Thread by @lee_kovarsky

NUANCE WARNING!

I'm pretty reluctant to weigh in here because of the ecosystemic climate for Jewish identity generally, but it seems like the outrage here is ... probably overdone and *certainly* rewarding bad faith actors.

Take Magill (Penn). She is asked DIRECTLY

1/

https://twitter.com/BillAckman/status/1732179418787783089

not about the constitution or her views, but about the status of genocidal speech *under the Penn speech code*. This is the same question that the MIT and Harvard Presidents got. Now actually look at the code. Here's the FAQ on hate speech for Penn:

I confess that I do not understand what answer other than *it depends* is reasonable and can be given in sworn testimony.

3/

The code literally says that hate speech is not punishable unless it "intentionally" provokes "a crowd" to "immediately carry out violent and unlawful action."

Look, fuck somebody that puts up a "kill the jews" poster on a lamppost - any lamppost!

4/

But it's *extremely* clear that this is not punishable under the Penn policy.

And this business about how speech is punishable when it "crosses into action" is not about when speech "crosses into genocide."

5/

That's bad-faith political bullshit by Stefanik. The reference to "crossing into action" is when otherwise abstract calls for genocide become targeted enough to constitute bullying or harassment.

6/

Look, I'm deeply sympathetic to the argument that campus speech practices are awful right now and that Jewish identity is particularly precarious. I've made that argument over and over on this shitty site.

7/

But it seems to me that folks can't just keep retweeting and accepting at face value outrage porn produced by Elise Stefanik and signal boosted by Bill Ackman - at least not if they want to be taken seriously by people who might not be predisposed to agree with them.
/end.