|
The Insect Court posted:Ok. Let me include your proposed qualification for the definition of anti-semitism: Antisemitism is not simply "hatred" of Jews, it is entirely possible for something to be antisemtiic (or racist in general, or homophobic, or anything similar) without hatred being a factor. These words are all used to describe things that produce an unfair and unjustified living condition for the affected groups. Whether conscious or unconscious, emotionally motivated or not, people can be discriminated against in manners that are unproductive, and unjustified, which is why the words are useful. It is not, for example, homophobic, to temporarily refuse people from donating blood if they have recently engaged in male/male sex, because practitioners of male/male sex are at a statistically higher risk of HIV. It is homophobic to suggest that sexuality itself makes people unsuitable for giving blood because there is no factual basis for this claim. Similarly, it would not be antisemitic to criticise adherents of Judaism for practicing infant circumcision, on the basis that there is no medical reason for the procedure and that doing so violates the child's right to bodily autonomy without need. It would be antisemitic to say that Jewish people can't have children regardless of whether or not they chose to practice infant circumcision, because you hold a religious belief that people should only have children if they have undergone a Catholic marriage ceremony. Neither objection needs to be rooted in hatred, and indeed, neither one is necessarily linked to Judaism, as infant circumcision is equally objectionable regardless of the practitioner's religion, and the Catholic marriage qualifier applies to more non-Jews than Jews, but it is still, in part, antisemitic. This is the reason why the definition must include reasonableness, and why mere intent is not a satisfactory descriptor. A thing can obstruct the practice of Judaism without being antisemitic, and it can also be antisemitic without being primarily intended as such. The Insect Court posted:Anti-semitism is responsible for hatred of Israel. Israel is not responsible for anti-semitism. The State of Israel is responsible for its actions as a sovereign nation. Its actions as a sovereign nation includes things which can reasonably be described as illegal under international law, and in violation of widely accepted human rights conventions. These actions engender rational criticism of the State of Israel, which the State of Israel responds to by attempting to conflate its actions as a sovereign nation, with the actions of Judaism as a religion, and thus attempts to deflect criticism of the State of Israel onto Judaism as a religion. Thus, it promotes criticism of Judaism and its adherents, for reasons which are not reasonable or justified. It therefore, promotes antisemitism. Antisemitism is not solely, nor even necessarily mostly responsible for criticism of the State of Israel. It is entirely possible, and indeed probable, that someone may level rational criticism against it as a national power. This has nothing to do with Judaism, and should not be conflated with it. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Aug 16, 2015 |
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
The last two pages are full of a stupid back and forth over MIGF acting like the right wing version of a SJW stereotype regarding antisemitism, but completely missing his applauding the university for whoring itself out. A public research university, even one that increasingly relies on donations due to the state government cutting funding, should have an explicit duty not to respond to kneejerk stakeholder whingeing because its entire purpose should be to do research and teach independently of the opinions of idiots. The whole point of academic freedom in this context is that academics are free to investigate topics of their choosing in ways they choose to reach their own conclusions even if they are at odds with prevailing public (or donor) opinion, which among other things is good for society because putting up with occasional rear end in a top hat professors is a small cost to pay compared to completely missing out on controversial views which turn out to be correct and/or useful later. Obviously, reality won't quite match this ideal, but explicitly undermining this aspect of academic freedom turns the university into a partisan think tank that happens to research and teach only topics interesting to its donors and is at a higher risk of being biased - think Cato Institute: capable of thorough research, but only on a narrow range of topics and too often favouring a predetermined conclusion. This problem isn't limited to social sciences and humanities - according to MIGF's argument, a university in the Deep South should stop hiring evolutionary biologists if a sufficient number of donors starts whining about wanting creationist bullshitters in their biology faculty. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 11:39 on Aug 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 11:36
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
My Imaginary GF posted:It is my firm view that a reinstatement of Salaita would be UI declaring antisemitism has a place on its campus; as a citizen of the great state of Illinois, I'd rather defund UIUC completely and close the campus, than declare antisemitism and the antisemitics who espouse it have a valid place in our non-profit system. I think i'd rather say stakeholders are worthless hacks who have nothing but dollars and deserve absolutely no consideration. But then, you're basically an advocate of corrupt, crony politics at the highest and lowest levels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 12:50
