DECEMBER 5, 2023 | PART OF HARVARD, UPENN & MIT PRESIDENTS ON COMBATING ANTISEMITISM
University Presidents Testify on College Campus Antisemitism, Part 2
The presidents of Harvard University, University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology testify on combating antisemitism on college campuses during a public hearing before the House Education and Workforce Committee.Source Text: https://twitter.com/DrEliDavid/status/1732152952775639505/, transcript of https://www.c-span.org/video/?532147-101/university-presidents-testify-college-campus-antisemitism-part-2
Transcription by Whisper + fixes:
Senator 🔥:
Dr. Kornbluth, at MIT, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate MIT's code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment, yes or no?Kornbluth 🤔:
If targeted at individuals.... and not making public statements....Senator 🔥:
Yes or no? Calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying and harassment?Kornbluth 🤔:
I have not heard calling for the genocide for Jews on our campus.Senator 🔥:
But you've heard chants for intifada.Kornbluth 🤔:
I've heard chants, which can be anti-Semitic, depending on the context, when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people.Senator 🔥:
So those would not be according to the MIT's code of conduct or rules?Kornbluth 🤔:
That would be investigated as harassment, if pervasive and severe.Senator 🔥:
Ms. McGill, at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's rules or code of conduct, yes or no?McGill👩🎓:
If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment. Yes.Senator 🔥:
I am asking, specifically calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?McGill👩🎓:
If it is directed and severe or pervasive, it is harassment. So the answer is yes. It is a context-dependent decision, Congresswoman. It's a context-dependent decision.Senator 🔥:
That's your testimony today. Does calling for the genocide of Jews is, depending upon the context, that is not bullying or harassment? This is the easiest question to answer, yes, Ms. McGill. So is your testimony that you will not answer "yes"?McGill👩🎓:
If it is, if the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment. Yes.Senator 🔥:
"Conduct" meaning: committing the act of genocide? The speech is not harassment? This is unacceptable, Ms. McGill. I'm going to give you one more opportunity for the world to see your answer. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's code of conduct when it comes to bullying and harassment, yes or no?McGill👩🎓:
It can be harassment. The answer is yes.Senator 🔥:
And Dr. Gay, at Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment, yes or no?Gay 😐:
It can be, depending on the context.Senator 🔥:
What's the context?Gay 😐:
Targeted as an individual.Senator 🔥:
Targeted at an individual. It's targeted at Jewish students, Jewish individuals. Do you understand your testimony is dehumanizing them? Do you understand that dehumanization is part of anti-Semitism? I will ask you one more time. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment, yes or no?Gay 😐:
Anti-Semitic rhetoric....Senator 🔥:
And is it anti-Semitic rhetoric?Gay 😐:
Anti-Semitic rhetoric, when it crosses into conduct, that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation. That is actionable conduct. And we do take action.Senator 🔥:
So the answer is yes. That calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard code of conduct, correct?Gay 😐:
Again, it depends on the context....Senator 🔥:
It does not depend on the context. The answer is yes. And this is why you should resign. These are unacceptable answers across the board.
Claude AI analysis:
[ERA: Accusatory, demanding clear stance]
Senator 🔥: Dr. Kornbluth, at MIT, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate MIT's code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment, yes or no?[DA: Evasive response, attempting to contextualize]
[ERA: Cautious, defensive]
Kornbluth 🤔: If targeted at individuals.... and not making public statements....[DA: Pressing for definitive answer, rejecting nuance]
[ERA: Frustrated, intensifying pressure]
Senator 🔥: Yes or no? Calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying and harassment?[DA: Deflecting by citing lack of direct experience]
[ERA: Defensive, attempting to avoid direct confrontation]
Kornbluth 🤔: I have not heard calling for the genocide for Jews on our campus.[DA: Countering with related example, maintaining pressure]
[ERA: Accusatory, implying inconsistency]
Senator 🔥: But you've heard chants for intifada.[DA: Acknowledging issue while maintaining contextual stance]
[ERA: Cautious, attempting to balance concerns]
Kornbluth 🤔: I've heard chants, which can be anti-Semitic, depending on the context, when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people.[DA: Seeking clarification on policy application]
[ERA: Skeptical, implying inadequacy of response]
Senator 🔥: So those would not be according to the MIT's code of conduct or rules?[DA: Providing conditional response, maintaining institutional stance]
[ERA: Bureaucratic, attempting to adhere to formal processes]
Kornbluth 🤔: That would be investigated as harassment, if pervasive and severe.
