Billionaire Bill Ackman called for the resignation of the presidents of Harvard, UPenn, and MIT after they refused to clearly state whether calling for the genocide of Jews on campus violated their rules against bullying and harassment.
During a congressional hearing, the presidents dodged the question, leading to criticism from Ackman and New York Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik.
Ackman condemned their responses as morally bankrupt and called for their resignations, emphasizing the need for clear leadership. (Trending: Biden Bank Records Reveal Another Massive Bombshell)
The presidents of @Harvard, @MIT, and @Penn were all asked the following question under oath at today’s congressional hearing on antisemitism:
Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate [your university’s] code of conduct or rules regarding bullying or harassment?
The… pic.twitter.com/eVlPCHMcVZ
— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) December 5, 2023
“The answers they gave reflect the profound moral bankruptcy of Presidents Gay, Magill and Kornbluth. … they gave the same answers over and over again. In short, they said: It ‘depends on the context’ and ‘whether the speech turns into conduct,’ that is, actually killing Jews. This could be the most extraordinary testimony ever elicited in the Congress,” wrote Ackman.
“The presidents’ answers reflect the profound educational, moral and ethical failures that pervade certain of our elite educational institutions due in large part to their failed leadership,” he continued.
“Don’t take my word for it. You must watch the following three minutes. By the end, you will be where I am. They must all resign in disgrace.”
“If a CEO of one of our companies gave a similar answer, he or she would be toast within the hour,” he declared.
“Why has antisemitism exploded on campus and around the world? Because of leaders like Presidents Gay, Magill and Kornbluth who believe genocide depends on the context.”
“Throughout the hearing, the three behaved like hostile witnesses, exhibiting a profound disdain for the Congress with their smiles and smirks, and their outright refusal to answer basic questions with a yes or no answer,” he concluded.
During Rep. Stefanik’s questioning, UPenn’s President Magill said, “If the speech turns into conduct it can be harassment.”
Rep. Stefanik snapped back, “’Conduct’ meaning committing the act of genocide? The speech is not harassment? This is unacceptable.”
Stefanik eventually declared, “It does not depend on the context. The answer is yes.”
Stefanik followed up saying, “And this is why you should resign. These are unacceptable answers across the board.”
Posted is the partial transcript:
Stefanik: Dr. Kornbluth, at MIT, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate MIT’s code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment? Yes or no?
Kornbluth: With targeted individuals, not public statements.
Stefanik: Yes or no? Calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying and harassment?
Kornbluth: I have not heard calling for the genocide of Jews on our campus.
Stefanik: But you’ve heard chants for intifada.
Kornbluth: I’ve heard chants which can be anti-Semitic depending on the context when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people.
Stefanik: So those would not be according to the MIT’s code of conduct or rules?
Kornbluth: That would be investigated as harassment if pervasive and severe.
Stefanik: Ms. Magill, at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s rules or code of conduct? Yes or no.
Magill, smiling: If the speech turns into conduct it can be harassment. Yes.
Stefanik: I am asking, specifically calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying and harassment?
Magill: If it is directed and severe or pervasive it is harassment.
Stefanik: So the answer is yes.
Magill, smiling: It is a context-dependent decision, Congresswoman.
Stefanik: It’s a context-dependent decision? That’s your testimony today? Calling for the genocide of Jews is depending on the context? That is not bullying or harassment? This is the easiest question to answer yes, Ms. Magill. So is your testimony that you will not answer yes? Yes or no?
Magill: If the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment. Yes.
Stefanik: “Conduct” meaning committing the act of genocide? The speech is not harassment? This is unacceptable, Ms. Magill. I’m going to give you one more opportunity for the world to see your answer. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s code of conduct when it comes to bullying or harassment? Yes or no.
Magill: It can be harassment.
Stefanik: The answer is yes. And Dr. Gay, at Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment? Yes or no.
Gay: It can be, depending on the context.
Stefanik: What’s the context?
Gay: Targeted as an individual; targeted at an individual.
Stefanik: It’s targeted at Jewish students. Jewish individuals. Do you understand your testimony is dehumanizing them? Do you understand that dehumanization is part of anti-Semitism? I will ask you one more time: Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment? Yes or no.
Gay: Anti-Semitic rhetoric —
Stefanik: And is it anti-Semitic rhetoric?
Gay: Anti-Semitic rhetoric, when it crosses into conduct, it amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation, that is actionable conduct and we do take action.
Stefanik: So the answer is yes, that calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard’s code of conduct, correct?
Gay: Again, it depends on the context.
Stefanik: It does not depend on the context. The answer is yes. And this is why you should resign. These are unacceptable answers across the board.
Most Popular:
Joe Biden Admits He’s ‘Not Sure’ About Running If Trump Wasn’t
Elon Musk Condemns Arrest Of Jan 6 Protester
Trump Announces Major Promise For 2024
