A university president makes a case against cowardice
(newyorker.com)468 points by pseudolus 9 days ago
468 points by pseudolus 9 days ago
Some personal highlights:
"They’re excellent schools, and they have excellent scientists, and if one of Vice-President Vance’s kids is sick, he’s going to want the doctor to have gone to one of these schools; he’s not going to want them to have gone to Viktor Orbán’s university."
"People have said to me, “Well, you take all that money from the government, why don’t you listen to them?” The answer is, because the money doesn’t come with a loyalty oath."
"I don’t have to agree with the mayor to get the fire department to come put out a fire. And that’s what they’re saying to these international students: “Well, you came to this country. What makes you think you can write an op-ed in the newspaper?” Well, what makes you think that is, this is a free country. "
> "They’re excellent schools, and they have excellent scientists, and if one of Vice-President Vance’s kids is sick, he’s going to want the doctor to have gone to one of these schools; he’s not going to want them to have gone to Viktor Orbán’s university."
I'm not sure I understand. If I want a medical doctor, I'm not looking for someone based on his political views or spirited independence from the Hungarian government, but for someone with training in a very narrow discipline, namely medicine. I really don't want someone who is more interested in "the modern and the postmodern" prescribing me meds, but I do want someone who conforms to the current pharmacological standards.
The University President in question does not even run a medical school; Wesleyan does not, to my knowledge, teach anyone the art of medicine, however highly it might rank as a liberal arts institution. Semmelweis University in Budapest, however, is older than the United States, is the largest healthcare provider in Hungary, and is ranked among the top 300 universities in the world. Therefore, if I had to chose between someone who went to Wesleyan and someone who went to Semmelweis, which I'll take as "Viktor Orbán's university," I should much rather have the Hungarian who actually knows medicine rather than the liberal arts PhD who might be able to lecture me on what postmodernism should mean to me.
The author of the article seems to accept "appeal to authority" he just wishes it was more critically refined to a point that it might somehow be justifiable.
The OP is expressing dismay at this obviously compromised position. There is no purportment or strawmen that I can detect.
In that specific quote he’s talking about Ivy League universities, not Wesleyan, but the quote would be too long. I thought it was clear, sorry for the misunderstanding.
Regardless, I absolutely agree with you, except for one thing: I would have no problem being under care of a Hungarian, but I doubt you’d ever see a MAGA enthusiast saying he prefers that than an American doctor.
And I for one would much rather it go to subsidize university research than subsidize the defense industry
Do you not understand that money coming from the government has been acquired from taxes, ergo the money comes from the people.
Surely he could have expressed himself better than that. Insulting some other country's universities seems a very odd thing to do when trying to make a point about your own universities. This is especially odd as the choice of country to insult has several universities that are well inside the top 10% worldwide and rank higher than Wesleyan.
We should expect better rhetoric from the rector of a liberal arts university.
Unfortunately I can't read the actual article to see what the rest of his argument was like. I wish that HN would automatically provide links to bypass paywalls.
There was no insult. The point is very clear if you are not trying to intentionally make him look bad. He said that Vance would never send his kids to a hospital in Hungary; he never said hospitals in Hungary are bad, or that Hungarians are peasants, for example. What he’s trying to show you is that you’re being manipulated, that what they say is not what they do, so you shouldn’t believe them. But I guess most people prefer to trust the snake oil sellers than open their eyes.
Edit: and by the way Orbán is not Hungary, in the same way that Trump is not America, although they would very much like you to think so. I wonder why?
What are you conflicted about? The op-eds written by these international students contained none of the things you mentioned that are supposedly not compatible with the US.
On the other hand, while the US is bombing civilians in Yemen, revoking womens' rights and moving towards persecuting lgbt people, it would seem that ironically the the US is exactly the jam for that. A perfect fit.
Valuing Palestinian lives is not supporting terrorism.
Sure, hopefully we all value Palestinian lives. I certainly do. Where the consensus breaks down is what does that mean in practice? Should Israel be allowed to attack terrorist organizations in Palestine? If so, is there an "acceptable" level of civilian casualties (collateral damage)? Does that level change if the terrorists intentionally use civilians as human shields, for example by using a hospital as an operating base or launching rockets from civilian residential neighborhoods?
To be clear I am not attempting to defend war crimes or terrorist activity or anything like that. I'm just pointing out that simply valuing Palestinian lives is rather meaningless and empty unless it translates into action.
Even if you hold those views (with which we'd all, I hope, vigorously disagree), America is _still_ your jam, up to and until they mutate into crimes / criminal attempts / incitements to crime etc. The ways this administration has persued removal either violate that boundary, or require stretching the boundary around the right-hand side to its absolute limit.
