FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2023
Much heat, almost no light: As we noted yesterday, it seems to us that Harvard president Claudine Gay has offered some good, sound advice.
Her advice came as part of a longer statement concerning events in Israel and the Gaza Strip. We'll show you her full text below, but as we noted yesterday, her good, sound advice went like this:
"We will all be well served in such a difficult moment by rhetoric that aims to illuminate and not inflame."
How do we know that Gay said that? Here's the background on that:
We had gone looking for Gay's recent statements because of an exchange we heard on Tuesday's Morning Joe.
In the excerpt offered below, we agree with the first thing Mike Barnicle says. After that, the program's latest angry exchange would become remarkably fuzzy:
BARNICLE (10/31/23): In Atlanta, there's a center for communicable diseases where the government spend a lot of money studying diseases.
Antisemitism is the oldest disease we live with, and we live with it each and every day. And stunningly, in this day and age, it's grown explosively.
On college campuses, Mimi [Robach], everywhere, you wonder, "How did they get into college? How did they— With these beliefs, how did they get into college?"
That's the way the exchange began. As he started, Barnicle seemed to be talking about certain college students—but at this point, Brother Scarborough jumped in with this:
SCARBOROUGH (continuing directly): Because the presidents of the colleges can't even condemn it! Did you see how long it took?
BARNICLE: Five tries at Harvard.
SCARBOROUGH: At Harvard! Five tries at Harvard to say raping teenage girls and shooting kids at concerts and burning babies is terrorism and it's unacceptable. Five! Tries!
Scarborough was visibly irate. At this point, Mika introduced Mimi Robach, and the discussion turned in a somewhat different direction.
That said, a few minutes later, Scarborough returned to his earlier theme. If you want to watch the entire exchange, you can just click here:
SCARBOROUGH: And again, where does that start? That starts with where and what we teach our students. And I want to know—and I'm glad the Biden administration is doing something about it. I want to know how people are allowed to lead the most elite universities in America, and they are morally confused, and baffled, by what they call the raping of women and the burning of babies.
Scarborough seemed to be wondering why morally confused people like Gay are allowed to lead elite universities like Harvard. As he is paid to do, Willie jumped in to agree:
"To most of us, this isn't a hard one," the sidekick modestly said. "To not be able to condemn unequivocally what happened on October 7 is a huge moral failing."
For ourselves, we were intrigued by the indictment of "Harvard." According to Barnicle and Scarborough, it had taken five tries for "Harvard" to say that raping teenage girls, shooting kids at concert and burning babies is terrorism and is unacceptable.
By whatever means, Scarborough and Barnicle seemed to be well choreographed as they advanced this particular claim.
In the original exchange, Scarborough tossed the topic to Barnicle. Barnicle quickly supplied the claim about the way it took Harvard five tries to condemn the behaviors in question.
Scarborough quickly agreed about the five tries. But who and what were they talking about? They didn't mention any names or specify any such statements.
The angry pundits didn't try to document their shared claim. Which "five tries," by which unnamed people, did they have in mind? Beyond that, who at Harvard had finally gotten the matter right?
Neither pundit bothered to say. We decided to work the Google machine—and we quickly came upon the statement shown below.
The statement was made by President Gay. For the record, it included the sound advice to which we've already referred.
Is this where "Harvard" finally got it right? In her official statement, President Gay had said this:
War in the Middle East
A Statement from President Claudine Gay
As the events of recent days continue to reverberate, let there be no doubt that I condemn the terrorist atrocities perpetrated by Hamas. Such inhumanity is abhorrent, whatever one’s individual views of the origins of longstanding conflicts in the region.
Let me also state, on this matter as on others, that while our students have the right to speak for themselves, no student group—not even 30 student groups—speaks for Harvard University or its leadership.
We will all be well served in such a difficult moment by rhetoric that aims to illuminate and not inflame. And I appeal to all of us in this community of learning to keep this in mind as our conversations continue.
