[Pants-of-dog]

So the NYU makes the assumption that Zionism is only ever a code word for Jew and any criticism of Zionism is coded antisemitism.

Thus, the regulations equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism.

[wat0n]

NYU is not assuming that.

They even say explicitly that the policy kicks in when "Zionist" is used as a code word.

[Pants-of-dog]

The point I am making is that thee NYU does not address the instances when it is not code.

Pointing out that it addresses all uses of Zionism as code does not, in any way, refute my point,

[wat0n]

If "Zionist" is not used as a code for discrimination against a protected class like Jews (religion/ethnicity) or Israelis (country of origin) the policy doesn't apply. Again, that much is also clear from the text.

[Rich]

To support an independent Palestinian state is to be anti Jewish.

Many claim to support an independent state, but this long promised state would not be independent and at its most fantasical optimistic extreme would not be contiguous territory and would be totally dependent indefinitely on Israel's good will. A genuine independent Palestinian state would inevitable require the destruction of the Israeli state, the Jews national state, their only state. Its not unreasonable to describe this as anti Jewish.

The destruction of the Jewish state is not only anti Jewish, but would also probably only be achieved through a nuclear war. Now I know many liberals see nuclear war as a small price to pay for getting rid of Putin. The man they blame for getting Trump elected in 2016. But that's a good enough reason for me to accept Israel as a done deal. If Israel is to have a long term future, there can never be a genuine independent Palestine state. We should proceed accordingly based on this reality.

[ingliz]

[N]uclear war... a small price to pay for getting rid of Putin.

Are we talking about a full-scale global nuclear exchange involving the US, Russia, China, the UK, France etc? If so, it is estimated that such a war would cause over 5 billion deaths primarily due to starvation.


Note: All Cold War wargames predicted any nuclear exchange would quickly go global.

[wat0n]

To support an independent Palestinian state is to be anti Jewish.

Many claim to support an independent state, but this long promised state would not be independent and at its most fantasical optimistic extreme would not be contiguous territory and would be totally dependent indefinitely on Israel's good will. A genuine independent Palestinian state would inevitable require the destruction of the Israeli state, the Jews national state, their only state. Its not unreasonable to describe this as anti Jewish.

The destruction of the Jewish state is not only anti Jewish, but would also probably only be achieved through a nuclear war. Now I know many liberals see nuclear war as a small price to pay for getting rid of Putin. The man they blame for getting Trump elected in 2016. But that's a good enough reason for me to accept Israel as a done deal. If Israel is to have a long term future, there can never be a genuine independent Palestine state. We should proceed accordingly based on this reality.

I disagree, and if you're concerned about linking Gaza and the West Bank, it is certainly possible to do that by using underground passages. Although longer term, even with the establishment of a Palestinian state, it could split into two states with one in Gaza and the other in the West Bank if it proved necessary (just like the split between Pakistan and Bangladesh).

Or from 2 states, they could unify into a single one if majorities of both Israelis and Palestinians wanted to.

[Pants-of-dog]

There is nothing in the NYU regulations that suggests that criticism of Zionism can be used as something other than code.

[wat0n]

There is nothing in NYU's regulations suggesting criticism of Zionism is only a code word for antisemitism. Indeed, NYU even mentions examples of criticism of Israel that does not violate their anti-discrimination policies.

[Pants-of-dog]

The quoted text makes no example of the word “Zionist” to mean anything other than a code word for “Jew”.

[wat0n]

Yes it does, particularly the last paragraph.

It's not my fault if you endorse using "Zionist" as a code word for "Jew" to be able to be as antisemitic as you like, without facing the criticism @Pants-of-dog

[Pants-of-dog]

People can read the text for themselves.

One can criticize the state of Israel in classrooms, but cannot criticize Zionism.

[wat0n]

Of course one can criticize Zionism. What one can't do it use it as a code for Jews.

[Pants-of-dog]

There is nothing in the NYU regulations that says that Zionism can be criticized.

In fact, it equates Zionists with protected classes such as races and religions.

[wat0n]

No, it does not say any of that. It says explicitly Zionism cannot be used as a code word in an attempt to hide you're discriminating.

Since the criticism of Zionism per se is not banned, it follows it is allowed.

[Pants-of-dog]

People can read it for themselves.

It specifically mentions how anti-discrimination policies now include Zionist as a protected class.

———————

At Brown, the students were successful in bringing about a vote on divestment for October. Consequently, there are student groups now campaigning for said referendum.

Apparently, campaigning for a referendum is fine. But voting for it is not.

If the university does vote for it, attorney generals from 24 different states (not Rhode Island, by the way, where Brown is located) are promising legal action against the university.

