Good Morning! It’s winter again, but the normal Seattle-y winter we’re used to. High around 50, rain in the evening. It’s the kind of weather you can get used to. Which is good—we’ve got the same forecast for at least the next 10 days. Settle in!
College Crackdown: Yesterday, the Department of Education sent warning letters to 60 US colleges and universities, letting them know that they could face repercussions if they don’t “fulfill their obligations…to protect Jewish students on campus, including uninterrupted access to campus facilities and educational opportunities.” Our own UW was one of those schools. UW has already been through a DOE investigation for anti-semitism after the pro-Palestinian protests last year. The investigations found no wrongdoing on UW’s part, but did find gaps in how the university responded to bias incident complaints—which they committed to address. Why doesn’t that matter to the Trump admin? Because this isn’t about Jewish students, or antisemitism, or protecting literally anyone. This is about suppressing dissent on college campuses, where that dissent is most likely to build power.
Good Karen Energy: Need a little dose of hope? The AP profiled one of the rank and file federal employees who is pushing back on the Trump agenda. Karen Ortiz is an administrative judge at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has been totally rocked by new Trump policies. The last straw for Ortiz was when her supervisor directed administrative judges to pause all their current LGBTQ cases and send them to DC to comply with Trump’s anti-trans executive order. She sent an email to almost 200 colleagues encouraging them to resist, but that email “mysteriously” disappeared. So she leaned in, and cc’d 1,000 of her colleagues in an email to the EEOC’s acting chair, questioning her fitness to serve in the role, “much less hold a license to practice law.” That’s the kind of Karen energy we like to see.
The Tariff Train Continues: I’m still not convinced Trump knows what a tariff is. This morning, he announced on Truth Social (in VERY RESPECTABLE CAPITAL LETTERS) that he plans to raise the tariffs on Canadian aluminum and steel to 50 percent. He said they’d go into effect on Wednesday. How can Canada avoid these tariffs? According to Trump: Become our 51st state. Baby, Canada doesn’t wanna go on a date with you. Negging them isn’t gonna help. (Separately, I’d really like to stop reading major geo-political updates in the form of shitposts on Truth Social.)
Pure Nonsense: In an interview on Fox, RFK Jr. (who, bafflingly, is still our health and human services secretary), outlined his strategy for containing the measles outbreak in West Texas. It included: exaggerating the risk of “vaccine injury” from the measles vaccine, insisting that “natural immunity” to measles from infection protects against cancer and heart disease (it doesn’t), and encouraging treatments like cod liver oil (which the NYT called “questionable.”)
Hometown Pride: Washington AG Nick Brown sued Adams County on Monday, accusing it of breaking state law by aiding ICE enforcement. According to Brown, the county in Eastern Washington is being Trump’s dream narc: illegally holding people based only on their immigration status, helping federal immigration agents question people in custody, and sharing confidential personal information, like birthdates, addresses, driver’s license numbers and fingerprints. The county is being represented by Stephen Miller’s very own legal outfit, America First Legal. Eww.
Democracy Vouchers Are Back on the Table: Funding for Seattle’s democracy voucher program expires at the end of the year, but Mayor Bruce Harrell is hoping to keep them alive. Yesterday, he proposed a 10-year, $45 million property tax to keep it afloat. (That comes out to about $12 a year for the average homeowner, so you can unclench your butthole, Karen.)
Looking for a Little Culture? The Stranger’s Spring Arts issue is in print everywhere. Can’t wait to grab your copy? You can also read a lot of it here! Including this amazing preview of “arists & poets” at the Jacob Lawrence Gallery at UW, by Rachael Kessler, our Great Bagel Throwdown, Eva Walker’s column about the day her daughter was born (and why she’ll be an only child), and Michael Wong’s elbow-deep exploration of Viet-Cajun cuisine.
Like Horror or Thriller Movies? But do you always have to check DoesTheDogDie.com? I do. Every damn time. But! A few weeks ago, I was watching The Meg, an incredibly, perfectly stupid shark attack movie about discovering a Megaladon in the depths of the Mariana Trench. There’s no dog death, and while we lose a few decent humans and one whale that will absolutely haunt our asses to the end of time, we also get to watch a Megaladon eat a billionaire. And that got us thinking: When else can we watch the shitty, manipulative billionaire get what’s coming? And so we made: DoesTheBillionaireDie.com. Have a favorite fictional billionaire death? Send it to us at billionaires@thestranger.com
Tanya Woo Is Back: It looks like the twice-failed city council candidate just refuses to take the L. Yesterday, we noticed that Tanya Woo was registered to receive democracy vouchers, but not registered as a candidate with the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission. Then, a few hours after we reached out to her, she appeared on the SEEC website. She still hasn’t formally acknowledged she’s running (she told The Stranger that she was simply exploring the option). But this sure looks like the beginning of a run to us. Read more about it here.
