

It is good you're finally admitting racist harassment of Jewish students did happen in these protests, by the way.

Here, you are saying: "Hate the anti-semites!"

Funny way to fight "hate," but what do I know.
I am not pure-love like you obviously are.

[wat0n]

@QatzelOk this seems like an inane statement, also, nothing wrong with hating racists.

Please explain how it is a conspiracy theory to say that weapon companies (and other companies tied to the current war and genocide) have ties to universities, and that divestment (which the protesters are asking for) would either cut off said ties or (more likely) bring them under public scrutiny. And this public scrutiny can lead to a decrease in profits.

I'm still waiting for your evidence.

Thus far this is just unverifiable speculation.

And don't whine, this is exactly how you respond to ever considering how incentives affect institutions.

[Pants-of-dog]

And now that a chance has been presented to explain how my claim is a conspiracy theory and this chance has been ignored, we can safely assume that my claim is not a conspiracy theory.

[wat0n]

No, @Pants-of-dog. You have to provide evidence for your unverified conspiracy theories, as long as you do not provide such evidence your speculation is fairly labeled as such.

[Pants-of-dog]

So no one has to provide evidence for the claim that it is a conspiracy theory.

Instead, everyone must mistakenly believe it is a conspiracy theory, and I have to magically support this mistaken belief.

No, that seems stupid. Instead, I will merely repat that this is not a conspiracy theory at all.

It is a matter of public record that Colt's Manufacturing received $26,675,000 from the U.S. Army to supply carbines and suppressors to the IDF, in May of this year.

It is also a matter of public record that many universities invest in Colt and other weapons manufacturers.

It is also a matter of public record that the protests are focused on divestment.

It is, by definition, impossible for a conspiracy theory to be out in the public eye like this.

The firm-fixed-price contract, announced Wednesday by the Pentagon, is listed as being for Colt "M4A1 carbines, suppressors, and flash suppressors." At the same time, Fiscal Year 2024 Foreign Military Sales funds in the same amount were obligated, earmarked for Israel.

[wat0n]

No @Pants-of-dog, you are the one who has to prove that Colt, Google or other businesses are pressuring universities and getting them to punish students for their speech.

I'm still waiting.

[Pants-of-dog]

I have no idea what it means to “prove” this.

So we agree that it is not a conspiracy theory insofar as the above mentioned facts are all publicly known.

The next step is to ascertain whether or not universities and these businesses want divestment or oppose it. Now, we can make the logical assumption that these investments happen because both parties feel that they profit from said investments. This is how investors work, after all. Consequently, it is logical to assume that both the universities and businesses oppose divestment.

Is there any criticism about how this part of the argument?

It would be odd if there were since I am merely applying the definition of “investment” to the relationship between universities and weapons manufacturers profiting from the current war and genocide.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog is still not providing any evidence that any of the businesses he mentioned have gotten even a single racist pro-Palestine student punished for their speech, and then he wants us to keep with his completely unverifiable speculation.

[Pants-of-dog]

If the only criticism is a strawman and a vague assertion about lack of verifiabilty, we can move on.

Now, we have seen that companies that are profiting from the current war and genocide are threatened with a loss of investment from universities if the divestment protests continue. This is clear from the facts presented.

The universities would also lose out if the investments ended since the return on these investments is a significant income stream.

Consequently, both parties are united in opposing these protests, even if they never talk about it or come to any secret agreement or make any sort of backroom deal. None of that is necessary. The simple mechanics of capitalism and investment provide all the motive.

Is there any criticism about this?

[Deutschmania]

And now even faculty members at Columbia have come to face a crackdown .

Three Columbia University administrators have resigned after exchanging a series of derisive text messages that were seen as antisemitic during a panel on campus Jewish life.

The resignations came nearly two months after the texts first came to light, causing a major scandal at the Manhattan Ivy League university as it contends with allegations of antisemitism on campus, and with months of turbulent anti-Israel protests.

The text messages — sent during the panel at the end of May and first reported in June — downplayed accounts of campus antisemitism, mocked Jewish students and suggested that a Hillel official was leveraging accusations of antisemitism for fundraising. The deans were placed on leave shortly after the texts surfaced.

Columbia University President Minouche Shafik said last month that the texts echoed “ancient antisemitic tropes.” At the time, the university said the administrators involved had been “permanently removed from their positions,” but it was unclear whether they would take on other roles at the university. A Columbia spokesperson confirmed to the New York Jewish Week on Thursday that the three deans were resigning. The three deans who resigned are Susan Chang-Kim, the university’s vice dean and chief administrative officer; Cristen Kromm, a dean of undergraduate student life; and Matthew Patashnick, an associate vice dean for student and family support. The deans’ resignation was first reported by The New York Times.

