Tipsheet

Harvard Students Try to Play the Victims After Losing Job Opportunities Over Hamas Support

Guy Benson
Guy Benson  |  October 19, 2023 10:05 AM

The bogus victimhood is bottomless.  Because grievance is the coin of their realm, and because many of them are incapable of arguing any other way, it should be unsurprising to see figures like Rashida Tlaib and various other Hamas apologists and anti-Semites claim that somehow they are the ones who've been wronged over the last two weeks. In a development that truly defies parody, Harvard students who signed an egregious, terrorism-justifying statement are now whining about the "bullying" they've experienced over the moral disgrace to which they signed their names.  They're even soliciting financial donations to (supposedly) finance mental health support in the face of this hardship.  The hardcore Left has labored for years to twist the meaning of the word 'violence' beyond all recognition, expanding it to entail virtually anything that they don't like, while exempting various manifestations of actual, physical violence that they happen to favor.  So comments like this are inevitable:

No, lost job opportunities, as a result of terrorism apologias, do not constitute "violence."  Violence, like the massacre they cheer/support/justify is violence.  This brain rot is commonplace on campuses, which is why some major donors and starting to close up their checkbooks, and some employers are deciding not to hire people who are neutral, at best, on Jew murder.  I've been an outspoken critic of the many excesses of 'cancel culture.'  I co-authored a book about it, in fact.  My argument has never been that there can be no consequences for speech, and that all "accountability" (as Leftists refer to their widespread 'cancel culture' cheerleading) is always unwarranted.  

My argument has been that the bar for such consequences has been lowered to an absurd degree, for the purpose of weaponizing words and thoughts against political adversaries (mainly, but not entirely, the Left's).  "Hate" speech has been defined down.  A wide array of ideas and disagreements have been smeared as various 'isms,' for the purpose of suppressing those ideas and agreements.  So-called 'cancelations' are often profoundly unjust, meted out in haste, and widely disproportional.  But there are certain sentiments and statements that are genuinely out of bounds and beyond the pale.  That threshold ought to be high.  Celebrating the slaughter of Jews clears it:

My co-author of the aforementioned book has eloquently discussed a rubric for 'cancelation' that entails factors such as intent, proportionality, and a path to growth and redemption.  I support this.  Nuance, and a strong dose of grace, is in order when assessing these types of situations.  But 'no consequences, ever' is not a reasonable or tenable stance -- especially from people who effectively invented, and usually ruthlessly enforce, 'cancel culture.'  It is entirely fair for a prospective boss to decide not to hire a 20-something who has chosen to speak out publicly to justify outright terrorism.  That's not the same thing as wrecking someone for a stupid tweet from their teen years, or a joke gone wrong.  Why should a company with valued Jewish employees want to bring, say, people like this onto their team?

Finally, I've seen arguments that college students should be afforded pretty broad leeway to behave foolishly, and not have poor youthful decisions haunt them for the rest of their lives.  I generally agree.  I also generally support eventual redemption and forgivenes seven for some of the utterly macabre and inhuman things we are seeing in academia right now.  But a big part of the problem seems to be academia itself.  On that note, I'll leave you with this.  Adults -- faculty members -- wrote these:

Recommended

ICE Sends Hochul Grim Warning After Arresting Wanted Illegal Immigrant Sarah Arnold
Bombshell Report Reveals Disturbing Truths About the Biden-Harris Parole Pipeline Sarah Arnold