Liz Magill, the third consecutive female president at the prestigious University of Pennsylvania, has surprisingly resigned after being named the president in January 2022.
"Prior to her career in higher education, Magill acquired experience working in politics and at the U.S. Supreme Court. She completed her bachelor’s degree in history at Yale University in 1988, then served as a senior legislative assistant for energy and natural resources for U.S. Senator Kent Conrad." It's hard to believe someone with such level of education and level of political involvement would perform so horribly during a house hearing, but that's exactly what happened.
The presidents of MIT, Harvard, and Penn all attended a congressional hearing on December 5th where all three colleges were defending their effort to combat antisemitism behaviors on campus. Universities all around the nation is being accused of improper protection of Jewish students amid rising fears of antisemitism worldwide and fallout from Israel’s intensifying war in Gaza. When Representative Elise Stefanik, R-NY... repeated asked if “calling for the genocide of Jews” would violate Penn’s code of conduct. Magill's responded saying that “If the speech turns into conduct it can be harassment, yes,” and even further stating It is "a context-dependent decision." Immediately heavy criticism came from the White House as Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro threatened to withdraw $100 million in gifts unless Magill was replaced. On Friday, more than 70 congress members called for the firing of Magill as well as the other two presidents that showed up alongside her to the hearing.
Immediately after, two Penn students would file lawsuits against the University, arguing that the there has been a strong lack of response to antisemitism behavior on campus. This seemed to be the last straw as four days later, Magill's resignation would be announced to all of the Penn community via Email. Magill's resignation as president doesn't mean she is leaving campus, she'll remain at the University's Carey Law School. Days after the hearing, Ms.Stefanik came out and said "one down, two to go." The New York City Representative has begun her journey to address the increasing issue of antisemitism that has destroyed the most ‘prestigious’ higher education institutions in America. This forced resignation of the president of Penn is the bare minimum of what is required.”
Sources
16 comments:
I'm curious as to why although many universities are being called out for lack of addressing antisemitism on campus it was MIT, UPenn, and Harvard who were specifically cherrypicked. Was there a specific notable event that set them apart? I know a Harvard student group signed a letter holding Israel entirely accountable for the violence in the region, but what about UPenn and MIT then? Or is it that there is a double edged sword in being as Lequan put it, the "most 'prestigious higher education institutions in America". That this status actually makes such schools a greater target. I'm curious to see how this will all play out. How many schools will be targeted, how many university officials will be impacted, and honestly if this will lead into a modern day witch hunt of some sort.
I was curious exactly what else Magill must have did to upset the public before the hearing, as I felt I didn't have the whole story. It seems Magill's poor leadership was backed by many previous incidents of ineffectively condemning anti-semitism on campus. The first backlash appeared to be after U Penn made a rather neutral statement regarding the Palestine Writes Literature Festival, which invited speakers who seemed to have previously made antisemitic comments. After the attack on Israel of October 7th, Magill and the school tried to make statements condemning antisemitism, but they were ill received, as people thought it seemed in-genuine. Then there was rising anti-semetism on campus, a lawsuit was filed by the Brandies Center, and next there was testimony of Magill and other university school presidents. It seems the final straw was their ambiguous and weak response to the question, "about whether calling for the genocide of Jews violated their respective school’s code of conduct on bullying or harassment." One would assume calling for genocide clearly violates the school's code of conduct, but their response: "it would depend on the circumstances and conduct," is blatantly wrong and shameful. It appears Magill and other university presidents are implementing a twisted "inclusivity" to all opinion, by allowing certain groups to receive hatred. In a time where everyone should spread love and nonviolence, its very disappointing to see people like Magill to subliminally allow for the perpetuation of hatred. It feels almost idiotic for her own sake that she and others wouldn't condemn anti-semitism more forcefully, when she obviously has students, donors, and members of the community who are Jewish.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/10/business/liz-magill-upenn-resignation-timeline/index.html
I want to offer a possible answer to Chin-Yi’s question about why Penn, MIT, and Harvard were specifically targeted. I think that with such national prestige comes extreme scrutiny. As the nation views these Ivy League schools as several of the greatest, most honorable universities in America, we, as citizens, hold the values and conduct of these schools to a very high standard. Do something wrong, and the public is all over it, ranting about how Harvard could ever condone the act. In essence, schools must do everything right and CANNOT slip up, or else they risk their main appeal—their prestige. To put it in a different perspective, if the same exact series of events happened at, say, a small, private, no-name college, the press wouldn’t eat it up at all. It would merely be a passing thought. And it would be insane for the school’s president to even think about resigning. As unfair as this may seem, I think it’s necessary—it provides a level of accountability that is impossible to ignore. If the public wasn’t so adamant about engaging in things like each school’s shortcomings, the schools would be able to get away with a lot more, for the worse.