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I think i'd rather say stakeholders are worthless hacks who have nothing but dollars and deserve absolutely no consideration. But then, you're basically an advocate of corrupt, crony politics at the highest and lowest levels. B-b-but donors have a high net worth and are therefore worthy 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
blowfish posted:The last two pages are full of a stupid back and forth over MIGF acting like the right wing version of a SJW stereotype regarding antisemitism, but completely missing his applauding the university for whoring itself out. There you go, attempting to minimize the discrimination of antisemitic acts. You can't compare antisemitism to evolutionary biology, unless you're just gonna go all 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:There you go, attempting to minimize the discrimination of antisemitic acts. You can't compare antisemitism to evolutionary biology, unless you're just gonna go all We could argue about whether the guy is an antisemite, just wrong, or completely spot on, but that will not be very productive. From an academic point of view, there is no difference between firing someone for being an evolutionary biologist or for saying Israel is a poo poo country. The question is most explicitely not about whether his views are politically or publically palatable. As long as he is not actively calling for discrimination and violence, the only thing that matters is whether the university wants to get rid of him because of outside pressure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Okay, how about 10 out of 13 of the members of the Executive Committee of the Program in Jewish Culture and Society at UIUC itself? They antisemites, too? Well of course he ignored this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
zeroprime posted:Well of course he ignored this. Just like certain other posters in every thread about Israel vs Palestine, cartoons, and islam, MIGF fails to understand the distinction between critical discussion and discrimination.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
zeroprime posted:Well of course he ignored this. What AA was saying is that 10 folk didn't see antisemitism. What I'm hearing is that 3 individuals working and of the historically targeted population group saw antisemitism. See it one, could be an individual; see it twice, could be a bias; see it three times, its antisemitism and you should not discount the voice of those who see the repression because others do not. Ten who do not see oppression does not silence the three voices of those oppressed. Given that these are individuals at an institution which would even deign to consider forwarding the name of an individual to its board for hiring, an individual with outspoken views which are seen by three of the university's 13 executive committee members in the jewish studies department as antisemitic, I am beginning to consider that UIUC may have a systemic bias which inhibits awareness, recognition, reporting, and action of and against antisemitism where and when it occurs. I think the only reasonable management reaction is the complete defunding and consolidation of the department which put forth Salaita, so that future repeats of this mistake may be avoided and systemic antisemitism eliminated from the institution. blowfish posted:We could argue about whether the guy is an antisemite, just wrong, or completely spot on, but that will not be very productive. Salaita is dogwhistling calling for the death of jews in Israel. Institutions cannot allow dogwhistled death to their stakeholders. You really need to quit viewing this from an academic point of view, and see it from a nonprofit management viewpoint. I wouldn't call stakeholders 'outside pressure'; thousands of stakeholders petitioning against racism of a potential future hire approval is inside pressure from the institution. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Aug 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Academics tend to be compartmentalized into their subject areas; of those academics who study antisemitism and nonprofit management, what is the perspective? Think about what you're claiming. You're just some dude, and you claim to have perfectly tuned Antisemitevision. Do you think that the many academics in all those fields (including Jewish Studies) are completely deaf to antisemitism or bigotry? Do you think that the many Jewish academics, some of whom work in areas related to antisemitism, some far, far away from Jewish studies, are also completely deaf to these things? And that you are the one shining the light of truth and justice on this whole sordid affair? The boycott is gigantic. A previously posted article said that philosophy had an 80% drop in applications for a senior hire, and the history department had to completely abandon their search for a lack of applicants. You surely cannot believe that every single person signing on is so blinkered by their research that they can't see what you claim is transparent bigotry. Also  nonprofit management
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Steven Salaita is an expert, so you should ask him. I think that, when thousands of your institutional stakeholders feel oppressed by the words of one of your hiring nominees going before your board, that must be taken into consideration by the board before they approve the hiring decision. Most folks tend to ignore systemic racism when it doesn't impact them personally, and go with the flow of their social networks. I don't. I know I don't make antisemitic utterances on twitter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:
