Txdigest.com

The president of Penn stupidly refused to denounce hate speech calling for the genocide of Jews, and now it has cost her $100 Million.

This is only the beginning. These schools and their leaders have been exposed. The rest of the world is finally catching on to what a lot of us already knew...

A University of Pennsylvania donor is withdrawing a gift worth around $100 million to protest the school's response to antisemitism on campus.

The big picture: The final straw for Ross Stevens, founder and CEO of Stone Ridge Asset Management, was Tuesday's widely criticized congressional testimony by Penn president Liz Magill.

Details: The gift from Stevens, a Penn undergrad alum, was given in December 2017 to help establish a center for innovation in finance.

It was in the form of limited partnership units in Stone Ridge, with the current value estimated at around $100 million.

Stevens, in a letter from his lawyers to Penn, alleges that the school has violated the terms of the limited partnership agreement, including its anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies.

Referring to Penn, Stevens writes: "Its permissive approach to hate speech caling for violence against Jews and laissez faire attitude toward harassment and discrimination against Jewish students would violate any policies of rules that prohibit harassment and discrimination based on religion, including those of Stone Ridge."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa ... n-n2632153

I just don't understand what was so hard about admitting that harassment of Jewish students was antisemitism and a violation of the school's code of conduct. I guess admitting it would have forced them to do something about it?

The white ones, like the witch from Penn are doomed.

The black lowlife from Harvard isn’t going anywhere.

Once you hire a black woman, you’re stuck with them, no matter how despicable they are.

Suppose the question had been something like this:

Does speech calling for the lynching of all blacks in America violate your university's code of conduct?

Would the answers from the university presidents have been different? If so, why?

Mark wrote:Suppose the question had been something like this:

Does speech calling for the lynching of all blacks in America violate your university's code of conduct?

Would the answers from the university presidents have been different? If so, why?

..depends on the context.

One down, two to go...

Elizabeth Magill, the president of the University of Pennsylvania, is stepping down following months of rising tensions on campus and among alumni. Her resignation is effective immediately, according to an email sent to the Penn community today.

Magill has been the subject of complaints from donors, alumni, and students for her reactions to the October 7 attacks on Israel and incidents of antisemitism, or purported antisemitism, on campus.

The criticisms escalated when Magill evaded a question during a December 5 congressional hearing on whether calling for Jewish genocide violated school policy.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/careers ... r-AA1lfZo6

What's more troubling to me is that Harvard has 600 faculty members who support the president. They are the ones who interact with students on a daily basis.

https://apnews.com/article/harvard-penn ... c334170444

BigTex wrote:What's more troubling to me is that Harvard has 600 faculty members who support the president. They are the ones who interact with students on a daily basis.

https://apnews.com/article/harvard-penn ... c334170444

There is no “turning” on a black lady.

None of them care that she was hired on nothing other than..she IS a black lady..and was, and remains thoroughly unqualified.

GFB wrote:

BigTex wrote:What's more troubling to me is that Harvard has 600 faculty members who support the president. They are the ones who interact with students on a daily basis.

https://apnews.com/article/harvard-penn ... c334170444

There is no “turning” on a black lady.

None of them care that she was hired on nothing other than..she IS a black lady..and was, and remains thoroughly unqualified.

And the irony is that criticizing her as being unqualified would probably be considered a violation of their code of conduct.

According to the president of the NAACP, criticism of Claudine Gay is just good ole white supremacy.

Harvard President Claudine Gay is a distinguished scholar and professor with decades of service in higher education. The recent attacks on her leadership are nothing more than political theatrics advancing a white supremacist agenda.

https://x.com/DerrickNAACP/status/17347 ... 20330?s=20

Harvard early applications fall 17% to four-year lows

Early applications at Harvard declined by 17% to four-year lows, according to figures released Thursday.

Harvard College accepted 692 students for the Class of 2028 from a pool of 7,921 applicants. The acceptance rate was 8.7%, up from 7.6% last year.

Early admission applicants to Harvard spiked above 10,000 in 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic but have since declined.

The latest drop in early applications for undergraduate studies at Harvard College comes during a tumultuous time at Harvard and elite schools broadly, especially amid fierce criticism over their handling of antisemitism on campus.

The Class of 2028 also marks the first admissions cycle after the US Supreme Court gutted affirmative action in college, ruling the Harvard and University of North Carolina admissions programs were unconstitutional.

It’s unclear how much those issues contributed to the decline.

Applications for early admission at some of Harvard’s peers increased. Early applications at Yale increased slightly and the acceptance rate reportedly fell to two-decade lows. Duke saw a record number of early admission applications, while Columbia’s applications increased for the first time in three years.

Even the University of Pennsylvania, where antisemitism allegations have been in the spotlight for months, saw an increase in early admission applications, according to The Daily Pennsylvanian.

Harvard representatives were not immediately available for a comment.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/15/business ... index.html

Jews have a psychosis where they view any criticism of their behavior as “hate.” I am supposed to be the world’s top anti-Semite, but all I ever did was criticize their behavior. However, Jews had some degree of plausible deniability with regards to their agenda to push homosexuality on children, or their agenda to flood white countries with poor, illiterate nonwhite immigrants. They could also claim that these things were good.

Now, they’re taking the same tack (“if you criticize our behavior, it means you hate us, and therefore you are evil”), but they are taking this position in the context of “we slaughter children.”

Basically, they’ve destroyed the entire anti-Semitism racket, permanently.

It’s really irresponsible of them. This gave them so, so much power, and they’ve just pissed it away.

“People hate us for no reason because we murder children” is simply not a viable PR strategy.

Yeah, that’s… it’s very confusing. Belief in Zionism is not an intrinsic trait, such as having black skin. It’s a choice, and support for Zionism is a behavior. Therefore, if being against Zionism is “antisemitism,” then by definition, “antisemitism” does not mean “hating Jews for no reason.”

They were able to get away with this stuff when they could hide behind the Holocaust. It didn’t have to make sense, because they could just show a picture of a guy with a tattoo and say “my uncle was turned into a lampshade.” They were able to use emotional exploitation to bully people into silence.

The whole thing is now coming unraveled.

(This is pretty long, you can read the whole thing here)
https://www.unz.com/aanglin/the-antisem ... -its-over/