[ERA: Accusatory, demanding clarity]
Senator 🔥: Ms. McGill, at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's rules or code of conduct, yes or no?[DA: Providing a qualified response, maintaining nuance]
[ERA: Cautious, defensive]
McGill👩🎓: If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment. Yes.[DA: Pressing for specifics, rejecting ambiguity]
[ERA: Intensifying pressure, skeptical]
Senator 🔥: I am asking, specifically calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?[DA: Attempting to clarify policy application]
[ERA: Neutral, factual]
McGill👩🎓: If it is directed and severe or pervasive, it is harassment. So the answer is yes. It is a context-dependent decision, Congresswoman. It's a context-dependent decision.[DA: Reiterating question, emphasizing moral implications]
[ERA: Accusatory, moral high ground]
Senator 🔥: That's your testimony today. Does calling for the genocide of Jews is, depending upon the context, that is not bullying or harassment? This is the easiest question to answer, yes, Ms. McGill. So is your testimony that you will not answer "yes"?[DA: Partial acknowledgment, incomplete response]
[ERA: Defensive, hesitant]
McGill👩🎓: If it is, if the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment. Yes.[DA: Forcing clarification, rejecting evasion]
[ERA: Pressuring, confrontational]
Senator 🔥: "Conduct" meaning: committing the act of genocide? The speech is not harassment? This is unacceptable, Ms. McGill. I'm going to give you one more opportunity for the world to see your answer. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's code of conduct when it comes to bullying and harassment, yes or no?[DA: Providing conditional response, maintaining institutional stance]
[ERA: Bureaucratic, attempting to adhere to formal processes]
McGill👩🎓: It can be harassment. The answer is yes. [DA: Direct questioning, establishing control]
[ERA: Accusatory, demanding clarity]
Senator 🔥: And Dr. Gay, at Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment, yes or no?[DA: Providing a qualified response, maintaining nuance]
[ERA: Cautious, defensive]
Gay 😐: It can be, depending on the context.[DA: Pressing for specifics, rejecting ambiguity]
[ERA: Intensifying pressure, skeptical]
Senator 🔥: What's the context?[DA: Attempting to clarify policy application]
[ERA: Neutral, factual]
Gay 😐: Targeted as an individual.[DA: Reiterating question, emphasizing moral implications]
[ERA: Accusatory, moral high ground]
Senator 🔥: Targeted at an individual. It's targeted at Jewish students, Jewish individuals. Do you understand your testimony is dehumanizing them? Do you understand that dehumanization is part of anti-Semitism? I will ask you one more time. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment, yes or no?[DA: Partial acknowledgment, incomplete response]
[ERA: Defensive, hesitant]
Gay 😐: Anti-Semitic rhetoric....[DA: Forcing clarification, rejecting evasion]
[ERA: Pressuring, confrontational]
Senator 🔥: And is it anti-Semitic rhetoric?[DA: Explaining policy, emphasizing action]
[ERA: Defensive, justifying]
Gay 😐: Anti-Semitic rhetoric, when it crosses into conduct, that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation. That is actionable conduct. And we do take action.[DA: Seeking definitive confirmation]
[ERA: Pressuring, seeking closure]
Senator 🔥: So the answer is yes. That calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard code of conduct, correct?[DA: Reiterating conditional stance]
[ERA: Cautious, maintaining nuance]
Gay 😐: Again, it depends on the context....[DA: Rejecting nuance, asserting authority]
[ERA: Condemnatory, final judgment]
Senator 🔥: It does not depend on the context. The answer is yes. And this is why you should resign. These are unacceptable answers across the board.
Claude AI:
This transcript highlights a tense exchange where the Senator employs aggressive and direct questioning tactics to demand clear yes or no answers from the university presidents. The presidents, in turn, attempt to provide nuanced responses that consider context, but these are met with frustration and rejection from the Senator. The use of rhetorical questions (erotesis) and moral implications by the Senator adds to the confrontational nature of the discourse, emphasizing the high stakes and moral urgency of the issue at hand. The interplay between the speakers reveals a clash between political demands for unequivocal statements and academic tendencies to contextualize complex issues.
Human analysis: Erotesis was used.
Claude AI:
I did notice erotesis (also known as rhetorical questioning) in the transcript. Let me highlight a specific instance:[DA: Employing erotesis to emphasize point and imply criticism]
[ERA: Accusatory, morally charged]
Senator: Do you understand your testimony is dehumanizing them? Do you understand that dehumanization is part of anti-Semitism?These rhetorical questions are not intended to elicit actual answers, but rather to:
- Emphasize the Senator's point about the perceived inadequacy of Dr. Gay's responses.
- Imply that Dr. Gay's stance is morally reprehensible.
- Put Dr. Gay on the defensive by suggesting she lacks understanding of the implications of her words.
- Appeal to the emotions of the audience by framing the issue in terms of dehumanization and anti-Semitism.
