A ground-breaking study by a coalition of prestigious academic institutions has concluded that Israel's actions in Gaza since 7 October, 2023, constitute genocide against the Palestinian people. The study, conducted...
I don’t live in the cities that have the universities that held pro-Hamas protests so I can’t name them, sorry.
I’m just arriving at this conclusion because:
The main doctrine among students and faculty is being pro-Hamas, or at minimum agreeing on things like: Isreal is causing a genocide, Isreal is an apartheid state, Israel makes living in Gaza feel like an open prison, etc.
If any student goes over the line and is explicitly pro-Hamas, or advocates the extermination of all Jews (“to the river to the sea…”), harasses jewish students or blocks them from entering the building, protest in a way to disrupt the right of the non-protesting students to attend class, litter the common areas, etc. If they do this, the faculty just do nothing or reprimend them with a slap on the wrist. In other words, they condone this stuff.
The presidents of those universities often are beholden by the opinion of the pro-Hamas students. There’s a famous episode where the president of Havard, Claudine Gay, when asked if “calling for the genocide of Jews” would violate the college’s code of conduct, was evasive and said “it depends on context”.
And I’m sorry if I originally said they’re mostly pro-Hamas. What I really meant is that they’re either pro-Hamas or Pro-Palestine. If they’re not, they’d fell intimidated to express their pro-Isreael opinions, just like most pro-Israel students would when they see the treatment their jewish colleagues receive, so it creates the illusion that 99% of the faculty and students are pro-Hamas or pro-Palestine, but it’s the social and institutional pressure that I cited above that makes it seem so.
No, it’s empirical evidence. It’s a well known fact that western universities have a left-leaning bias.
And by extension, a pro-Hamas and/or pro-Palestine bias. This one is supported by the 3 points in my previous comment.
There’s some variation in this. The humanities courses have a higher concentration of left-leaning individuals than other areas. But it might also be explained that the left-leaning are more vocal about their concerns. I know there’s a significant silent population of students that might be right-leaning, but they just aren’t interested in discussing politics in the unniverity: they just want to finish their course with the minimum trouble possible.
Again, just stating things without evidence does not make them true. You said this was a “well-known fact.” If it’s well-known, where’s the evidence? Or was that a lie?
This is just a conversation on the internet. We aren’t here presenting an undergraduate thesis. I try to limit things to empirical evidence and appeal to common experiences between us so I don’t have to make everyone read a huge wall of text. That’s why I said we can just agree to disagree. There’s nothing wrong about it. 👽
Again if it is a “well-known fact,” it should take you no effort whatsoever to provide evidence for it. That’s how “well-known facts” work. It’s a well-known fact that the Earth is round and I can show you evidence with about two seconds of Googling.
You are unable to, which suggests you were lying about it being a “well-known fact.”
I don’t want to make it seems I’m arguing my point. We can agree to disagree, of course. Especially if, for you to be trully satisfied with my answers, it would require me to go in person to those universities and do a field research. I don’t even live in the USA. 😅
“Agree to disagree” is not how it works on facts. If you cannot provide evidence for your statements, do not declare them as “well-known facts.” If they are well-known, you shouldn’t have to do field research.
Actually, this is what you said:
So please name three professors who have a “pro-Hamas” doctrine.
I don’t live in the cities that have the universities that held pro-Hamas protests so I can’t name them, sorry.
I’m just arriving at this conclusion because:
The main doctrine among students and faculty is being pro-Hamas, or at minimum agreeing on things like: Isreal is causing a genocide, Isreal is an apartheid state, Israel makes living in Gaza feel like an open prison, etc.
If any student goes over the line and is explicitly pro-Hamas, or advocates the extermination of all Jews (“to the river to the sea…”), harasses jewish students or blocks them from entering the building, protest in a way to disrupt the right of the non-protesting students to attend class, litter the common areas, etc. If they do this, the faculty just do nothing or reprimend them with a slap on the wrist. In other words, they condone this stuff.
The presidents of those universities often are beholden by the opinion of the pro-Hamas students. There’s a famous episode where the president of Havard, Claudine Gay, when asked if “calling for the genocide of Jews” would violate the college’s code of conduct, was evasive and said “it depends on context”.
And I’m sorry if I originally said they’re mostly pro-Hamas. What I really meant is that they’re either pro-Hamas or Pro-Palestine. If they’re not, they’d fell intimidated to express their pro-Isreael opinions, just like most pro-Israel students would when they see the treatment their jewish colleagues receive, so it creates the illusion that 99% of the faculty and students are pro-Hamas or pro-Palestine, but it’s the social and institutional pressure that I cited above that makes it seem so.
Ah, so this is all based on faith. Why didn’t you say so?
No, it’s empirical evidence. It’s a well known fact that western universities have a left-leaning bias. And by extension, a pro-Hamas and/or pro-Palestine bias. This one is supported by the 3 points in my previous comment.
Sorry, it’s not as “well-known fact” just because you say it is.
There’s some variation in this. The humanities courses have a higher concentration of left-leaning individuals than other areas. But it might also be explained that the left-leaning are more vocal about their concerns. I know there’s a significant silent population of students that might be right-leaning, but they just aren’t interested in discussing politics in the unniverity: they just want to finish their course with the minimum trouble possible.
Again, just stating things without evidence does not make them true. You said this was a “well-known fact.” If it’s well-known, where’s the evidence? Or was that a lie?
This is just a conversation on the internet. We aren’t here presenting an undergraduate thesis. I try to limit things to empirical evidence and appeal to common experiences between us so I don’t have to make everyone read a huge wall of text. That’s why I said we can just agree to disagree. There’s nothing wrong about it. 👽
Again if it is a “well-known fact,” it should take you no effort whatsoever to provide evidence for it. That’s how “well-known facts” work. It’s a well-known fact that the Earth is round and I can show you evidence with about two seconds of Googling.
You are unable to, which suggests you were lying about it being a “well-known fact.”
I don’t want to make it seems I’m arguing my point. We can agree to disagree, of course. Especially if, for you to be trully satisfied with my answers, it would require me to go in person to those universities and do a field research. I don’t even live in the USA. 😅
“Agree to disagree” is not how it works on facts. If you cannot provide evidence for your statements, do not declare them as “well-known facts.” If they are well-known, you shouldn’t have to do field research.