> This is the first time in 57 years that the university has expelled anyone for protest, and the only official expulsions associated with Israel’s war on Gaza. Columbia University Apartheid Divest notes that this string of harsh punishments is “completely unprecedented,” noting that the last expulsion for nonviolent political protest was in 1936 when Robert Burke was expelled for rallying against Columbia’s ties to Nazism.
> “Columbia and Barnard are cracking down on student protesters to appease the Department of Justice and billionaire donors because they are afraid of losing their funding,” said the CUAD spokesperson.
“Appeasement” was precisely how I interpreted the actions, as well.
However, I’m surprised that the university administration is naive enough to think that’s a viable strategy. Taking a hard-line stance isn’t going to convince the Trump administration to reinstate the grants they just cancelled, or remove them from the investigation list they just announced.
Better to grow a backbone, and defend the free speech rights of students (even if that speech seems objectionable) while there are still rights left to defend.
Rolling over will do nothing but hasten their demise.
For or against it is awe inspiring how a country of 5 million in the Middle East has so much control over the United States. If you see their Twitter posts, the whole cabinet has released gushing messages of support uniquely for this one country.
In human history, has there ever been a setup like this?
I think we are entering a period where protestors are going to have to ask themselves if they are willing to accept the consequences of their actions to protest. If you’re going to disrupt other people lives for your cause, you’re going to have to bear the conseuqneces of it.
The no consequences violent and disruptive protests for many different causes in the United States for the last several years are broadly over and if you’re going to do these things, you’re probably going to have to deal with life changing consequences.
Maybe a tangent, but I feel framing punishment/retaliation as "consequences" (remarking along the lines of "it's almost as if actions have consequences") often serves the purpose of treating the retaliation as if it's an inevitable rule of nature, just the way things are, opposed to an act that should itself be questioned - and potentially fought instead of "accept[ed]".
Punishment/retaliation can be seen as a specific type of consequence (one that is intentionally enacted by someone as retribution) so it's not that the framing is technically incorrect, but it seems to put it on the same level as "I threw a basketball upwards and it came back down to hit me in the face".
> This is the first time in 57 years that the university has expelled anyone for protest, and the only official expulsions associated with Israel’s war on Gaza. Columbia University Apartheid Divest notes that this string of harsh punishments is “completely unprecedented,” noting that the last expulsion for nonviolent political protest was in 1936 when Robert Burke was expelled for rallying against Columbia’s ties to Nazism.
> “Columbia and Barnard are cracking down on student protesters to appease the Department of Justice and billionaire donors because they are afraid of losing their funding,” said the CUAD spokesperson.
“Appeasement” was precisely how I interpreted the actions, as well.
However, I’m surprised that the university administration is naive enough to think that’s a viable strategy. Taking a hard-line stance isn’t going to convince the Trump administration to reinstate the grants they just cancelled, or remove them from the investigation list they just announced.
Better to grow a backbone, and defend the free speech rights of students (even if that speech seems objectionable) while there are still rights left to defend.
Rolling over will do nothing but hasten their demise.
Not every decision in the world is made with Trump as the primary consideration.
Trump just took $400m from them over this issue.
For or against it is awe inspiring how a country of 5 million in the Middle East has so much control over the United States. If you see their Twitter posts, the whole cabinet has released gushing messages of support uniquely for this one country.
In human history, has there ever been a setup like this?
Are you talking about Israel? It’s closer to 10 million.
I think we are entering a period where protestors are going to have to ask themselves if they are willing to accept the consequences of their actions to protest. If you’re going to disrupt other people lives for your cause, you’re going to have to bear the conseuqneces of it.
The no consequences violent and disruptive protests for many different causes in the United States for the last several years are broadly over and if you’re going to do these things, you’re probably going to have to deal with life changing consequences.
Maybe a tangent, but I feel framing punishment/retaliation as "consequences" (remarking along the lines of "it's almost as if actions have consequences") often serves the purpose of treating the retaliation as if it's an inevitable rule of nature, just the way things are, opposed to an act that should itself be questioned - and potentially fought instead of "accept[ed]".
Punishment/retaliation can be seen as a specific type of consequence (one that is intentionally enacted by someone as retribution) so it's not that the framing is technically incorrect, but it seems to put it on the same level as "I threw a basketball upwards and it came back down to hit me in the face".
Like Jan 6?