Ask yourself one simple question: Should calling for genocide of the Jews be considered intimidation and harassment?
Anyone with an ounce of decency knows that the answer is an emphatic “Yes.”
But when the university presidents of Harvard, MIT and Upenn testified under oath before Congress this week when I questioned them about the rampant and unabated anti-Semitism infecting their institutions, I could hardly believe what I was hearing.
Rightly, their moral depravity has shocked the world.
I asked each of the three presidents – Claudine Gay (Harvard), Sally Kornblut (MIT), Elizabeth Magill (Upenn) – a simple question, one that any child, let alone the leaders of our best universities, could have answered .
Does calling for genocide of the Jews violate the codes of conduct of their respective institutions?
Every one of them squirmed and dodged.
When the university presidents of Harvard, MIT and Upenn testified under oath before Congress this week when I questioned them about the rampant and unabated anti-Semitism infecting their institutions, I could hardly believe what I was hearing. (Photo: Rep. Elise Stefanik).
MIT's Kornbluth said such depravity would only be considered harassment depending on the “context” – if it was “targeted at individuals, did not make public statements” and if it was “pervasive and severe.”
I have pointed out that her rhetoric not only dehumanizes the Jewish people, but also implies that the call for the destruction of the Jews is “not serious.” Yet she still refused to change her tune.
UPenn's Magill was also furious, smiling smugly as she said, “It's a context-dependent decision.”
Deeply disturbed, I pressed for clearer answers. But Magill's response was extremely shocking: “When the speech becomes behavior. It could be intimidation.”
'Behaviour' means 'commit genocide'?' I asked in shock, giving her another chance to correct the record. She couldn't.
Finally, I turned to Harvard President Gay. But depressingly, her answer was the same: whether calling for the mass murder of Jews at her university constitutes harassment “depends on the context.”
My God – in what “context” is calling for genocide ever okay?
It doesn't take a Harvard degree to see the problem here.
It is now all too clear that horrific anti-Semitism has taken root on Ivy League campuses.
Higher education has long been a hotbed of left-wing hatred, which has created a woke groupthink in the next generation. And here's proof that it comes straight from the top, from college presidents unwilling to stand up for anyone who doesn't fit their warped worldview of what a “victim” is—in this case, their own oppressed Jewish students.
I asked each of the three presidents – Claudine Gay (Harvard, pictured), Sally Kornblut (MIT), Elizabeth Magill (Upenn) – a simple question, a question that any child, let alone the leader of one of our finest universities, , could have answered. Does calling for genocide of the Jews violate the codes of conduct of their respective institutions? Every one of them squirmed and dodged.
It doesn't take a Harvard degree to see the problem here. It is now all too clear that horrific anti-Semitism has taken root on Ivy League campuses. (Photo: MIT President Sally Kornblut).
Higher education has long been a hotbed of left-wing hatred. And here's proof that it comes straight from the top, from college presidents unwilling to stand up for anyone who doesn't fit their warped worldview of what a “victim” is—in this case, their own oppressed Jewish students. (Photo: UPenn President Elizabeth Magill)
This congressional hearing should never have been complicated or controversial. But by failing to stand up for America's Jews, we can only assume that these three presidents are apathetic to the blatant anti-Semitism they failed to condemn.
In the days following the hearing, millions of people joined my call for them to be fired.
As pressure mounted around the world, President Gay backtracked, insisting in a statement that her words were “confusing.”
President Magill went one step further and released a pathetic video speech 'clarifying' her position, which clearly contained no apology whatsoever.
MIT's Kornblut has kept quiet so far – and perhaps rightly so. After all, no amount of desperate PR can remove or cover up the shame.
If Harvard, MIT, and UPenn want to restore even a shred of legitimacy, these institutions must find their moral clarity.
That starts with the immediate resignation of these three pathetic presidents.
The world watches and waits.