So calling your extreme anti-Palestinian views racist is an "ugly and unfounded personal attack on those who disagree with you" but smearing Salaita as an anti-semite for saying that "it's important to separate Jews from Israel and when Israel deliberately conflates the two, it contributes to anti-semitism" or for expressing outrage at the mass-murder of his countrymen is some kind of moral crusade? Have you no decency?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:So calling your extreme anti-Palestinian views racist is an "ugly and unfounded personal attack on those who disagree with you" but smearing Salaita as an anti-semite for saying that "it's important to separate Jews from Israel and when Israel deliberately conflates the two, it contributes to anti-semitism" or for expressing outrage at the mass-murder of his countrymen is some kind of moral crusade? Have you no decency? Salaita said that the belief of Jews in a Jewish homeland to protect them from antisemitism causes antisemitism. He's blaming an oppressed minority group for their oppression, and that's antisemitism. If it is a core view of Palestinian identity that jews are to blame for their oppression, well, that view is antisemitism and cannot be tolerated in the professional world.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Salaita said that the belief of Jews in a Jewish homeland to protect them from antisemitism causes antisemitism. He's blaming an oppressed minority group for their oppression, and that's antisemitism. If it is a core view of Palestinian identity that jews are to blame for their oppression, well, that view is antisemitism and cannot be tolerated in the professional world. Israel != Jews
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I think that, when thousands of your institutional stakeholders feel oppressed by the words of one of your hiring nominees going before your board, that must be taken into consideration by the board before they approve the hiring decision.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Salaita said that the belief of Jews in a Jewish homeland to protect them from antisemitism causes antisemitism. God, you're dense. Everyone on this thread has repeatedly explained to you why this strawman argument is complete bullshit. Re-read it. quote:He's blaming an oppressed minority group for their oppression, and that's antisemitism. But by your own standards, your own views, in which you blame the Palestinians for their own oppression, are bigoted. According to your own logic, you are a despicable anti-Palestinian racist and, once again according to your own logic, we are justified in censoring you, smearing you professionally and depriving you of your constitutional and legal rights. QED.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:See it one, could be an individual; see it twice, could be a bias; see it three times, its antisemitism; see it ten times, and it's back to being bias again, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
PT6A posted:As are the ultra-Orthodox Satmar sect who are against Zionism on a religious basis, naturally. People always cite this approvingly with no heed to the myriad of horrible, disgusting, racist things they believe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:But by your own standards, your own views, in which you blame the Palestinians for their own oppression, are bigoted. According to your own logic, you are a despicable anti-Palestinian racist and, once again according to your own logic, we are justified in censoring you, smearing you professionally and depriving you of your constitutional and legal rights. QED. I blame Palestinian non-state institutions for incurring the responses of state institutions. How is this pertinent to the conversation at hand? If it is against palestinian identity to say that state institutions are superior to non-state institutions, well, I don't know how palestinian identity should be accomodated by the state institutions of America, and view its non-accomodation as the proper course of nonprofit management. It ain't a smear when you're an antisemite and being used as a proxy fight for a larger fight in Illinois: the fight to recognize the increase in acts of antisemitism and label them for the hate crimes which they are. This Salaita case is merely a proxy of that downtown fight, and to approve the nomination of Salaita is to deny antisemitism throughout the state. Far better to close UIUC and re-hire on a case by case basis, than allow antisemitism to ooze from our state institutions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Salaita said that the belief of Jews in a Jewish homeland to protect them from antisemitism causes antisemitism. No he didn't
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:No he didn't Yes, he did. That's how thousands of stakeholders, of the oppressed minority group, understood salaita's comments, and how three of the chairs of the jewish studies department understood them. Who the gently caress are you to tell them the hatred they experienced does not exist?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Yes, he did. That's how thousands of stakeholders, of the oppressed minority group, understood salaita's comments, and how three of the chairs of the jewish studies department understood them. Then that is their error? What he said is what he said, what others interpret that to mean is up to them, but plenty of people disagree with that interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Then that is their error? It is not an error to be aware of, and take a stand against, antisemitism. What he said was antisemitism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:It is not an error to be aware of, and take a stand against, antisemitism. It is not an error to be aware of and/or take a stand against antisemitism but it is erroneous to identify what Salaita said as antisemitism. This is a belief shared by many people, Jew or Gentile, academic or lay, zionist or not. What he said was not antisemitism, or at the very least, it is strongly contested that it was not antisemitism. Asserting it repeatedly does not make it any truer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It is not an error to be aware of and/or take a stand against antisemitism but it is erroneous to identify what Salaita said as antisemitism. This is a belief shared by many people, Jew or Gentile, academic or lay, zionist or not. It was contested that it was antisemitic, I'll grant you that. Will you grant me that it was understood and felt by thousands of stakeholders in the institution as antisemitic?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:
