This committee at Harvard's grade one, Penn is greater one, NYU is grade one, to basically

formulate an action plan against anti-Semitism are being driven in large measure by donors

who have views about anti-Semitism that are quite similar to establishment Jewish organizations

like the anti-defamationally, which is to say they believe that a lot of pro-Palestian activism,

which is anti-Zionist, is anti-Semitic. And what they wanted to do is get these universities

to suppress this speech in some way or another, not allow people to say phrases like, from the

river to the sea, Palestine will be free or intifada or not have a student for justice in Palestine

chapter. In fact,

there have been several universities now whether they've been suspended or banned. But there's a funny

problem they have, which is that the people who, oh, in general, I mean, they're accepted,

but for the most part, the people who study anti-Semitism, especially as it relates to Israel,

Palestine, in the Jewish studies faculties, don't hold that

view. They generally believe that, in fact, it's not necessarily anti-Semitic to have an anti-Zion

view. The political discourse and perspective in Jewish studies departments is very different than it is

in the establishment of Jewish organizations. So when these universities

basically have to take unqualified people to put them on these anti-Semitism commissions in order to make

the donors happy because their own mostly Jewish scholars who study this won't give them the answers

they want, won't tell them it's a good idea to suppress Palestinian

speech.

Yeah, so the irony that kind of comes across in this piece is that as much as someone like

Claudine Gay is getting run over the coals in the public for some tone-deaf answers at that

hearing, but also for being perceived to be overly deferential to left-wing Palestinian, quote-unquote,

...