In that statement, President Gay had condemned the "atrocities perpetrated by Hamas." She had even referred to those actions as "terrorist atrocities!"
Was that the statement in which "Harvard" had finally got it right? Scarborough was too busy ranting and shouting to explain what he was talking about—but as you can see if you click this link, Gay's statement was made all the way back on October 10, three weeks before the red-faced rants by the furious cable news stars and a mere two to three days after the "abhorrent" behavior in question.
In that statement, Gary doesn't seem "confused" to us. What the heck were the cable stars actually talking about?
Scarborough and Barnicle have been very busy in recent days producing more heat than light. Along with other Morning Joe guests, they have been extremely loud, and extremely imprecise.
Willie is almost always there to repeat whatever was said.
In her statement on October 10, Gay suggested that we try to illuminate, not to inflame, as we discuss the events in question. As we all know, that isn't the way the game is played on these "cable news" TV shows.
We'll have more on this topic next week. We've seen a lot of inflammation over the past several days.
In this instance, who and what were Barnicle and Scarborough actually talking about? There was no way for viewers to know.
At Morning Joe, no one bothers with piddle like that. It's thunder all the way down.
WHEN SOMERBY PHONES IT IN
ReplyDeleteOf all the misinformation promulgated by Republican/right wing media figures, such as Scarborough and Barnicle, this issue that Somerby posts about today has to be one of the least significant, and least interesting.
I’m old enough to remember that Scarborough was a far right Contract with America Republican, and that Barnicle wrote articles against desegregation before being disgraced by various plagiarism scandals.
Irony is a zombie.
DeleteScarborough and Barnicle were ”persuaded” and are now hot commodities on a top liberal show.
Israel hating Ivy League students and their instructors and administrators are still favorably contrasted with the Walmart barbarians at the gates.
They are the undead.
This in a post about the president of Harvard “getting it right.” Did they forget to mention that over on Fox?
DeleteAnd, let’s see, “wal mart barbarians”. Ok. How many of those wal mart shoppers are 1) right wingers who marched in Charlottesville with their anti Semitic chants
2. did you know a lot of liberals shop at wal mart, myself included? Contrary to your bullshit, not all liberals are rich elitists.
3. How many liberals are Jewish? Can you guess? What percentage of Jews voted for Hillary and/or Biden?
To dismiss Cecelia here we need only contrast the violent creeps on Jan 6 with the passionate, but non violent and lawful, anti Israel demonstration in the Capitol this week.
DeleteMorning Joe claims he was a member of a Republican Party that was something wholly other. There is much to support that claim.
DeleteMorning Joe is not a top liberal show, it’s not even MSNBC’s most popular show, a network that does not even fare well among its competitors, which as a whole is a fractional slice of tv viewership, and it’s certainly not liberal.
DeleteNotably Joe voted for the 90’s Medicare cuts that Somerby used to rail against (although he essentially nicked this from Al Franken).
mh, just what was it that the president of Harvard was not getting right?
DeleteHow is that Somerby targets Misters Scarborough and Barnicle, but suddenly they are not even defended as being those who were persuaded into the light via the horrors of Trump?
Now both parties are just one big melting pot of Walmart shoppers, antisemites, and and poseurs.
Sure thing, Bozo.
Scarborough and Barnicle are long time right wingers, their anti Trump stance is likely a confluence of spousal influence and limitations on what they can reasonably commodify.
DeleteThey are not blue tribers, and have no influence on the blue tribe.
You seem mad that not all Republicans/right wingers support Trump, but you have no choice other than to accept it, as it is a real occurrence.
Resolved: Somerby insists on fair play concerning generalizations about Trump nation, but will subscribe to the most hackneyed cliches about liberals. There is really no honest arguing about that.,
DeleteJoe backed the war in Iraq, was against Obama’s Iran plan, and still had an irrational soft spot for Ken Starr in 2018. No doubt he cracked many an Al Gore invented the internet joke. Sadly, that still leaves him miles above MAGA.