Jewish
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Jewish Then why seek to minimize the felt experience of antisemitism, whiskey? What would your rebbi say?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:It was contested that it was antisemitic, I'll grant you that. Will you grant me that it was understood and felt by thousands of stakeholders in the institution as antisemitic? Yes, as if it wasn't then the issue would never have arisen. But I don't think that because a comparative minority of people are offended by a thing, that that offence should be given credence. It is required in that instance for the offended to show a causal link whereby the offensive thing can cause practical harm. This is fairly easy to do in cases of actual racism/antisemitism/other forms of unjust persecution, but if anything, the Salaita comments are an attempt to highlight precisely that causal link in the conflation of Jewish identity with the actions of the Israeli state. That a thing makes you feel bad is not sufficient to dismiss it, especially when it is trying to explain and oppose a real problem which harms others. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Aug 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Then why seek to minimize the felt experience of antisemitism, whiskey? What would your rebbi say? That Israel cynically deflects criticism of its policies as criticism of the Jewish people, leading people to associate the Likud party with Jewishness such that people attack unaffiliated Jews for the crimes of Israel
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
You keep saying "thousands." You do realize we have the emails and can just go read them to find out that the decisions were not made because of mass, widespread discontent, right? It's just a handful of people involved here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I blame Palestinian non-state institutions for incurring the responses of state institutions. How is this pertinent to the conversation at hand? If it is against palestinian identity to say that state institutions are superior to non-state institutions, well, I don't know how palestinian identity should be accomodated by the state institutions of America, and view its non-accomodation as the proper course of nonprofit management. This is verbal diarrhea. There is nothing here that contradicts my claim that you are blaming Palestinians for their own oppression. Certainly, by the flimsy-rear end standards you used to smear Salaita, you are a bigot(although you'd also be a bigot according to far more stringent criteria.) I'm sure that many Palestinians would call you a bigot for supporting Israel's oppression of their countrymen and after all, "who the gently caress are you to tell them the hatred (and oppression) they experienced does not exist?" By your own standards, we shouldn't allow you to spew your bigotry on a public platform. Or are you just going to come out and argue that anti-Palestinian racism is acceptable but if some Jewish person somewhere doesn't like what you say, you should be fired without hearing or due process?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:It was contested that it was antisemitic, I'll grant you that. Will you grant me that it was understood and felt by thousands of stakeholders in the institution as antisemitic? As far as I'm aware, we don't know that. We do know that a number of stakeholders voiced their concern. We do not know how high that number is relative to the total number of stakeholders, nor do we know why they were concerned. It could be because they felt the tweets to be antisemitic, it could also be because they were critical of Israel, and many Americans believe that the US has a special obligation to support Israel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes, as if it wasn't then the issue would never have arisen. So, as a board member who has responsibilities of recognizing and being responsive to the needs of those stakeholders, needs such as having an institutional environment in which it is safe to learn free from the feeling of oppression merely for your religious affiliation, when faced with Salaita before you for confirmation of hiring, what better way to take a stand against the antisemitism which thousands of stakeholders have felt and reported to you than to refuse to confirm the nomination of the individual who uttered those statements AND who refuses to take steps to remedy the felt antisemitism such as by apologizing for it? botany posted:As far as I'm aware, we don't know that. We do know that a number of stakeholders voiced their concern. We do not know how high that number is relative to the total number of stakeholders, nor do we know why they were concerned. It could be because they felt the tweets to be antisemitic, it could also be because they were critical of Israel, and many Americans believe that the US has a special obligation to support Israel. We do know that 1,500 students signed a petition to management; that at least several hundred donors sent emails about the antisemitic tweets; that many times more did stakeholders report to appropriate administrative officials in person the antisemitism of those tweets by Salaita. We do know that, in sum, at least multiple thousands of individuals reported the antisemitism of those tweets to appropriate nonprofit management, and, having been made aware of his making the campus an unsafe environment, management was forced to act against the tweeter. Thousands of stakeholders told management directly that they felt those tweets as antisemitism. They felt them as antisemitism; quit trying to say that they didn't, that they felt them as anti-israel and claimed antisemitism, for what you're doing is a tinge antisemitic. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Aug 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