The argument that UPenn, Harvard, and MIT made that acts antisemitism can fall under free-speech is ridiculous. Harvard is rated the worst university in the United States for free speech. While people with different political views are often censored on campus, those making antisemetic statements are not. By not punishing bad actors, colleges such as Harvard and Penn are directly responsible for the rise of antisemitism. Penn has does little to stop students and faculty from harassing Jewish students and vandalizing the Hillel House. It wasn’t until many Jewish donors threatened to remove donations to Penn when they finally took action. In order to reduce antisemitism on campus, students, alumni, and donors must pressure the university to take action. Students and faculty that promote antisemitism must be punished. Regardless of whats happening in the Middle East, there is absolutely no room for antisemitism on college campuses.
I agree with Brennan's comment in that it is ridiculous how antisemitic acts can fall under free-speech. The colleges that are mentioned in the post are top universities, and ones that people sometimes look up to. By not immediately shutting down these antisemitic acts, they are setting a bad example for other colleges and institutions that have recently experienced similar types of discrimination. Because of this, Magil's resignation was definitely warranted. In my opinion, she should not have been allowed to stay within the law school because she is still a symbol of lack of action when it comes to antisemitism. This is something that a top school should not be associated with.
I agree with Brennan highlighting the absurdity of categorizing antisemitic acts as protected under the umbrella of free speech. The institutions mentioned in the post are all esteemed and often regarded with high admiration. Failing to promptly address and suppress these antisemitic incidents establishes detrimental precedents for other educational institutions grappling with comparable forms of discrimination. It is crucial to uphold a standard of intolerance for discrimination, especially within the academic sphere, and Magill's resignation was a necessary step towards maintaining those standards that should be synonymous with a top-tier educational institution.
Chin-Yi's point about those three specific universities is really interesting. I want to say it's because the schools hold so much prestige that they're accountable for setting a good public image for themselves and as soon as they fail to do so, they'll be the first to be put under fire. I also agree with Sherman's point about how Magill's resignation was necessary in order to match the reasonable standards of a top-tier educational instituion, and that also makes me believe further that this is heavily about the public image of the schools. It brings me some relief to know that in recent years -- and this incident as example -- student voices are becoming more powerful in igniting change on university campuses. Of course the role of the government played a big role in this but I believe student voices always have an impact.
As many have echoed, I do find it surprising and ironic that a figure so largely involved in politics (especially in the judiciary branch) would make a careless comment that would spark public outrage and would support defend the institution for their lack of practices against anti-semitism. I think it was a justifiable decision to have Magill to be removed and that we should be doing more to scrutinize and make sure that these respectable institutions that many look up to, are being good role models. Moving forwards, universities will have to face the hurdle of navigating free speech and maintaining a safe space for everyone. I think a difficulty will be the extent to which we hold individuals, as we see in this case, those Magill did step down, she still resides at the University's Carey Law School which I find is very surprising for the university's lack of action there.
As someone who is early decisioning to Penn, I've been following this story ever since Magill decided to testify at Congress. Ever since October 7th, there has been much outrage over how Magill has decided to handle things at Penn. And after watching the hearing, I wouldn't think that it was a "surprising" move to resign. What she said was awful, and basically tolerated a call for genocide on campus. Furthermore, she added more fuel to the fire, saying that it was a "context-dependent decision", basically tolerating the call for intifada. When she started as president, she was a champion of free speech, which likely caused her to say such things. However, this has come back to bite her, and in such a position, she blatantly condoned atrocious behavior. As such, she was in a position where she had to resign. And in the days between the hearing and her delayed resignation, many people urged her to leave. There was a petition that amounted to 25,000 signatures, and the Wharton Board also met to discuss her future at Penn. It is just disappointing that someone could say such a thing, and be the president of a university.
Magil's comments on genocide are absolutely absurd, especially answering that it is a "context-dependent decision" regarding condemning the genocide of Jewish people. Genocide is an indefensible stance and her struggling to come up with a response is quite embarrassing, especially as the president of an Ivy League school. Hate speech, especially of this caliber, should not be tolerated whatsoever. As someone who is critical of Israel's government's actions in the Middle East, this type of language dehumanizes the Israeli people- innocent people who are in danger because of this conflict. I agree with Sean's point that her comments add more fuel to the fire- her comments allow more antisemitic-fueled behavior to continue in UPenn and other prestigious universities that is supposed to uphold virtuous values as highly respected institutions of education aiming to train and mentor the leaders and innovators of the next generation. Who would want their children to go to these schools if they let hateful behavior go unchecked? I also find it rather disgusting that she resigns after donors threaten to pull away their donations to the university- it's as if Magil is a puppet controlled by money, demonstrating how greed and corruption are instilled in the system beyond government and poltiics but also in other institutions.