Seahawks Switchup: In some local sports news, the Seahawks pulled a classic “we totally meant to do that” move this week, shipping off former starting QB Geno Smith to the Raiders after contract talks fizzled, and betting on Sam Darnold to replace him with a $100.5 million deal. Sure, Darnold is younger and had a solid year with the Vikings, but given his playoff faceplant, Seahawks fans probably want to keep the receipt on this one.
ICYMI: City Hall is back on their Denny Blaine nonsense. Remember 2023, when we learned that the millionaire owner of University Village lives next to Denny Blaine Park, which has been a queer, nude beach for at least four decades? And how he was tired of the naked people outside his mansion, so he donated $1 million to the city in 2023 to build a children’s playground at Denny Blaine? After some major community organizing, the playground is off the table. Now, neighbors want a ranger at the park. The park’s stewardship group really does not. Read all about this saga’s next chapter from The Stranger’s Vivian McCall here.
Move Over Moo-deng. Have you met Ume? She’s a one-month-old endangered spot-covered tapir calf, and she lives just down the train tracks at Point Defiance Zoo.
Does The Stranger’s macabre billionaire death fantasies include George Soros and Oprah Winfrey?
“Because this isn’t about Jewish students, or antisemitism, or protecting literally anyone. This is about suppressing dissent on college campuses, where that dissent is most likely to build power.”
The Stranger can assert this, but last year, Pro-Palestinian protestors at UCLA did bar Jewish students from entering classrooms unless they denounced their faith:
‘”LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the University of California, Los Angeles, cannot allow pro-Palestinian protesters to block Jewish students from accessing classes and other parts of campus.
[…]
‘“In the year 2024, in the United States of America, in the State of California, in the City of Los Angeles, Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith.” Scarsi wrote.’
(https://apnews.com/article/ucla-protests-jewish-students-judge-rules-573d3385393b91dae093a8a8f0861431)
I won’t accuse the Trump Administration of acting in good faith, but the reality of last year’s protestors creating hostile environments for Jews on American college campuses cannot be denied.
I’ve heard “BRoligarchs” instead of billionaires as better foil – it’s more accurate and powerful – I think.
@1:
Why do you ask? Are you just waiting to fap yourself into a frenzy by watching them die on-screen?
@2:
So, I expect this administration will also soon be sending out a similar missive regarding anti-abortion protesters creating a hostile environment by harassing students on college campuses (https://qcnerve.com/anti-abortion-protests-uncc/). Oh, wait, nevermind. This administration isn’t going to do jack-shit about that, so I guess we can conclude they’re just being selective about which groups they’re targeting, which lends credence to Hannah’s assertion that it’s really just about suppressing speech they don’t like.
@1,
Given that the site referenced is explicitly dealing in fictional portrayals, and that Soros and Winfrey are non-fictional people, I’m gonna venture way the fuck out on a limb here and say no.
Dweeeeeeebeeeee!!!!! You so dumb. Derb. Go paint your nails or something noxiously odiferous, but be sure to close the windows and put a plastic bag over your head. Have a day asshole!
@5: OK, perhaps, “I won’t accuse the Trump Administration of acting in good faith,” was a bit too obscure for you, but no, I don’t expect the Trump Administration to do anything about any crime committed by anyone who supports it in any way, and anti-choice types obediently lined up to vote for him multiple times.
That said, federal law does say that schools receiving federal funds cannot allow religious discrimination on their campuses, so the government does have standing to keep schools honest. The headline post’s earlier hand-waving about how it’s all been taken care of, nothing to see here folks, just move along, needn’t be believed either.
@6: Of course it’s fictional based on real time anger. The juxtaposition of an innocuous category of billionaires with the focus of our rage misses the mark, I think.
@8: “federal law does say that schools receiving federal funds cannot allow religious discrimination on their campuses”
No. Federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin (all under Title VI), and sex (under Title IX). Religious discrimination is not prohibited. Antisemitism falls under the “national origin” umbrella, not any kind of religious umbrella.
