What You Need to Know About the Largest-Ever Commitment to Counter Antisemitism on College Campuses College campus in autumn This May brought a landmark announcement in American Jewish Committee’s long-term efforts to combat widespread Jew-hatred on college campuses—a result of our sustained work with university leaders. In collaboration with AJC, organizations representing more than 4,000 colleges, universities, and institutions of higher education have pledged reforms to fight campus antisemitism. AJC CEO Ted Deutch called this “a major step forward in our efforts to create and foster the college experience that all students deserve: one that is free from hate, bigotry, and harassment, ensuring that all students — including Jewish, Israeli, and Zionist students — have the opportunity to grow and thrive.” This breakthrough was announced in a joint statement released by AJC, the Association of American Universities (AAU), the American Council on Education (ACE), and other organizations, affirming the seriousness of antisemitism on campus and a pledge from these and other organizations, representing the full breadth of American higher educational institutions, to “continuing consequential reform and transparent action.” In Collaboration with AJC, Groups Representing Full Breadth of U.S. Colleges and Universities Pledge Reforms to Fight Campus Antisemitism While commending the administration for prioritizing the eradication of antisemitism on campus, the statement also notes that, “[i]n the name of combating antisemitism, the federal government has recently taken steps that endanger the research grants, academic freedom, and institutional autonomy of America’s higher education sector,” reiterating AJC’s concerns that overly-broad and arbitrary funding cuts could undermine such efforts. What’s at stake? AJC’s State of Antisemitism in America 2024 Report found that roughly one-third (35%) of current American Jewish college students and recent graduates report having personally experienced antisemitism at least once during their time on campus. Why does this matter? AAU, ACE, and the four other partner organizations represent more than 4,000 colleges, universities, and institutions of higher education. The statement from these organizations is a clear commitment from leadership at colleges and universities across the country and across the spectrum of higher education institutions to prioritize combating campus antisemitism. Listen A United Front: U.S. Colleges and AJC Commit to Fighting Campus Antisemitism What comes next? The joint statement is a continuation and reaffirmation of the vital work of AJC’s Center for Education Advocacy (CEA), the trusted resource for administrators and faculty at institutions of higher education and K-12 schools. The announcement signaled an expansion of AJC’s long-term work to provide comprehensive action plans, impactful programming, and meaningful guidance to universities across the country, as we have recently done for Brown, MIT, UPenn, Cornell, Michigan, and many others in the wake of October 7, 2023. Read and share AJC’s Action Plan for University Administrators here. AJC’s message to university leaders: Fighting antisemitism on campus requires a comprehensive approach that impacts all members of the campus community, including faculty, administrators, and students. A commitment to meaningful reform must involve better community-wide education about the unique manifestations of antisemitism, and a return to viewpoint diversity, fact-based inquiry, and courageous conversations in higher education. A pervasive atmosphere of Jew-hatred cannot become the new normal, and young Jews should not have to fear discrimination or harassment while getting an education. Find more from AJC’s Center for Education Advocacy (CEA)
-
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
-
-
-
-
-
No comments:
Post a Comment