DeleteAnonymices, so Barnicle and Scarborough are just short of MAGA.
DeleteYour problem with Bob calling them out is what?
" miles above MAGA". 10:41 pm
Delete"just short of MAGA." 11:28 pm
LOL
Cecelia, you would have to watch Morning Joe for about a week to on the current scale, exceptions noted, Joe is a mederate conservative. Try to get the easy ones right, fat bottom.
DeleteI think we can all agree on two things:
ReplyDeleteTerrorism is wrong.
Erecting a Jewish state in Palestine was a mistake.
I do not agree with your second statement, and I do not agree 1948 was an occupation. And I believe a two state solution was offered to the Palestinians from the get go.
Delete7:11 agree.
DeleteEnding the apartheid is the only viable solution.
Arabs have attacked Israel numerous times and always lost. When you lose a war, you do not gain territory.
DeleteI think the mistake has been that arab nations have not been willing to allow the peaceful existence of Israel. Hamas launched this desperate attack because the Saudis are coming around to normalization of relations with Israel. If there is some way to get Iran to stop meddling, then perhaps Palestinians can stop being pawns and settle down and live normal lives. Peace is unlikely while Hamas is vowing to keep killing Israelis. Israel does not have to let them do that. Deaths of innocent people caught in this crossfire are on Hamas and those who have enabled this horrible attack.
Bob is correct here, Morning Joe can be quite bad. One of the very worst shows in recent memory was with the late, horrible Ken Starr. The entire panel blew smoke up Starr keister; all on the subject of how uncooperative Bill Clinton was with poor man(!) Joe could be heard ranting like a maniac on this subject while Mika tried to do another story. The next week, Starr was signing off on Barr’s bullshit on Impeachment. I’ve never heard Starr’s named mentioned on the show again, even when he died. I wish I could say it was curious Bob had nothing to say I about this show. MSMBC ( in the current liberal mode) has had other moments this bad, but thankfully only a few.
ReplyDeleteWe should note yesterday’s outburst was also tied to lazy grandstanding against academia, but here Joe will never catch the noxious Bill Maher. And in the “I’m only human” department, the show has brought the appropriate passion to the subject of The Republican Party effectively ending the United States of America by allowing Trump to steal the Executive Branch as his permanent plaything. A subject Somerby long ago demonstrated he has no interest in.,
I pity people who are even more stupid than I am.
ReplyDeleteHere’s your cookie.
DeleteI guess when one cannot counter the soft condescension thing is all you’ve got.
DeleteThanks. I enjoyed the cookie. I'll try to be nicer to people even more stupid than I am.
DeleteYour posts suggest you are too humble about your level of stupidity.
DeleteSince my wife is a Wellesley alum, and since the Presidents of Wellesley and Harvard are both black women, I found myself comparing the statements of the two Presidents. As I recall, the Harvard President's early statement was cowardly and wishy washy and inadequate. The Wellesley President's statement was better.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it's generally better to avoid inflammatory rhetoric, but there are exceptions. Suppose 33 Harvard organizations had publicly endorsed murdering random black people, not just lynching them, but torturing them and burning black babies. Calmness would not be appropriate. It's one thing to not punish these 33 Harvard organizations, on the basis of Free speech. But their comments should be denounced as horrific and disgusting. It's not enough to just denounce the Hamas atrocities.
I think that letting yourself get upset because not everyone shares your opinions is bad for your blood pressure. It is not the role of the Harvard administration to police or monitor the statements of student groups, nor is it their role to offer correction to them. Statements by the presidents are aimed at donors and alumni because they are worried that other upset people like yourself might affect their endowment.
DeleteThere was an episode of West Wing where Josh Lyman discovered that people were saying false things about him on an internet blog. He started correcting the "misinformation" and other commenters piled on him, then he became obsessed with correcting the record. His fellow staff members dragged him forcibly away from the keyboard. Trying to correct the "wrong" things you believe are being said about this crisis is similar. You get drawn into an essentially futile effort that only makes you feel bad. Just say no, David. Walk away from the people who are saying such stuff.