@5: Don’t worry, in due time this administration will also turn on the Jews as well. It never fails. 😂
A USC quarterback has never played in the Super Bowl. We’re fucked.
Imagine if a President threatened to withhold federal funds from universities if they didn’t suppress student criticism of Russia, or Taliban Afghanistan, or apartheid South Africa. Does anyone think thumpus or tensorna would be on here crying about the poor Russian or Afrikaner students who couldn’t make it to class because they refused to denounce their human-rights-violating home countries?
Re: Tense & Ornery’s latest outbursts of virulent nationalism. I bothered to check their links: not surprisingly, no one asked Jewish students to deny their faith. Blockades were erected to deny access to supporters of the Zionist state of Israel. Demanding that someone denounce a national government isn’t the same as asking them to renounce their religion at all…unless that nation is a religiously-based ethnostate (theocracy, in vague, plebeian political shorthand), 😉 ;).
Also, discrimination is – or has been in the past – legally defined as being treated differently for the same thing. Despite the assertions of the pro-Zionist judge, it sounds like anyone who maintained support for the Zionist state was subject to the blockade, regardless of their own faith affiliation. Thus, we can safely conclude that the lawsuit was a flagrant political action, with the plaintiffs’ attorney asserting to the press that the pro-Palestine, anti-war blockade was “anti-semitic” – a grotesque misuse of the judicial system. In fact, I’m going to go so far (!) as to guess that most of the stand-their-grounders were actually conservative Christians, not persons of Jewish faith, and I wouldn’t be surprised if dominionist $$$ helped fund the complaint.
So – a successful attempt to squash a vigorous challenge to the wars-for-profit machine which is the status quo of our national budget. And best of all, it also involves imposing minoritarian religious “values” onto secular education – it’s no wonder Tense & Ornery loves it!
@13: Student criticism is fine, student discrimination is not. 😘
lol, US just announced it is restoring military aid to Ukraine. Can’t wait for that Trump supporter to jump on here to crow about how military aid to Ukraine is now good, actually! 😂
@14: “no one asked Jewish students to deny their faith”
Of course not. Progressives are fine with Jews as a powerless religious minority. What they object to is Jewish sovereignty, not Jewish religious practice. 😉
@9 I know you will ignore this, but there is a huge difference between a billionaire like George Soros, who uses his wealth to promote democracies world wide, and Elon Musk buying Trump to turn America into a Fascist oligarchy. We can praise folks who use their wealth to help others, while calling for Guillotines for Broligarchs, and be totally consistent with our values.
Re: 15-17. Sigh…yes, I know you know how to read.
@13: Why are your counter-examples always fictional? Shouldn’t that be telling you something?
@14: The quote and source URL was right there @2, from a federal judge’s ruling: ‘… Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith.” Scarsi wrote.’
So no, you didn’t check anything, and you have no factual basis for the rest of the many assertions you made in your comment.
@18: I didn’t, and I concur.
While I’m confident in Prof. Wankus’ literacy, I’m not so sure about Tense & Ornery. I rebutted the judge’s decision in comment, but it doesn’t appear to have registered.
@14: “Blockades were erected to deny access to supporters of the Zionist state of Israel.”
I like your implied assertion that it’s a-ok to block a student from entering her classroom, if she fails whatever political litmus test the local protestors have nonconsensually imposed upon her institution of learning.
(Then again, you may well have noticed a very strong — and decidedly inverse — correlation between the chance a person will tend to agree with you, and the amount of time that person has spent in classrooms.)
@23 “I like your implied assertion that it’s a-ok to block a student from entering her classroom, if she fails whatever political litmus test the local protestors have nonconsensually imposed upon her institution of learning”
So if protesters required students to denounce ISIS to enter a building you’d believe that university should lose federal funding?
By the way it’s called a “hypothetical” and helps to flesh out the philosophical basis for a position. For example whether yours is principled at all or just, per usual, borne from unthinking pro-Israel bias.
@24 yes, because their actions are now violating the rights of another student. You can have strong beliefs, you can protest, you can say awful things as many of these people have done and that’s all protected under the first amendment but the minute you cross the line and start restricting the freedom of other students / defacing public property / occupying buildings by trespassing and the myriad of other things these protestors have done over the last 18 months then your right to protest is no longer protected and you are subject to consequences. if you have trouble conceptualizing if this is wrong replace Jewish students with African Americans / LGBT or another historically marginalized group and if you wouldn’t pull this crap on them then its not ok to do it to anyone else.
