Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Stefanik AGHAST When Univ Presidents WON'T Give Straight Answer On Antisemitism On Campus: Rising" video.

  1. How is it that these university administrators, of the very most "elite" universities, do not know Title VII law, which nearly everybody agrees sets the standard (or at least informs the standard) for harassment in the university context as well? Just STATE THE STANDARD.
    27
  2. ​ @subo88 No, she made a very solid point. It took her too long to structure the argument, which is not unusual for her.
    11
  3. ​ @Clintorres The administrators were awful as well, completely unprepared. How do these people get these jobs? Rhetorical question.
    6
  4. I 💯 believe Brie. In a hypercompetitive society, people will use ANYTHING they can get their hands on to trounce you. There are no limits. There is a lot of jealousy directed at Jewish students. Yeah I believe they are being targeted now, for the usual reasons. And Brie is right, you have to make your case with actual evidence. Who said what to whom, where, and when?
    6
  5.  @SleepyHiker  That was my point when I said they should have stated the standard. They should have underlined that it exists and would be enforced in all cases, no matter who is targeted.
    5
  6. No, she made a very solid argument. She didn't lay it out well. You have to hunt for the premises and put them in order. But she was right.
    4
  7. You have to present evidence.
    4
  8. No, she was good here.
    3
  9.  @nmk5003  Exactly. Perfectly said. Everyone came across badly in the hearing. The rules are important and should be made clear (the administrators should know them in their sleep -- it's a modified Title VII standard), and the factual premise for invoking the rules in a particular case must be verified. How hard can it be? You know the money these people make and the prestige they wield.
    3
  10. @skippy9273  Nope, she was right this time. Read the whole thread, if they let you!
    3
  11. @SleepyHiker  I know there's antisemitism on campus. Jewish students traditionally work a lot harder in school, starting well before their teens, and people will take it out on them. That's not new. That's the dirty competition you see everywhere. It's gotten worse as reward based on merit has gotten scarce.
    3
  12.  @commodoor6549  First, Brie did not call for hate speech laws. There's no question that she did not. Second, hate speech laws are generally void under the First Amendment. There is no need for them; the jurisprudence of workplace discrimination is well developed and can inform the rules for interaction on campus. See Nadine Strossen, Erwin Chemerinsky.
    3
  13. @ryant115  It most certainly does. Creating a "hostile environment" in certain contexts, like in the workplace OR the classroom (which is a very high standard to meet, by the way, as it should be) does make the speech unprotected. One student or group of students cannot do this to another. I can appreciate that you don't know, but it's these well-paid administrators' job to know. They are supposed to come prepared. This was thrashed out during the Obama administration, when Title IX rules were at issue. I don't agree with the Obama Department of Education standards of proof, but the substantive rules adopting a modified Title VII standard for harassment are fine. In fact, this is what university administrators lobbied for! They can't articulate them now? Pfft.
    2
  14. @norman_5623  No one denies this. Patient/therapist is a confidential relationship, for one thing, and you'd be right even if it weren't.
    2
  15. @sankaratrucking5255  The issue wasn't demonstrations, it was personal attacks.
    2
  16.  @edward_3ps4  Robby did not have facts this time. But the real problem is that the people at the hearing, whose job it was to be meticulously prepared, didn't either.
    2
  17. @nmk5003  I do. They should have stated the standard, and denied the factual predicate on their own campuses. They could then decline to engage in gotcha hypotheticals and restate that they have a standard and a procedure. If a student were credibly accused of saying what the Congresswoman said, in class or in other contexts where it is possible harassment, they would then face that process. It would be taken seriously and investigated. That's all they needed to do. It's similar to the Title VII hostile environment standard, which was well developed 30 years ago AND which is not trivial. It's not an easy standard to meet. What are they paid for, tell me again?
    2
  18.  @SleepyHiker  You won't get any argument from me. Glenn Greenwald has been the most principled voice on this issue. It's become tragic.
    2
  19. @karen-qm7og  AMEN Literally perfect
    2
  20.  @EricaBassi99  There's room for two. Brainpower does not take up space.
    2
  21. She just said she experienced that at law school herself, and that if any faculty member said what was alleged (can't repeat it, will be censored), he should be fired.
    1
  22.  @sankaratrucking5255  Who said demonstrations weren't protected speech?
    1
  23.  @edward_3ps4  She didn't lay out the argument well. That happens too often.
    1
  24.  @edward_3ps4  I'm not surprised that people can't follow her. She structures her arguments in an odd way. She too often ends where she should begin.
    1
  25. ​@valcaronNot on this topic.
    1
  26.  @rmpj13  LOL
    1
  27.  @EHed-kv2wb  Agreed. She did not lay out her argument well.
    1