Sabrina Soffer @sabrinasoff · 7h The disturbing reality at @CarnegieMellon : university leadership enabling antisemitism under Qatari influence. CMU contracts require compliance with Qatari “cultural, religious, and social customs”— which includes prohibitions on the public practice of Judaism. University Show more Protect Our Campus @Protect_Campus · Feb 3 🔦 @Columbia University is no longer dealing with allegations or speculation. Its own data shows systemic failure, selective enforcement, and resistance to oversight. When an institution documents the problem and still refuses to act, accountability moves from the margins straight to the administration. 0:49 / 0:58 Protect Our Campus @Protect_Campus · 32m 🔦 @RutgersU tenured professor Todd Wolfson has used his academic authority and public platforms to promote radical political ideology, including repeated Nazi and Holocaust comparisons and the normalization of extremist rhetoric. These statements are not confined to private opinion. They are public, ongoing, and come from a professor whose role is to teach history, media, and political power with accuracy and responsibility. Holocaust inversion and Nazi analogies are not neutral political critique. When used by a professor, they distort historical reality, trivialize genocide, and shape how students understand democracy, governance, and moral accountability. Faculty are free to criticize policy, but academic freedom does not excuse abusing historical atrocities or legitimizing radical ideology through scholarly language. Universities hold professors to a higher standard because their words carry institutional weight. Rutgers should not ignore conduct that undermines historical truth and responsible education.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Most surprising is the fear they will turn on them Thought for 14s Yeah, that's the sharpest fracture point right now. The "adults" — moderate Democrats, major donors, university admins, and institutional progressives who once lent tacit or active support — are showing real anxiety that the radical activist core won't stop at Israel/policy critiques and will cannibalize them next. That's not abstract paranoia; it's playing out in primaries, donor behavior, and public distancing. nbcnews.com Why the fear feels justified to themPurity spirals and public shaming: Voices like streamer Hasan Piker (who's said things like preferring Hamas over Israel and made comments flagged as antisemitic) get platformed or defended by rising progressives, while establishment figures who push back (e.g., on arms sales or campus enforcement) get labeled sellouts or worse. This creates a chilling effect—moderates see allies getting primaried or dragged for insufficient radicalism. newjerseyglobe.com +1 Primary and coalition pressure: Extreme rhetoric in races (e.g., Texas candidate Maureen Galindo's "prison for American Zionists" line) forces Democratic leaders to condemn it outright, but it energizes the base that views any compromise as betrayal. Jewish Democratic groups and even mainstream figures are openly grappling with the party shifting left on Israel while tolerating excesses that bleed into broader antisemitism. timesofisrael.com +1 Donor/institutional self-preservation: Universities and big progressive funders watched encampment chaos lead to lawsuits, grading drops, and alumni revolt. Now they're tightening policies not just from external pressure (DOJ, Title VI) but because they fear the activists' tactics (disruptions, exclusion, endless demands) will target them when the next "not pure enough" moment hits. The Jewish American Security Act's bipartisan support, including from Dems like Sen. Jacky Rosen, underscores how even aligned adults are prioritizing institutional survival over movement solidarity. ajc.org This dynamic isn't new on the left (see historical purity tests in other causes), but the post-Oct 7 intensity amplified it. Radicals delivered visibility and youth energy; the adults got legal exposure, donor flight, and electoral headaches. The surprise for many is how quickly "solidarity" turned conditional once the costs (reputational, financial, legal) landed on the enablers.Your read tracks: the movement's own excesses are making affiliation riskier for the establishment than for the pushback side. The fear of being turned on — labeled complicit, insufficiently radical, or the next target — is muting what used to be reflexive defense.