[wat0n]

No, it does not @Pants-of-dog. People may be able to read the policy by themselves, but it seems you can't

[Pants-of-dog]

Now, the attorney generals are accusing Brown of antisemitism if they engage in divestment.

Is divesting from Israel antisemitism?

[wat0n]

It depends on the situation, including what is the purpose of divesting.

[Deutschmania]

Atlanta’s Emory University began the new school year last week with the president Gregory Fenves unilaterally announcing a new policy prohibiting tents on campus, “building occupations and/or takeovers” and protests after midnight – in violation of the school’s shared governance policy, according to faculty members in positions of leadership who spoke to the Guardian.

Fenves announced the new policy last Tuesday, calling it an effort to “improve how we keep our community safe”. But the university senate’s current president and president-elect met with Fenves the following afternoon, urging him to delay implementing the new rules until a process had taken place that included the full senate holding a meeting and issuing recommendations, the Guardian has learned.

Failing to do so is a “complete violation” of university policy, which says such decisions must include input from the university senate – representing faculty, students and staff, said George B Shepherd, law professor and the body’s current president. He called what Fenves did “making rules by fiat”. Still, Emory’s president insisted on staying the course, saying the school year had already begun and that “it was an emergency”, Shepherd said. “If he understood shared governance, he wouldn’t be doing this,” said Noëlle McAfee, chairperson of the school’s philosophy department and university senate president-elect, who also attended the meeting. “He doesn’t care about the legitimacy of his leadership.”

As for the policy itself, McAfee said: “To what problem are these [rules] a solution to?”

Emory did not respond to an inquiry from the Guardian.

Clifton Crais, history professor and president-elect of the college faculty senate – a separate body – called the Fenves administration “thuggish” for proceeding as it did, “despite everything that happened last year”.

Crais was referring to how the private university distinguished itself on 25 April, after Fenves called Atlanta police and Georgia state patrol onto campus within three hours of protestors setting up camp opposing the school’s investments in Israel as well as a police training center outside the city colloquially known as “Cop City”. At an estimated $11bn, the school’s endowment is among the largest in the nation. Fenves’s move appeared to be the fastest decision to call police on campus to quash protests at the time, and police then used Tasers against protestors and others, another first.

At the close of the first week of school, Crais described the mood on Emory’s campus as, “not a good scene”. Some faculty were applying for jobs elsewhere, he said. Others who were arrested at or near last spring’s protests recently found out the school was unwilling to recommend to prosecuting authorities that they drop misdemeanor charges against students and faculty arrested – meaning months and possibly years of trials lay ahead.

McAfee made this request to Fenves at last week’s meeting. “He said nothing” in response, the philosophy professor said. Crais also sent an email to Fenves on 25 August asking the university president to “do the right thing and call for all charges to be dropped” and received no response.

McAfee was one of the 28 arrested on 25 April, after she had come to the school’s quad that morning to see what was going on. She later told a local TV news reporter that she “saw a young protester thrown to the ground by officers, who were ‘pummeling them, just pummeling and pummeling’. The mother in me said ‘Stop. Stop.’ And I made sure to stand 4ft away from them, standing still, non-confrontational, I said, ‘Stop’ [...].”

Police arrested the philosophy department chair and charged her with disorderly conduct. A video of her arrest went viral, and she now awaits a trial. In an editorial published early summer in Scientific American, she wrote that Emory “violently and brutally dismantle[d] a peaceful protest, all in a matter of minutes”, instead of helping “educate their students to become engaged members of society—with the side benefit of furthering the democratic process itself”.

She said students arrested that day have since faced consequences such as being denied when seeking to rent an apartment or being unsure whether they can leave the country to visit family. One student suffered nerve damage after being arrested.

After last week’s meeting, she said: “My president had us arrested, and has not even asked us how we are. He has not reached out to anybody.”

As for Muslim students on campus, Council on American Islamic Relations (Cair) – the nation’s largest Muslim civil liberties organization – recently called Emory (and George Washington University and UCLA) a “thoroughly hostile and dangerous environment for anti-genocide students, faculty, and staff, especially Muslim and Palestinian community members”. Azka Mahmood, executive director at Cair-Georgia, issued a statement on video, “advising Muslim students to avoid Emory University”.

Hamza Dudgeon, a doctoral student in Emory’s Islamic civilizations studies program, said “Muslim students are really scared” as the new school year begins. Asked whether he agreed with Mahmood, Dudgeon said, “after seeing the way [Emory] retaliated against students and faculty for exercising basic academic freedoms … honestly, yes”.

The graduate student just began his last semester of classes, and then plans to write his dissertation.

“After that,” he said, “I’m trying to get out as fast as possible. I’m scared for new, incoming Muslim students. What if they say something that gets them in trouble? Especially talking about a genocide going on.” The Guardian