Posting on behalf of a reader who emailed me (with their consent):
"Nice write up as usual. For what very little it is worth, as someone who has done traditional/mainstream advocacy for Israel most of my life, I’m not sure the offer revocation is a good thing—just creates one more martyr. I’d have much preferred that they be required to r…
Posting on behalf of a reader who emailed me (with their consent):
"Nice write up as usual. For what very little it is worth, as someone who has done traditional/mainstream advocacy for Israel most of my life, I’m not sure the offer revocation is a good thing—just creates one more martyr. I’d have much preferred that they be required to read the biographies of those murdered on Saturday. I’m probably being naive, but we need solutions much more than we need blame or a pound of flesh."
The statements that blame Israel for terrorism carried out by Hamas do look suspiciously like the intellectual products of people who have never read or thought about this issue except on social media. So I'd support encouraging people to read more deeply, even though I remain pessimistic about getting ideologues to nuance their positions.
That's an interesting point and idea, although if I were at Winston & Strawn, I'd share David's concern that we had hired someone with abysmal judgment and who does not really care about the feelings of others. The judgment piece alone provides a great basis to revoke the offer; NYU has a heavily Jewish student body with plenty of people with Israeli families and connections. Even if this person legitimately has an informed belief that genuinely leads them to the position they articulated (which I doubt), this goes into the "keep it to yourself, at least for now" bucket.
"The judgment piece alone provides a great basis to revoke the offer; NYU has a heavily Jewish student body with plenty of people with Israeli families and connections. Even if this person legitimately has an informed belief that genuinely leads them to the position they articulated (which I doubt), this goes into the "keep it to yourself, at least for now" bucket."
Very well stated. It's clear they have no idea how to read the room or weigh how their words will land. I don't think that they needed to keep it to themselves, necessarily. Go on Twitter, Tik Tok, whatever. But don't abuse your position as SBA president (an org that obviously includes Jewish students) to espouse your personal opinions on such a fraught issue.
Agreed; the above has to do with what I’d want for my people. The business case for the firm revoking seems clear, though one does wonder about precedent.
The no-win situation in which institutions find themselves right now is just another tiny indignity piled on top of the mountain of horrors the last few days have brought.
Posting on behalf of a reader who emailed me (with their consent):
"Nice write up as usual. For what very little it is worth, as someone who has done traditional/mainstream advocacy for Israel most of my life, I’m not sure the offer revocation is a good thing—just creates one more martyr. I’d have much preferred that they be required to read the biographies of those murdered on Saturday. I’m probably being naive, but we need solutions much more than we need blame or a pound of flesh."
The statements that blame Israel for terrorism carried out by Hamas do look suspiciously like the intellectual products of people who have never read or thought about this issue except on social media. So I'd support encouraging people to read more deeply, even though I remain pessimistic about getting ideologues to nuance their positions.
That's an interesting point and idea, although if I were at Winston & Strawn, I'd share David's concern that we had hired someone with abysmal judgment and who does not really care about the feelings of others. The judgment piece alone provides a great basis to revoke the offer; NYU has a heavily Jewish student body with plenty of people with Israeli families and connections. Even if this person legitimately has an informed belief that genuinely leads them to the position they articulated (which I doubt), this goes into the "keep it to yourself, at least for now" bucket.
"The judgment piece alone provides a great basis to revoke the offer; NYU has a heavily Jewish student body with plenty of people with Israeli families and connections. Even if this person legitimately has an informed belief that genuinely leads them to the position they articulated (which I doubt), this goes into the "keep it to yourself, at least for now" bucket."
Very well stated. It's clear they have no idea how to read the room or weigh how their words will land. I don't think that they needed to keep it to themselves, necessarily. Go on Twitter, Tik Tok, whatever. But don't abuse your position as SBA president (an org that obviously includes Jewish students) to espouse your personal opinions on such a fraught issue.
Agreed; the above has to do with what I’d want for my people. The business case for the firm revoking seems clear, though one does wonder about precedent.
The no-win situation in which institutions find themselves right now is just another tiny indignity piled on top of the mountain of horrors the last few days have brought.