←back to thread

A university president makes a case against cowardice

(www.newyorker.com)
451 points pseudolus | 2 comments | 03 Apr 25 12:29 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
necubi ◴[03 Apr 25 23:48 UTC] No.43576821[source]▶
Oh hey, Wesleyan on HN! I’m an alumnus (matriculated a year or two after Roth became president). Wesleyan has a rich history of activism and protest, and not always entirely peaceful (Roth’s predecessor, Doug Bennet, had his office firebombed at one point).

I’ve had a few opportunities to speak with Roth since the Gaza war started, and I’ve always found him particularly thoughtful about balancing freedom of expression with a need to provide a safe and open learning environment for everyone on campus. In particular, he never gave in to the unlimited demands of protestors while still defending their right to protest.

In part, he had the moral weight to do that because—unlike many university presidents—he did not give in to the illiberal demands of the left to chill speech post-2020, which then were turned against the left over the past year.

I don’t see any particularly good outcome from any of this; the risk of damaging the incredibly successful American university system is high. Certainly smart foreign students who long dreamed of studying in the US will be having second thoughts if they can be arbitrarily and indefinitely detained.

But I hope the universities that do make it through do with a stronger commitment to the (small l) liberal values of freedom of expression , academic freedom, and intellectual diversity.

replies(7): >>43578254 #>>43578551 #>>43578928 #>>43579619 #>>43582082 #>>43585458 #>>43586399 #
kevingadd ◴[04 Apr 25 06:27 UTC] No.43578928[source]▶
People are being abducted off the street for writing tame op-eds and we're still complaining about the left chilling speech post-2020? What are we doing here?
replies(4): >>43579250 #>>43580751 #>>43581013 #>>43587658 #
rayiner[dead post] ◴[04 Apr 25 12:02 UTC] No.43581013[source]▶
[flagged]
g8oz ◴[04 Apr 25 14:35 UTC] No.43583049[source]▶
The government may be within its legal rights. As an expression of values however it's hard not to see the expulsion of these students as petty politicalized retaliation. The sort of thing you would see in an electoral autocracy as opposed to a liberal democracy.
replies(2): >>43583378 #>>43584161 #
rayiner ◴[04 Apr 25 15:50 UTC] No.43584161[source]▶
That only Americans have the right to participate in our political system is an expression of values. And it’s entirely compatible with democracy. The citizen versus non-citizen distinction is fundamental to democracy.
replies(2): >>43585930 #>>43586435 #
MPSFounder ◴[04 Apr 25 18:59 UTC] No.43586435[source]▶
It absolutely is not. And your views are very concerning. Everyone residing in the US is entitled to the ammendments. That is exactly why Guantanamo bay was formed, as a matter of fact. What makes this so much worse is these individuals were not arrested for criticizing these United States, but for criticizing a hostile foreign nation, that just so happens to be the darling of billionaires of a certain faith, who constitute an overwhelming majority in the aristocracy of the US (and have been there since around the 70s). It can in fact be traced back to AZC, when JFK forced them to register as foreign agents.
replies(2): >>43586905 #>>43590262 #
1. rayiner ◴[04 Apr 25 19:45 UTC] No.43586905[source]▶
I’m not weighing in on the specific protests here—I’m actually not unsympathetic to your point about that. I’m talking about the general power of the government to decide what kinds of foreigners it wants to allow in the country.

Do you think the first amendment means the government has to allow in immigrants that are Nazi sympathizers? What about Communists?

Americans have free speech. But Americans can also decide which foreigners are allowed the privilege of being on American soil. In fact, I would say that it’s precisely because we have free speech that we must carefully guard who is allowed into the tent.

replies(1): >>43588840 #
2. MPSFounder ◴[04 Apr 25 23:32 UTC] No.43588840[source]▶
Who is we in this regard? You and I do not decide on such matters (was there a survey or referendum?) I agree with your sentiment, but I reject that a select few (rich Jews like the Adelsons) get to decide who comes in by donating to a campaign and influencing intepretations for our ammendments. Let us apply this standard to everyone and block IDF soldiers alongside those individuals. Will this ever happen? I doubt it (Gal Gadot served in those armed forces for instance, and is a darling of Disney executives). The problem I have with this issue, is it is being weaponized by one group to subjugate another. I am not sympathetic to either sides (although as of late, I am much more sympathetic to the Palestinian plight, given they are victims of an oppression at the hand of a much more powerful entity, backed by powerful states that are losing the propaganda edge they have mastered for so long). I have an issue with the weaponization of free speech to advocate on behalf of one group that holds a lot more power in the US. That is not something I accept. Ultimately, you and I can debate this, but no effect will result from this. The Adelsons made donations to Trump explicitly because of Columbia's protests, and what they asked for was crystal clear: everyone (including citizens) must be deported or blacklisted from jobs for protesting against darling Israel. The deans of Harvard and Columbia were sacked. You see this as a free market or a lawful interpretation of Immigration. I see it as foreign interference with a cooperation from American traitors (like the Adelsons) and treason to American values. It is an anti-American initiative that prioritizes the wellbeing of Israel at the expense of American free speech and the well-being of students that chose to come here.