The three deans include Cristen Kromm, the former dean of undergraduate student life; Matthew Patashnick, the former associate dean for student and family support; and Susan Chang-Kim, the former vice dean and chief administrative officer.
The suspension of the deans is the latest example of how Ivy League schools have moved to squash any speech critical of Israel or simply challenging the view that students who express pro-Palestinian sentiment are inciting antisemitism.
Columbia has been the spotlight of the student protest movement in solidarity with Gaza over the past several months.
At this point I hear “antisemetic” and just have to assume that the speaker is pro-genocide and assume little about the person they are talking about.
Which is what the people in favor if this genocide want and exactly what you shouldn’t be assuming it.
I’m not sure I follow. Can you elaborate?
I get that zionists probably want anyone who supports Palestine to be considered an antisemite.
But I don’t follow how those who accuse others of antisemitism would benefit from a belief that they (the accuser) are pro-genocide.
The people in favor of the genocide are the Zionists. They want people to associate Israel and antisemitism. They want people to think about only their cause.
And so when things like what happened last week happen, people care a lot less or try to dismiss it: https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/02/us/cincinnati-jewish-cemeteries-vandalism/index.html
I’m even more confused.
I’ve read a lot of your comments and I generally agree with them/believe you have well-reasoned positions, so there’s probably more a foundational misunderstanding than a disagreement of opinion.
I’m understanding what you’re saying to mean that you believe zionists want Israel to be associated with antisemitism, but I don’t get how that association benefits them. I suppose I could see it as reinforcing a victim complex, that then can be used to justify their actions.
As a person who staunchly supports Palestine and believes Israel is not just currently committing a genocide, but has been since the inception of the state - I was horrified about that vandalism.
How would apathy benefit zionists?
I also feel like the my assumption about the first statement doesn’t align with your statement of the second. The first is an increased sensitivity/awareness of antisemitism to justify genocidal actions for the sake of “safety” (or whatever), but the second is an apathy to antisemitism, which undermines the first.
I’m just… not getting it.
It benefits them because Israel is supposedly “the Jewish state” and because of that, any criticism of Israel is bigotry against Jews. And most people don’t want to be accused of bigotry, especially against a people who suffered a genocide relatively recently.
I’m really surprised this is not something you’re aware of, because it’s been going on for quite some time. Here’s an article about it from 2019, for example: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/mar/07/debunking-myth-that-anti-zionism-is-antisemitic
Ah, thank you. That was the missing piece.
This might sound either self-adulating or naive (probably both), but I just don’t think like that. I view religions and nations as distinct - even nations that embrace a single religion. It’s just - Administrative systems for governance and the decisions that arise from those aren’t the same as religious belief systems.
My innate reaction to those who choose not to recognize a difference between hostility toward Judaism and hostility toward Zionism or Israel’s policies Is to think they’re an unserious person. (That’s a polite way of saying I think those people are complete morons.)
Note: Even though you’re discussing blurring those lines, I know you’re doing it for illustrative purposes. My sentiments above do not apply to you.
It’s probably a good thing I’m not in politics or a publicly visible position, because I don’t have to tie my livelihood to the perceptions of folks whose judgment I find questionable. It would suck making those sorts of moral concessions.