Better yet, stop trolling altogether.
DeleteAnonymouse 10:02pm, you’re more cynical as to the motivations of Harvard management than any conservative has ever been.
DeleteBTW, I am concerned by growing antisemitism. The Hamas attack led to an increased number of antisemitic incidents, particularly on college campuses. This seems surprising. One might think that the horrific Hamas attack would lead to greater opposition to antisemitism. One reason it didn't work that way is the muted response by our leaders. President Biden did something bizarre: In the light of all the antisemitic attacks, the President announced a new program to fight Islamophobia. He did not announce a new program to fight antisemitism. This gives the impression of being cowed by Palestinian violence.
ReplyDeleteI believe that stronger responses to statements supporting Hamas from college leaders would help discourage antisemitism on their campuses.
I think some of this is opportunistic. For example, when there is a hurricane, there is looting. Some of it is people who need stuff, but some of it is criminal and done for money. When people are upset about Israel, it gives cover to the people who just plain hate Jews, the true anti-semites (as opposed to those who oppose Israel politically but don't necessarily hate Jews). White supremacists will come out of the woodwork, along with Q-Anon conspiracy theorists who hypothesize a global world order of Jews and pedophiles. All of this turmoil is giving cover to those people, who are acting out and increasing hate crimes against Jewish people.
DeleteIf I were a supporter of Palestine, I might worry about whether my actions were abetting this other kind of hate. Hate crimes against Muslims have also increased during this conflict. Campus is where such people recruit members. Students are vulnerable to terrorist recruiting because they lack a support group (have left old friends behind and haven't yet formed new friendships, are away from family) and are in transition, trying to redefine their identity and being confronted with new ideas, cultures and experiences.
To be clear, when I say "such people" I am referring to those who hate Islam and Muslims, the white nativist terrorists, not any Middle Eastern group. I have little sympathy for the pro-Palestinians who form student groups and recruit student sympathizers and activists. I believe they are propagandizing students and not presenting a balanced picture. But the same could be said for the anti-war activists of the 1960-70s and the Christian evangelists. They all proselytize students who are attracted to being adults who DO SOMETHING instead of children being told what to do by parents. Often, I think they wind up doing the wrong things, but that is part of their learning experience. They grow out of it.
DeleteAn extremely comprehensive plan to combat antisemitism titled " The U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemtism: Key Actions by Pillar" was published by the White House June 2, 2023. It is easily located on the internet. Anyone claiming that the Biden Administration is not sensitive and proactive to antisemitism is purposely ignorant or disingenuous or both.Trolling this site with misinformation is a cottage industry for DIC.
DeleteUnamused, you are going too far accusing me of being disingenuous. The fact is, I was unaware of the antisemitism plan. OTOH the media I follow did make me aware of the new Islamophobia program. I do not know if that's because the Islamophobia plan was given more prominence by the White House, or whether it was the media I follow that chose to give greater prominence to the Islamophobia plan.
DeleteThanks to your link I found the antisemitism plan and read it. I was not impressed at all. I don't think it will have any effect.
So he should have accused you of being clueless?
DeleteWe get a anti-Islamophobia plan after Israeli citizens are brutalized in a manner not seen since the Nazis, and in the midst of demonstrations against Israel and Jews on American campuses, but we had an unmentioned antisemitism plan before that.
DeleteVery reassuring.
No, we did not get an anti- Islamophobia plan. Show us the plan. There is this thing called the internet. It contains stuff called information. The anti-Semitic plan outlined months ago was to be followed by the other plan, and has not been. Had the antisemitic plan been unveiled by Donald Trump it would have been heralded by DIC as groundbreaking but ignored by the many neo-Nazi Trump followers, some of whom are good people, of course. No great surprise that the news outlets favored by DIC made zero mention that a plan pertaining to anti-Semitism exists, while one pertaining to Islamophobia does not. Unless of course you want to argue that a plan to at some point in the future unveil a plan is itself that future plan. Shocking that DIC was unimpressed with the Biden Administration anti-Semitic plan. Who could have predicted? The White House put out a press release that was detailed about the so-called "unmentioned" plan, when it was completed, long before the October 7 atrocities and subsequent spike in anti-Semitic activities, realising that there was a trend. Only a fool blinded by partisanship would criticize that effort. But go ahead and assert yourselves.
