Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Kevin Kiley Asks Columbia University President Point Blank About Controversial Professor" video.

  1. No, HE is. SHE is correct on the First Amendment and ambiguous speech. HE is correct, however, on fundraising.
    11
  2. These are matters for Title VI lawsuits, not Congressional pseudo-trials. Congress should occupy itself with whether we should fund wars and what we should do about inflation.
    9
  3. Why? If you are discriminated against, file suit under Title VI or Title VII. The Asian student association did, and won. IOW, do something real.
    7
  4. Because they do not want to be defendants in a Title VII/defamation lawsuit. Could that be it?
    5
  5. WHO is fast talking here??
    4
  6. @ariellaurent5422  Students fear for their lives now?? Oh, I see. You mean those three Palestinian students from Brown who were shot. Yes, I see your point, of course.
    3
  7. File suit then. That's illegal under Title VI and Title VII.
    3
  8.  @giganoob1968  A lack of recursive thinking is not a good sign. I mean for present and future cognitive health.
    3
  9. Wow is fundraising waaaay too easy for politicians these days.
    2
  10.  @giganoob1968  Fundraising for these Congressional clowns has become too easy. You'll have more show trials, less governance, while they up the ante on surveillance and support for war.
    2
  11.  @ariellaurent5422  A true threat to safety requires police, not bureaucracy. I thought we decided that during the flood of accusations of SA. We revisit that, now? Why?
    1
  12. @ariellaurent5422  I don't mean that as a talking point. Real danger requires police response and community meetings with police, to deal with the matter and to coordinate campus and city police. You don't agree?
    1
  13. ​@Tati8796 Not all Israelis believe the existence of Israel means Palestinians must be occupied and cannot be free. Are you suggesting the slogan is literally always a dog whistle? In other words, coded speech made to sound nice but always hiding a criminal, malevolent intent? Not everyone agrees, but . . . Can you prove they are naive in that?
    1
  14.  @Tati8796  You did not answer my question. Perhaps you are responding to a different post. I asked a First Amendment question, not a geopolitics/Third World development question. Did you recognize that? Or no?
    1
  15. @hammer44head  Yes, I know why the university professors agreed to appear. And what does Congress propose? To stop funding? The agency through which they distribute the funding can be sued if the funding is denied on a discriminatory basis, in violation of free speech, and so forth. This is for fundraising. It worked super well last time.
    1
  16. @Detwhat  That doesn't surprise me, sadly. A top employment lawyer will advise you to get a new job first, because then the new employer cannot fire them. It would be retaliatory.
    1