I’m pretty happy with the way the University of Michigan has dealt with things. Early on, the president said free speech was paramount; destruction wouldn’t be tolerated. Michigan has always been a haven for Jewish students; when the Ivys had quotas, they could come here and were very welcome. In recent years, Michigan’s Dearborn campus has seen a big leap in students from Arab-American backgrounds, who also come to the main campus. My own students included the founders of the Arab-American student organization. We’ve had marches, but it has stayed relatively calm throughout this year. There was a disruption at the honors convocation in March which upset the administration, and I don’t blame them, because the students have ample ability to express their views across campus. But student protests have taken place in Ann Arbor my entire life and I don’t want to see anyone muzzled.
Hello, again, Margaret, and thank you for doing what no one else seems to be able to do: address a complicated situation with the nuance it requires. We are all grateful.
Very gutsy and welcome assessment of the Columbia situation. My spouse is Jewish and we know how difficult all this has become. But the university overreacted in order for those in charge to save their jobs. Regrettable!
Freedom of speech is inseparable from democracy and it's good to hear your sane approach to what's happening at Columbia University. At the same time, I'm getting a bad feeling lately that free speech, while absolutely necessary in a democracy, is at times being weaponized, as it is in the case of many of these pro-Palestinian protests, to drown out understanding of an extremely complex situation in Israel. The voice of understanding is not being allowed to speak. That's a voice that would be helpful to hear right now.
Thank Ms. Sullivan for your level-headed presentation of the world-wide controversy of Palestine/ Israel. I agree that this balanced interpretation of the student lead events in America is required, and your written statement of your personal views is appreciated. Perhaps the establishment forgets how critical to policy change student-lead demonstrations are necessary for democratic development. These students are to be applauded for their insights into the crisis of witnessing death and destruction of a people under apartheid devastation. Enough said your balanced writing is helpful to keep the conversation going, developing. Yes it is unfortunate that injury and insult, damaging property accompany a very necessary expression of the gravity of our current crisis. Yet it offers insight into the intelligent understanding of our students.
“There is some anti-semitism being expressed on campus and outside the gates; most of it — while appalling and offensive — falls within the parameters of free speech.”
So we just tolerate antisemitism because “free speech”? Where do you draw the line between acceptable (“most of it”) and not?
It's been many years since I've read anything by Margaret Sullivan. It was when she was supposedly a readers editor for the NYT.
An ombudsman? Then as now she showed a near total lack of ability to reason with the slightest bit of logic or intellectual fairness. During that time she tried to defend objective journalism against the onslaught of advocacy journalism being spearheaded by Glenn Greenwald. Of course she was intellectually and logically lacking and lost that argument and eventually switched sides. This brings us to this response. According to her logic, expressing, demonstrating, assembling, and protesting, are all the same thing. Principles mean next to nothing to her. The students were in fact disrupting, infringing on others rights and intimidating a select group of students because of their religion. No amount of equivocating of "some", "perhaps", "at times" changes the facts.
Finally, at least address the "elephant "in the argument. Answer honestly what your position would be if the select group was Blacks or LGBQT+, or Muslims.
When I read that the University had their students arrested for peacefully demonstrating, I couldn't believe it. The responsibility of the University and administration should be to protect their rights. Why do you think the administration missed the ball? Was it an overreaction? Or were they trying to prevent something from escalating?
I’m pretty happy with the way the University of Michigan has dealt with things. Early on, the president said free speech was paramount; destruction wouldn’t be tolerated. Michigan has always been a haven for Jewish students; when the Ivys had quotas, they could come here and were very welcome. In recent years, Michigan’s Dearborn campus has seen a big leap in students from Arab-American backgrounds, who also come to the main campus. My own students included the founders of the Arab-American student organization. We’ve had marches, but it has stayed relatively calm throughout this year. There was a disruption at the honors convocation in March which upset the administration, and I don’t blame them, because the students have ample ability to express their views across campus. But student protests have taken place in Ann Arbor my entire life and I don’t want to see anyone muzzled.
Hello, again, Margaret, and thank you for doing what no one else seems to be able to do: address a complicated situation with the nuance it requires. We are all grateful.
Very gutsy and welcome assessment of the Columbia situation. My spouse is Jewish and we know how difficult all this has become. But the university overreacted in order for those in charge to save their jobs. Regrettable!
Freedom of speech is inseparable from democracy and it's good to hear your sane approach to what's happening at Columbia University. At the same time, I'm getting a bad feeling lately that free speech, while absolutely necessary in a democracy, is at times being weaponized, as it is in the case of many of these pro-Palestinian protests, to drown out understanding of an extremely complex situation in Israel. The voice of understanding is not being allowed to speak. That's a voice that would be helpful to hear right now.
Thanks Margaret! Once again your comments help us to look objectively at Columbia’s situation and also the impact of honest journalism .
Thank Ms. Sullivan for your level-headed presentation of the world-wide controversy of Palestine/ Israel. I agree that this balanced interpretation of the student lead events in America is required, and your written statement of your personal views is appreciated. Perhaps the establishment forgets how critical to policy change student-lead demonstrations are necessary for democratic development. These students are to be applauded for their insights into the crisis of witnessing death and destruction of a people under apartheid devastation. Enough said your balanced writing is helpful to keep the conversation going, developing. Yes it is unfortunate that injury and insult, damaging property accompany a very necessary expression of the gravity of our current crisis. Yet it offers insight into the intelligent understanding of our students.
“There is some anti-semitism being expressed on campus and outside the gates; most of it — while appalling and offensive — falls within the parameters of free speech.”
So we just tolerate antisemitism because “free speech”? Where do you draw the line between acceptable (“most of it”) and not?
It's been many years since I've read anything by Margaret Sullivan. It was when she was supposedly a readers editor for the NYT.
An ombudsman? Then as now she showed a near total lack of ability to reason with the slightest bit of logic or intellectual fairness. During that time she tried to defend objective journalism against the onslaught of advocacy journalism being spearheaded by Glenn Greenwald. Of course she was intellectually and logically lacking and lost that argument and eventually switched sides. This brings us to this response. According to her logic, expressing, demonstrating, assembling, and protesting, are all the same thing. Principles mean next to nothing to her. The students were in fact disrupting, infringing on others rights and intimidating a select group of students because of their religion. No amount of equivocating of "some", "perhaps", "at times" changes the facts.
Finally, at least address the "elephant "in the argument. Answer honestly what your position would be if the select group was Blacks or LGBQT+, or Muslims.
Super interesting.
When I read that the University had their students arrested for peacefully demonstrating, I couldn't believe it. The responsibility of the University and administration should be to protect their rights. Why do you think the administration missed the ball? Was it an overreaction? Or were they trying to prevent something from escalating?