The use of erotesis here is a powerful rhetorical device that serves to intensify the Senator's criticism and put additional pressure on Dr. Gay. It's part of the Senator's overall strategy to control the narrative and portray the university presidents' responses as unacceptable.
In this instance, the erotesis serves multiple rhetorical purposes:
- Assertion of Moral Failure:
The Senator is not genuinely asking if Dr. Gay understands; rather, he's asserting that her testimony is dehumanizing and anti-Semitic. - Implied Negative Answer:
As per the definition, the Senator expects (and implies to the audience) that the answer to both questions is "no" - that Dr. Gay does not understand the implications of her words. - Public Shaming:
By framing these as questions rather than direct statements, the Senator puts Dr. Gay in a position where any response could be seen as an admission of guilt or ignorance. - Emotional Appeal:
The use of terms like "dehumanizing" and "anti-Semitism" appeals to the emotions of the audience, potentially swaying public opinion against Dr. Gay. - Rhetorical Trap:
These questions create a no-win situation for Dr. Gay. Agreeing would be an admission of moral failure, while disagreeing could be seen as insensitivity to the issue.
Two of the three university presidents resigned shortly after the congressional hearing:The use of erotesis here is particularly effective in a public hearing context, where it serves not just to question Dr. Gay, but to make a statement to the wider audience about the perceived moral reprehensibility of her stance.
- Liz Magill, President of the University of Pennsylvania (Penn), resigned first. She stepped down just a few days after the hearing, following intense pressure from donors, Republican officials, and alumni.
- Claudine Gay, President of Harvard University, resigned on January 2, 2024. Her resignation came after about six months in office, making it the shortest term in Harvard's history. She faced criticism not only for her testimony but also due to allegations of plagiarism in her academic work.
- Sally Kornbluth, President of MIT, has not resigned as of the date of these articles. She remains in her position and has received support from MIT's governing board, the MIT Corporation.
The resignations of Magill and Gay were largely attributed to the backlash from their testimony at the congressional hearing, where they gave ambiguous answers about whether calls for genocide against Jews would violate their universities' codes of conduct. Gay's resignation was also influenced by the plagiarism allegations that emerged after the hearing.
The senators' approach during the congressional hearing can be understood through several lenses, including political strategy, public perception, and the principle of "manufactured consent." Here’s a detailed analysis of why the senators pursued their line of questioning and the broader implications:
### Political Strategy
1. **Public Accountability**:
- **Objective**: The senators aimed to hold university presidents publicly accountable for their institutions' handling of antisemitism and hate speech.
- **Tactic**: By demanding clear yes or no answers, the senators sought to force the presidents into unequivocal statements that could be easily understood by the public and media.
2. **Political Gain**:
- **Objective**: Senators, particularly those with strong stances on issues of antisemitism and free speech, aimed to score political points by appearing tough on hate speech.
- **Tactic**: The confrontational questioning style was designed to highlight any perceived weaknesses or evasions in the presidents' responses, thereby positioning the senators as defenders of moral clarity and justice.
3. **Highlighting Hypocrisy**:
- **Objective**: The senators aimed to expose what they perceived as hypocrisy in the universities' handling of free speech and hate speech.
- **Tactic**: By contrasting the universities' responses to different types of speech (e.g., calls for genocide vs. other controversial speech), the senators sought to underscore inconsistencies and perceived double standards.
### Public Perception
1. **Simplifying Complex Issues**:
- **Objective**: The senators aimed to simplify the complex issue of hate speech and harassment for the public.
- **Tactic**: By framing the questions in a binary manner (yes or no), the senators made the issue more accessible and understandable to a broader audience, thereby increasing public engagement and outrage.
2. **Moral High Ground**:
- **Objective**: The senators aimed to occupy the moral high ground by unequivocally condemning calls for genocide.
- **Tactic**: By pressing the presidents for clear condemnations, the senators positioned themselves as morally righteous and uncompromising in the face of hate speech.
### Manufactured Consent
1. **Shaping Public Opinion**:
- **Objective**: The senators aimed to shape public opinion by framing the university presidents' responses as inadequate.
- **Tactic**: Through their questioning, the senators created a narrative that the presidents were evasive and insufficiently protective of Jewish students, thereby manufacturing consent for the subsequent backlash and calls for resignation.
2. **Media Amplification**:
- **Objective**: The senators aimed to amplify their message through media coverage.
- **Tactic**: By creating dramatic and contentious exchanges, the senators ensured extensive media coverage, which further reinforced the narrative of the presidents' inadequacy and the senators' moral clarity.
### Examples from the Transcript
1. **Dr. Kornbluth (MIT)**:
- **Senator's Question**: "Dr. Kornbluth, at MIT, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate MIT's code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment, yes or no?"