Dear headline editor: Professional’s don’t use apostrophe’s to indicate plural noun’s.
@25, What you’re missing is that we’re not talking about consequences for protesters. Punishing individuals for engaging in unlawful activities during a protest is nothing new and all protesters should prepare for it, even peaceful/passive ones. But the president is threatening to withhold funding to punish entire universities for allowing protests to happen at all which can have a chilling effect on free speech across the board. However you feel about the nature of the protests is immaterial. Anyone who cares about our first amendment rights should be appalled by Trump’s threats.
@27: “But the president is threatening to withhold funding to punish entire universities for allowing protests to happen at all…”
Not even the Stranger’s version supports your interpretation:
‘Yesterday, the Department of Education sent warning letters to 60 US colleges and universities, letting them know that they could face repercussions if they don’t “fulfill their obligations…to protect Jewish students on campus, including uninterrupted access to campus facilities and educational opportunities.”’
The letter didn’t address protests, it addressed abusive protests, protests which infringed upon the rights of other students at those schools. (And, like most of Trump’s program, it’s highly unoriginal; Congress held hearings on this awhile ago, and the schools didn’t exactly cover themselves in glory then, either.)
“However you feel about the nature of the protests is immaterial.”
Well, the nature of these protests was aggressively intolerant of other students and their views, which is actually the problem. Right here in this thread, @14, we’re told a student can be refused entry to her classroom if she doesn’t agree with the protestors’ political views. That’s straight-up McCarthyism, and we should not have let it happen here again.
“This
is about
suppressing dissent
on college campuses, where
that dissent is most likely to build power.”
thank you
Hannah. bold
Move well played
regardless
of what tS’s
fascist contin-
gent claims. what’s
That they say? punch a Nazi?
@24 Holy shit…. Maybe you should sit this one out, broski.
@28, Not protests but ABUSIVE protests, you say? Sorry but adding a few spicy adjectives doesn’t change my opinion and I’m a little surprised but not really to see you making excuses for Trump’s authoritarian tendencies when they suit your personal grievances.
Almost any kind of protest has the potential to disrupt people’s lives or hurt their feelings. This is a completely subjective standard and it would be an outrage to punish an entire university over the actions of students/staff who cross the line. Charge individuals if they break the law, expel them from school if they break the rules, all of that is within bounds. But the federal government punishing schools for failing to prevent any of this from happening would set a standard where all forms of student protest could be banned to protect the financial interests of the institution. All it would take is an aggrieved student to complain and then it would be up to the Trump administration to decide whether to act.
@20: An even more interesting antisemitism case to watch than Judge Scarsi’s case involving UCLA is Judge Donato’s case involving UC Berkeley.
Judge Scarsi’s case feels exciting because he has handed down a preliminary injunction against UCLA, so you get a sense for which way the wind is blowing in his courtroom. The disappointing aspect of the UCLA case, from my point of view, is that the plaintiffs have teed it up as a religious liberty case by alleging that the protests constituted a First Amendment violation by denying Jews free exercise. The UCLA complaint will succeed only if the court ultimately determines that Zionism is integral to Jewish religious beliefs, which I regard as a less interesting question.
I predict Judge Scarsi will ultimately determine that Zionism is integral only to some Jews’ religious beliefs, not all Jews, so while antizionism might constitute discrimination against the particular religious Jews in the UCLA case, it wouldn’t necessarily constitute discrimination against all Jews. Also, because this is a First Amendment issue, it would be only government schools and agencies that would have to worry about this particular type of antisemitic discrimination.
By contrast, the plaintiffs in Judge Donato’s case have gone straight for the jugular: a claim that antizionism constitutes antisemitic discrimination on the basis of national origin, in violation of Title VI. If the court rules broadly in favor of the plaintiffs, it could mean that antizionism constitutes unlawful discrimination against all Jews, regardless of their individual religious beliefs—a much more sweeping result. 😄 Also, because this is a Title VI issue rather than a First Amendment issue, it would affect all schools that receive federal funds, which means both government schools and almost all major private schools.