DeleteUnamused, right.
DeleteSo we’ll just call this plan to plan…poor timing.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/11/01/statement-from-white-house-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-on-president-bidens-establishment-of-first-ever-national-strategy-to-counter-islamophobia/
If you like.
DeleteTalk about poor timing: extremist Israeli settlers had been escalating their violence this past year, against West Bank Palestinians (100 + episodes a month), including driving them from their land, long before October 6. Now, at this late date, the IDF declares this violence and killing terrorist activity.
DeleteAlso, about the poor timing of the White House press secretary. Between Oct 7 and the date of that WH announcement, Biden met with Arab leaders. Certainly the humanitarian crisis in Gaza was discussed. As long as news reports of civilian casualties in ambulance bombings by the IDF and such are almost daily events and civilian casualties rise, the US becomes more likely a target for Muslim extremists. This administration has done well to separate itself from the unconditional support of Israeli activities in this realm. If announcing a plan to reject anti-Muslim activity after meeting with Muslim leaders has some benefit, so be it. It seems clear that the Israelis will do whatever they see fit with no regard to worldwide admonishments here, as is their prerogative, but I for one do not see why taxpayer dollars, no strings attached, should be shuttled over there. Let them borrow the money if they so need, given that they have less national debt, and can afford universal healthcare and free secondary education while we have neither, and have an impending Medicare crisis. Monetarily supporting activities that are more and more seen as contributing to civilian deaths and a humanitarian crisis is not in our better interests, just as the Israelis calculate that theirs are best served by such activity. They were told in no uncertain terms by numerous allies that the West Bank settlements were inappropriate and potentially destabilizing, and went ahead with them irrespective, with extremist settlers more recently committing violent acts including homicide against neighboring Palestinians and driving Palestinians from their property. They may have better taken heed to their allies back then. We should lend them the money and let them fight their war with Hamas. Unconditional support for how they do it, no.
DeleteFor one thing, there are a lot more antisemitic incidents taking place than anti-Muslim incidents
DeleteLol. Yeah, sure, that's the reason. No doubt if the anti-Muslim incidents catch up to the antisemitic ones, you'll suddenly become equally as concerned. Or could the real reason be that Muslim lives don't matter as much to you? Because you "Otherize" Muslims, to echo Somerby?
DeleteThe FBI reports that roughly half of all hate crimes go unreported. Given the high likelihood that cultural differences between groups impact rates of reporting, any statement to the effect that "my group is targeted more than theirs" is likely to have quantitative inaccuracy. Circumstances dictate the statistics, as Muslim targeting spiked after 9/11; also there are roughly 1/2 the number of Muslims than Jews in the US, skewing the numbers. That said, it seems peculiar that resentment of Jews in the US spikes after a barbaric event like 10/7.
DeleteThe world community, not just the Arab segment, but even some in the Israeli population, have long considered the treatment of Palestinian citizens by Israelis to be cruel. The current Netanyahu government, by sanctioning settlements that many in the west see as destructive and have been warned against, only exacerbates these opinions. This gives context to but does not excuse the inhuman barbarism of 10/7. Western voices now say enough is enough as Israeli forces reduce Palestinian territory to rubble and the numbers of innocent killed escalate. Irrespective of the intent, the results of this war, projected in newscasts, suggest that Israelis are at best indifferent to Palestinian suffering. In essence they say that victimhood is not exclusively limited to the Israelis. Those with deep seated bigotry against Jews or Muslims are using this conflict as a trigger to act out their prejudices. A viable candidate for president is applauded for suggesting that no Muslims should be allowed entry into the US.