I agree with Chin-Yi's comment, it does seem like those three Ivy League universities were specifically picked. Why not have all eight Ivies attend the meeting? According to "The Dartmouth" all eight Ivy League's: Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Princeton, UPenn, and Yale have all "endured varying crimes, protests and public controversies since the start of the war." Although it seems weird to me as well some of my other peers that those three schools in specific were chosen to attend the hearing on December 5th. Either way, I feel that after her insensitive answer to Representative Elise Stefanik of New York called for her to get fired from her prestigious position at UPenn. Leo mentioned that she was't removed from the school as a whole after her resignation but instead she would remain at UPenn's Carey Law School. Personally, I feel that she should have been fired from the school as a whole since I am sure students and other faculty wouldn't enjoy learning from or working with Magill after her insensitive comment.
https://www.thedartmouth.com/article/2023/11/rayban-and-wang-ivy-league-universities-react-to-israel-hamas-war
Like many other commenters, I agree that many of these universities’ reactions to the rampant anti-semitism happening on their campuses is reprehensible. Of course, free speech should be tolerated and encouraged. There is valid criticism of the Israeli government, but in the instances on these college campuses, it is fueled by hate and completely disregards the context of Israel’s complex relationship with certain Palestinian governing groups.
Something I thought was interesting was regarding Sally Kornbluth, the president of MIT. Even being Jewish, she seemed equally unresponsive to anti-semitism on her campus as her UPenn and Harvard counterparts.
On the topic of universities receiving backlash for their tolerance of hatred and genocidal calls (primarily many Ivy League and prestigious institutions), something I thought was interesting was the funding of many Ivy League universities by Qatar. Although I know there are many Jewish donors as well, I wonder if/how much Qatar’s funding and influence has affected this current situation.
One source regarding Qatar's donations: https://www.newsweek.com/unreported-foreign-donations-universities-foment-anti-semitism-opinion-1546139
I'm surprised by Annie's comment that MIT's president is Jewish herself. I wonder if there is a significant difference between the positions/impact of President Kombluth versus the other two presidents. For instance, is her message being taken in the same regard/same standard as the others, if she herself is Jewish? And, why would she not take a concrete stance to defend her own religion? I feel as if prestigious universities have placed such high emphasis on promoting the freedom of speech and liberties-uplifting the students' voices- that the most obvious, glaring atrocities get swept away. The fact that these universities (or Penn specifically) couldn't even fully consider the difference between "calling for genocide" and "bullying or harassment" is insane; if anything, "calling for genocide" is far beyond bullying harassment in any way perceived.
I agree with many other students about how insane it is for any hate speech or anti-semitism to fall under "free speech". As such prestigious schools with an obvious amount of media following them, along with just having basic morals, you would think they would immediately shut the hate speech down. I also agree with others that it is especially interesting to see that it was MIT, UPenn, and Harvard chosen for this. While many others are commenting that these may be the "most" prestigious, I think this is almost a broad reason as there are other ivy leagues that seem to me as a very similar prestige, so I wonder why they were targeted.
Okay honestly I think that the call for the presidents removal has harsh. The entire clip of the president saying genocide falls under free speech depends on the context was taken out of context. The president after facing HARSH criticism from the public for not shutting down protests have to answer questions very broadly to not receive further criticism. Of course genocide shouldn't be allowed under free speech. I think a president of one of the bets colleges in the world would be able to tell you that. This answer came after 6 long grueling hours of interrogation of these college presidents about the term "from the river to the sea Palestine will be free". For context, this term comes from Hamas saying from the river to the sea, we will persecute Jews and take their land. This is a saying of genocide. However, it has become a term in pro Palestine protests with many supporters believing that it just means to let Palestine be free. When the President of UPen was answering questions before, it was all about that slogan and if that should be allowed to be said on campus. As a very good lawyer, she knows to answer the question in a smart way to try and not upset anyone. The question was taken out of context and she was answering that the slogan "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" could be allowed to be said based on the context if the people saying it mean to free Palestine of to exterminate Jews.
https://apnews.com/article/river-sea-israel-gaza-hamas-protests-d7abbd756f481fe50b6fa5c0b907cd49
Post a Comment