A fourth dean who was involved in one of the text exchanges has apologized and acknowledged that the conversations “call to mind antisemitic tropes.” That administrator, the dean of Columbia College, Josef Sorett, has not resigned. A Columbia spokesperson did not respond to a request for information about Sorett’s status, or for further details about the resignations. More than 1,000 Columbia alumni have demanded Sorett’s removal in a petition.

The text message exchanges took place while the administrators were attending a May 31 panel discussion titled “Jewish Life on Campus: Past, Present, and Future.” At the panel, a Jewish student, Columbia Hillel director Brian Cohen and two other panelists discussed antisemitism at the school following Oct. 7.

“Comes from such a place of privilege,” wrote Chang-Kim. “Hard to hear the woe is me, we need to huddle at the Kraft Center,” referring to Columbia’s Jewish student center, where Hillel is housed.

“Yup. Blind to the idea that non-Israel supporting Jews have no space to come together,” responded Kromm.

While Cohen was speaking about students’ efforts to gain attention, Kromm wrote “Amazing what $$$$ can do.” At another point while Cohen was speaking, Chang-Kim wrote, “He is such a problem!”

Patashnick wrote, “He knows exactly what he’s doing and has to take full advantage of this moment. Huge fundraising potential.”

In a separate exchange, Chang-Kim wrote “He is our hero” in an apparently sarcastic message about Cohen. Nine minutes later, Sorett wrote, “Lmao,” an acronym denoting laughter, though whether that was a response to Chang-Kim or something else was unclear. He did not respond to a request for comment at the time. Some of the text messages were first photographed by an audience member who was sitting behind one of the administrators during the panel and were first reported by the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative news outlet.

The House Committee on Education and the Workforce, which is investigating antisemitism at Columbia and other campuses, later obtained and released the full text message exchanges.

The chair of the committee, Representative Virginia Foxx, a Republican from North Carolina, said in a Thursday statement that it was “about time” the deans resigned. “Actions have consequences, and Columbia should have fired all four of these deans months ago,” Foxx said. “Instead, the University continues to send mixed signals, letting Columbia College Dean Josef Sorett, the highest-ranking administrator involved, slide under the radar with no real consequences.”

Last month, while announcing that the deans had been removed from their positions, Shafik also vowed to start a “vigorous program of antisemitism and antidiscrimination training” in the fall, when classes reconvene.

“This incident revealed behavior and sentiments that were not only unprofessional, but also, disturbingly touched on ancient antisemitic tropes,” Shafik said in an email at that time to the campus community. “These sentiments are unacceptable and deeply upsetting, conveying a lack of seriousness about the concerns and the experiences of members of our Jewish community.”

The turmoil at Columbia has continued this summer, even though classes are not in session. On Thursday, vandals defaced the apartment building of a top Columbia executive, drawing condemnation from Gov. Kathy Hochul. https://www.jta.org/2024/08/08/ny/3-columbia-university-deans-resign-after-sending-disparaging-text-messages-during-panel-on-campus-jewish-life

So I guess that it doesn't count as identity politics and cancel culture , when it concerns Zionist Jews .

[wat0n]

Nice quote you got there, @Deutschmania. It's interesting how the far-left is adopting neonazi rhetoric when it comes to Jews

Going back to their case, the majority of Columbia's student body comes from the upper class. So why would Jewish students be singled out by these administrators? I guess it's a total mystery.

[Pants-of-dog]

I see the conspiracy theory argument has been abandoned.

Now, the only question is why the weapons companies have not been public about opposing the protests.

This is because it generally does not work out for the university. And by that I mean that the public debate raises awareness about the investment and creates more public pressure for the university to divest. The weapons companies are not significantly impacted, since the stock simply goes to a new investor, and that is another reason they are not all on social media complaining.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog no, as long as you cannot show corporations have led universities to punish students for anti-Israel speech yours is still an unverifiable conspiracy theory.

[Pants-of-dog]

It would make more sense to say that if I had claimed that corporations have led universities to punish students for anti-Israel speech, then I would have made an unverifiable conspiracy theory.

Instead, my only claim was that there are interested parties who are doing what they can to oppose divestment protests that are not Jewish.

Republican politicians are another group opposing the protests and are not necessarily Jewish.