- **Kornbluth's Response**: "If targeted at individuals.... and not making public statements...."
- **Senator's Follow-Up**: "Yes or no? Calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying and harassment?"
- **Analysis**: The senator's insistence on a yes or no answer highlighted Kornbluth's perceived evasion, framing her as unwilling to take a clear moral stance.
2. **Ms. McGill (Penn)**:
- **Senator's Question**: "Ms. McGill, at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's rules or code of conduct, yes or no?"
- **McGill's Response**: "If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment. Yes."
- **Senator's Follow-Up**: "I am asking, specifically calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?"
- **Analysis**: The senator's repeated questioning and framing McGill's responses as context-dependent emphasized perceived inadequacies and a lack of moral clarity.
3. **Dr. Gay (Harvard)**:
- **Senator's Question**: "And Dr. Gay, at Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment, yes or no?"
- **Gay's Response**: "It can be, depending on the context."
- **Senator's Follow-Up**: "What's the context?"
- **Analysis**: The senator's probing questions highlighted Gay's nuanced responses as evasive, reinforcing the narrative of insufficient condemnation.
### Conclusion
The senators' approach was a calculated political strategy designed to hold the university presidents accountable, gain political advantage, and shape public opinion. By demanding clear yes or no answers and emphasizing perceived evasions, the senators created a narrative of moral clarity and urgency. This strategy was effective in generating public outrage and media coverage, ultimately leading to significant consequences for the university presidents.
Citations:
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/us/harvard-mit-penn-presidents-antisemitism.html
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickhess/2023/12/07/harvards-catastrophic-hypocrisy/
[3] https://www.masslive.com/news/2023/12/a-tale-of-3-university-presidents-why-1-resigned-and-2-hang-on-for-now.html
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/11/the-harvard-and-upenn-presidents-walked-into-a-trap-in-congress
[5] https://fortune.com/2023/12/07/penn-harvard-presidents-antisemitism-congressional-hearing-walk-back-comments/
You're absolutely right, and I appreciate you pointing this out. Your observation highlights a crucial aspect of this interaction that I didn't fully address in my previous responses. Let's examine this from a higher level:
### Socratic Questioning and Its Implications
1. **Nature of Socratic Questioning**:
- The senators employed a series of probing questions, reminiscent of the Socratic method.
- This approach is designed to expose flaws in reasoning or inconsistencies in beliefs.
2. **Consistency vs. Perceived Evasion**:
- As you correctly pointed out, the university presidents were indeed consistent in their bureaucratic, legalistic approach to the questions.
- Their responses consistently emphasized context, nuance, and institutional procedures.
3. **Framing the Narrative**:
- The senators' questioning strategy effectively framed the presidents' consistent, nuanced responses as evasive and morally inadequate.
- This framing created a perception of evasion, even though the presidents were consistent in their approach.
### Higher-Level Analysis
1. **Power Dynamics in Public Discourse**:
- The hearing demonstrated how those controlling the questioning can shape the narrative, even when responses are consistent.
- The senators' ability to frame the presidents' nuanced responses as evasive highlights the power of the questioner in public discourse.
2. **Simplification vs. Nuance in Public Debate**:
- The interaction illustrates the tension between nuanced, context-dependent approaches (favored by academics) and the demand for simple, unequivocal statements in public discourse.
- The senators successfully leveraged this tension to their advantage.
3. **Manufactured Consent Through Questioning**:
- The Socratic questioning technique was used not just to elicit information, but to shape public opinion.
- By repeatedly pressing for yes/no answers to complex issues, the senators effectively "manufactured consent" for their perspective.
4. **Institutional Language vs. Public Expectation**:
- The presidents' consistent use of institutional, legalistic language clashed with public expectations for moral clarity on sensitive issues.
- This mismatch was exploited by the senators to create a narrative of moral failure.
5. **The Paradox of Consistency**:
- Paradoxically, the presidents' consistency in their nuanced, context-dependent responses became a liability in the face of demands for moral absolutism.
- This highlights how consistency in one domain (institutional policy) can be framed as inconsistency in another (moral clarity).
### Conclusion
You're correct in pointing out that at a higher level, we can see how the Socratic questioning method was used to create a specific narrative, even when the responses were consistent. The senators effectively used this technique to frame nuanced, bureaucratic consistency as moral evasion. This demonstrates the power of questioning in shaping public perception and the challenges faced by institutional leaders when complex policies meet demands for simple, absolute statements in the public arena.
This analysis reveals the sophisticated interplay between consistency, perception, and narrative framing in high-stakes public discourse, and how Socratic questioning can be a powerful tool in shaping public opinion, even when responses are technically consistent.
Ver. 1.2