So the stakes are much higher in Judge Donato’s case. Also, the briefing on dispositive motions was completed a few months earlier in Judge Donato’s case, so we could see an order earlier from his court than from Judge Scarsi’s. What exciting times to follow civil rights law! 😄
@30: “disrupt people’s lives or hurt their feelings”
The issue is not whether the protests disrupt lives and hurt feelings but whether the protests create a discriminatory environment so hostile as to prevent access to education. I’m sure we can all agree we wouldn’t want such an environment to persist. 😉
@32, I understand the particulars of the case in question and I fully support the guilty parties being punished for their actions. But discriminatory/hostile is subjective, and a country that values speech should not empower the federal government to punish entire institutions for failing to prevent individuals from breaking the law or school policy. How does any university guarantee all protesters adhere to the government’s expectations? What happens when the school takes all reasonable precautions and students still break the rules? You may trust Trump or some future administration to apply this power fairly but I don’t. Punish individual actors, not entire institutions.
‘Karen Ortiz is an
administrative judge at the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’
& Anathema
to the Fascists & a
Breath of Fresh Air to
anti-Fascists Everywhere
willing to
Stand Up and
Strike A Blow against
the fuckng Nazis, back to
Relitigate World War fucking Two
so Good on
You, Nazi
Puncher!
punch ’em
in the Balls.
@33: For Title VI hostile environment claims involving conduct by third parties, such as harassment by fellow students or by members of the public who are present on campus, the school is liable if each of the following is true:
The harassment on the basis of race, color, or national origin is sufficiently serious to deny or limit the victim’s ability to participate or benefit from some aspect of the education the school offers.
The school knew or reasonably should have known about the harassment.
The school fails to take prompt and effective steps reasonably necessary to end the harassment, eliminate the hostile environment, prevent its recurrence, and address its effects.
The defendant schools are definitely leaning into factors 2 and 3 in these discrimination lawsuits! 😂 “We didn’t know the antizionist protestors were going to target JEWS! And there was nothing we could have done to stop them!” 🤣 OK, if you say so … but let’s find out what the jurors think, ha ha!
“The county [teaming up with ICE]
is being represented by Stephen
Miller’s very own legal outfit,
America First Legal.
Eww.”
Not all Bond villains’re
Sociopaths. some’re
Psychos. Miller’s
vying for the
Himmler
Prize
or the
Ministry
of Brutality
a most proficient Multitasker
he’ll likely excell at
Both.
HMDubya
you’re making
Me a Fan! Salutare!
@35: lol, either my phone or the Stranger’s website stripped out my paragraph numbering for the three elements of liable for third-party harassment. Sorry for the Kristofarian-like paragraphs, not my fault! 😄
No
one
Reads
your Tripe
ai spawn of Wormtongue
you’re gonna Need to
Triple your output.
@33 Institutions also have an obligation to protect the rights and freedoms of their student body. Obama threatened Universities with similar repercussions if they did not adhere to his vision of Title IX. Government funding isn’t a God given right and it can get pulled at any time for any number of reasons. That is not a violation of anyone’s rights. I have yet to see anyone punished for speaking out and we have barely seen anyone held accountable for some of the egregious actions that took place and continue to take place. If a University loses their funding because they are passively letting students on campus have their rights violated I’m not going to shed any tears for them, particularly when its an Ivy sitting on a $12B endowment. Again, replace Jewish with LGBTQ and tell me how this is ok.
Meanwhile UCLA alum Troy Aikman has three Super Bowl rings.
@39, You may have memory-holed Trump I but there was a period of time ca. 2017 when anti-LGBTQ and anti-immigrant groups were on speaking tours at universities across the country. It resulted in a lot of protests and counter-protests that sometimes erupted in violence, including an incident at UW where people were shot. Many people called for speakers to be banned on the grounds of creating a hostile environment for immigrants and LGBTQ students but they were met with a shrug because the complaints were considered a threat to free speech. Fast forward to the far-right finding a sympathetic minority group and suddenly we’re being told hostile speech must be stopped at all cost.
Any member of any minority group can probably share their experiences with hostility and discrimination on campus, with or without the presence of a protest. I don’t like any of it but I also don’t think it’s the government’s place to tell universities how to handle or prevent hostile protests and I have no faith whatsoever these rules would be applied fairly.
Also re: Obama and title IX, the complaint was regarding university policy, not the actions of individual students. The individuals directly responsible for creating hostility should be held accountable, not the university they attend.