Release ALL the hostages. Now.
DeleteYes
DeleteEnd the occupation. Now.
DeleteVery fine people on both sides.
DeleteAgree with 5:54 of course. At a certain point the humanitarian crises can be viewed as a callous extension of Netanyahu policy towards Palestinians. Not towards Hamas, who he favored supplying with money. The politician who freed 1,000 Hamas prisoners for 1 Israeli soldier must wonder how many of those were involved in the October 6 slaughter if he has a soul, which seems doubtful.
DeleteI used to prefer David. Now I prefer Cecelia.
ReplyDeleteYou didn’t read that David’s wife is a Wellesley alum?
DeleteI used to prefer David’s wife. Now I prefer Cecelia’s husband.
DeleteHe’s kinda cute.
DeleteCorby is the cutest.
DeleteThe violent expansionist Zionist state in Palestine promotes antisemitism.
ReplyDeleteSomeone tell Donald Trump.
ReplyDeleteTwo posts by Kevin Drum help us to understand conservative thinking:
ReplyDeletehttps://jabberwocking.com/right-wing-catastrophism-is-now-an-intellectual-movement-too/
https://jabberwocking.com/do-you-know-what-time-it-is/
Somerby has been a catastrophist too, with all of his talk about us sliding into the sea and about empires being overturned and so on, and him seeing himself as Cassandra.
DeleteI so love Bob.
DeleteBob is an angel.
DeleteBob's post can be read as a defense of Harvard President Gay. Famed money manager Bill Ackman has a much much more insightful discussion of the situation at Harvard and Gay's response. It's long because it has a lot of content. I took the time to read it and earned a lot. I recommend it. See https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/11/bill-ackman-to-harvard-get-your-act-together.php
ReplyDeleteKeep up with Kevin:
ReplyDeletehttps://jabberwocking.com/what-the-united-states-needs-is-more-revenge/
I can't say that I learned a lot from the letter but it was well written and a compelling argument. The content included reference to the Biden administration's antisemitic policy statement of May and a September addition and how Harvard should be impacted by title 6 in Ackman's opinion, and unlike DIC, he is not derisive of the administration's efforts. Interestingly, Ackman and his legacy daughter, who is a graduate, did not witness a single act of antisemitism in a roughly cumulative ten years of education there. Which begs the question: have Harvard students always included closet antisemites, or is the demography of the student body changed, or is there something about Israeli policy that has them inappropriately venting their anger towards Jewish classmates? Identifying individuals responsible and their backgrounds is important here, to understand this troubling situation.
ReplyDeleteHarvard President Gay is the daughter of Haitian immigrants and went to Stanford where her undergraduate thesis was awarded best in her discipline. She then went to graduate school at Harvard, where her graduate thesis was awarded best in her discipline. Prior to being chosen as President she served in executive positions on the Harvard faculty. It is therefore troubling that the author of the Power line article that published the Ackman letter states that her only qualifications for her position are race based. The comment section is likewise littered with statements to similar effect along with others questioning the academic achievements of Barack Obama, suggesting that they too were undeserved. I guess the fact that they are both black is coincidental. Otherwise, it is ironic, don't you think, DIC, that an article about the scourge of antisemitism should be written and read by racists? I am beginning to see where you get your ideas.
Modern conservative intellectualism was arguably spearheaded in the mid 20th century by none other than an Ivy league graduate, William F. Buckley Jr., who founded the National Review and hosted Firing Line. His first language was Spanish but his English carried the lofty affectation of a British aristocrat. He found Martin Luther King and his ilk in the civil rights movement to be wrongheaded and argued such frequently. So it is not to be taken for granted that an Ivy league education indemnifies one from bigotry; au contraire, that strain of conservatism continues to exist in the republican party today.
ReplyDeleteIndemnify? Immunize.
DeleteCorrected
DeleteBuckley’s first book was God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of “Academic Freedom”.
Deletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_and_Man_at_Yale