UIUC has 43000 students, plus good knows how many alumni and faculty etc. A few thousands ain't poo poo, not that that matters
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:UIUC has 43000 students, plus good knows how many alumni and faculty etc. A few thousands ain't poo poo, not that that matters A few thousand stakeholders making administration aware of antisemitism on campus is something which must be responded to and taken into consideration, as the board did when it refused to accept the nomination of Salaita for hire.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:So, as a board member who has responsibilities of recognizing and being responsive to the needs of those stakeholders, needs such as having an institutional environment in which it is safe to learn free from the feeling of oppression merely for your religious affiliation, when faced with Salaita before you for confirmation of hiring, what better way to take a stand against the antisemitism which thousands of stakeholders have felt and reported to you than to refuse to confirm the nomination of the individual who uttered those statements AND who refuses to take steps to remedy the felt antisemitism such as by apologizing for it? I don't deny that the university management felt he was being antisemitic, and certainly with that assumption, refusing to hire him makes sense. What I take issue with is that the university management was incorrect in their belief that he was being antisemitic. There is nothing wrong with the logical link from premise -> he is an antisemite, to conclusion -> we will not hire him. The issue is with the premise itself. Which stems from an incorrect reading of his statements. I expect senior university figures to possess better critical thinking skills than that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:We do know that 1,500 students signed a petition to management; that at least several hundred donors sent emails about the antisemitic tweets; that many times more did stakeholders report to appropriate administrative officials in person the antisemitism of those tweets by Salaita. We do know that, in sum, at least multiple thousands of individuals reported the antisemitism of those tweets to appropriate nonprofit management, and, having been made aware of his making the campus an unsafe environment, management was forced to act against the tweeter. First of all, can you link some sources for your numbers, please? Secondly, I haven't claimed anything. I was pointing out that there are multiple reasons somebody might have complained, and criticism of Israel being a red flag in the US is one of them. Thirdly, I'd appreciate it if you didn't wave the antisemitism bludgeon in my direction. (I'm German and hence a bit touchy about these things.) There is a meaning to the term, and the fact that a group of people feel something to be antisemitic does not mean it is. Importantly, criticism of the policies of the state of Israel is not automatically antisemitic. botany fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Aug 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't deny that the university management felt he was being antisemitic, and certainly with that assumption, refusing to hire him makes sense. You read Salaita's statements and do not see antisemitism. I do. You do not take issue with the process: thankfully, in UIUC's process, the Board is the ultimate arbitrator of whether the institution viewed those tweets as antisemitism. The board voted to not hire Salaita, affirming that the board viewed those tweets as antisemitism and grounds to reject Salaita's nomination for hiring. The institutional process worked as was designed to arbitrate disputes and disagreements such as ours. How better to arbitrate when one sees antisemitism and another does not, than to have a board vote on whether such was perceived as antisemitic by the institution?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Because it doesn't matter what the Board thought; as far as the law is concerned, he was already hired with tenure and they had no right to dismiss him without due process. The Board doesn't get to circumvent the tenure agreement just because they suddenly find it convenient to do so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:Because it doesn't matter what the Board thought; as far as the law is concerned, he was already hired with tenure and they had no right to dismiss him without due process. The Board doesn't get to circumvent the tenure agreement just because they suddenly find it convenient to do so. The institution did not grant tenure until an individual was affirmed before the board. The real issue is that labor law has changed and created a gap from when the institution was founded; this would not have occured, were Illinois a right to work state. He had due process: He was brought before a board vote, and failed to pass muster. He was provided opportunity for redress: he refused to apologize for his tweets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:49
|
|