‘Have
a favorite
fictional billionaire
death? Send it to us at
billionaires@thestranger.com’
the one where they
fatten ‘em up like Veal
or Foie Gras the gooses
for the Beggar’s Banquet?
Nah.
Not That one.
the One where
they decide to all
Chip in to eliminate
Homelessness & provide
Medicare for ALL? Yep. That one.
[Spoiler ALERT:
NONE of ‘em
Gotta fucking Die!
It’s beyond
Revolutionary!]
they Still
taste like
Shite.
@41: “The individuals directly responsible for creating hostility should be held accountable, not the university they attend.”
No. Individuals have a right to be racist. Federally funded schools do not. If you’re gonna run your school on federal money, you don’t get to choose which races, colors, sexes, and nationalities you prefer to educate. If you want to run a racist school, you gotta do it on your own dime, which is perfectly legal to do. 😉
Nor can federally funded schools adopt a wink-wink approach to racism, in which they allow third-party racists to run amok on their campus while school leadership smirkingly washes their hands of it. 😅
Civil rights law doesn’t require schools to stamp out every single racist act by every third party on campus. Civil rights law doesn’t even require schools to succeed in avoiding a racist school environment. But it does require schools to make a reasonable effort to try to keep the racism to a low enough level that students who are targeted by racism can still manage to get an education.
An angry mob chasing Jewish students into the school library while campus security sits on its hands does not clear the bar set by civil rights law … even if the pursuers were acting in the name of “antizionism.” 😛
@41 I fully remember those protests and incidents. I can’t recall any example where a far right protestor was limiting the rights of others, defacing buildings and occupying them as part of their cause. The way I seem to recall it was people were invited to speak on campus and rather than allow someone they disagree with to speak far left protestors would shut down the event through shouting and harassing attendees. Kind of like this:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/07/us/former-ncaa-swimmer-riley-gaines-assault-san-francisco-state-university/index.html
As for the event you referenced the shooter was charged with a felony although not convicted because the victim refused to cooperate so there were consequences for what happened:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/uw-police-seek-felony-assault-charge-against-alleged-shooter-during-milo-yiannopoulos-speech/
By comparison Harvard recently hosted a speaker who defended the Oct 7th attacks as justified. There were no scuffles, no one getting shouted down, no vandalism.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2024/03/palestinian-scholar-pressed-on-views-of-hamas-oct-7-attack/
So your claim that speech is being censored would seemingly apply exclusively to left wing activists. That’s their right of course and as long as they keep it to speech and protest that’s their choice. But that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about violating the rights of others as a form of protest and that’s not ok and never will be. Feel free to provide an example of a left leaning speaker coming on campus and being denied / harassed and/or right wing protestors denying entry to fellow students and/or vandalizing buildings as part of their protest. I sure couldn’t find any.
As for government funding, agencies insert themselves into these debates all the time. Whether it be states barring doing business with other states who pass laws they don’t like (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/us/california-state-funded-travel-bans.html) or the federal government using the power of funding to implement policies they want (https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32116686). You can agree or disagree with those policies but its within the right of the government to issue funding based on their policies and it is not a violation of any one rights to have their funding revoked.
@31 “If the court rules broadly in favor of the plaintiffs, it could mean that antizionism constitutes unlawful discrimination against all Jews”
If criticism of anything Israel does is antisemitism everyone should be antisemitic. If a central component of your identity is cheerleading war crimes your identity sucks. Jewish people of conscious should be absolutely opposed to any such ruling, or even argument in favor.
@45: “If criticism of anything Israel does is antisemitism everyone should be antisemitic”
True, but none of the plaintiffs in Judge Donato’s case are making any such argument, nor is anyone else anywhere else. 😂
Does HMW not read her employees slog entries? Over half of this Slog was already covered yesterday and late last week by her employees so it’s just redundant.
@46 define “antizionism” then for these purposes
@44, I’m not saying anything at all about speech being censored. I am saying that people had a complaint about speech creating a hostile environment for queer and immigrant students and they were shrugged off. I think matters were handled correctly at the time, more or less. I don’t like any of it but I support their right to host speakers and for everyone to protest and counter protest accordingly.
I brought the anti-queer events up because the complaints for hostile environment were disregarded, despite creating an environment where people were physically harmed. I agree that blocking students from accessing class should be punished but this would be a problem even absent any racism. I also think racism is a problem, but people have a right to be bigots. I just disagree that the government should be denying funding over hateful speech unless this standard is applied fairly across the board.