Popper and "the paradox of tolerance" to the rescue. You can, and should, tolerate anything but intolerance.
There are US citizens who want to shoot gays, kill people different in creed or heritage, and bomb people for religious reasons. We had the gay panic defense (the legal defense to kill gay people just because you found out they were gay, and the shock justified you killing them). We had people shooting sikhs assuming they're muslim. We had folks bombing abortion clinics. There are US citizens who have done far more, and far worse, than writing an op-ed or taking over a building.
So, frankly, why not treat these people the same we treated like these other folk-- a trial and then appropriate punishment proven in the court of law. If an immigrant is violating the terms of their visa, the US gov't can prove it in their own courts and then deport them appropriately.
Those situations aren't comparable. While I oppose bigoted behavior by US citizens, for better or worse they have an absolute and inviolable right to remain in this country. Aliens generally have no such right. Entering and remaining in the country is a privilege. I oppose arbitrary arrests and deportations conducted without due process, but in principle there's nothing wrong with holding aliens to a different standard than citizens.
From a political standpoint, why should US citizens pay taxes to educate people who are apparently hostile to our fundamental values?
What about is always a bad answer. It comes of a defensive.
Indeed, I agree with you. There are US citizens who want to do reprehensible things, and I still say: maybe the US is not their jam. No, I'm not advocating exile or illegal detention. Just stating a fact.
> The answer is, because the money doesn’t come with a loyalty oath
But it does come with some reasonable level of consideration and appreciation.
I don't think it ever crosses these people's minds that some other country PAID FOR these people's education and they are now USING that education elsewhere for the profit of a foreign nation.
All my high school and college education was at free schools/colleges in my home country, paid for by taxpayer money. All incredibly competitive places, with very high maintenance costs compared to the other colleges around, not a single US dollar was invested in me and here I am paying taxes and improving this place.
The bargain the US gets from this is one of the biggest reasons it can do what it does, the investments it makes are compounded by the work of the people that it never put a dime for.
What about e.g. writing an op-ed expressing one's views conveys a lack of consideration and appreciation?
Consider that any competent manager will value polite debate and constructive criticism far more than the empty words of "yes" men.
Guess which category "reasonable ... consideration and appreciation" falls into.
Put another way, if you read North Korean state media, you will find that they always have a reasonable level of consideration and appreciation for their government.
Oh hey, Wesleyan on HN! I’m an alumnus (matriculated a year or two after Roth became president). Wesleyan has a rich history of activism and protest, and not always entirely peaceful (Roth’s predecessor, Doug Bennet, had his office firebombed at one point).
I’ve had a few opportunities to speak with Roth since the Gaza war started, and I’ve always found him particularly thoughtful about balancing freedom of expression with a need to provide a safe and open learning environment for everyone on campus. In particular, he never gave in to the unlimited demands of protestors while still defending their right to protest.
In part, he had the moral weight to do that because—unlike many university presidents—he did not give in to the illiberal demands of the left to chill speech post-2020, which then were turned against the left over the past year.
I don’t see any particularly good outcome from any of this; the risk of damaging the incredibly successful American university system is high. Certainly smart foreign students who long dreamed of studying in the US will be having second thoughts if they can be arbitrarily and indefinitely detained.
But I hope the universities that do make it through do with a stronger commitment to the (small l) liberal values of freedom of expression , academic freedom, and intellectual diversity.
Ok, I'll bite: in your view, what were the illiberal "demands" post-2020? Reading tfa, this kind of rendering feels a little too pat for him. Namely, its one thing to argue against the kind of knee-jerk moralism of well-meaning woke liberal arts kids, its quite another to imply a kind of "capital L" program to "chill speech."
Like, c'mon, are we really still doing this now? Roth himself is sensible enough to not be, in his words, "blaming the victim" at this point, what calls you to essentially do it for him anyway? It's nothing but out of touch at this point, and adds nothing to the discourse but conspiratorial noise. If I may assume a rough age based on your forthrightness, any single kid in school in 2020 was and is a lot less culpable for this current moment than you or I. We can set an example and be mature enough to own that, instead of, I don't know, forever being tortured by the real or perceived condescension of kids.
It is a smaller step to further the justifications than to deal with the often severe implications (to the self-image) of having been wrong. The more obvious it becomes having been wrong, the more necessary the justifications are and the more absurd they become. As having someone accepting your absurd justifications becomes proof of being blameless.
I should add that I'm not referring to beepbooptheory, but in response to "are we really still doing this now?".
It's nothing but out of touch at this point, and adds nothing to the discourse
Exactly. Its a communications problem.
Its hard to have a decent critical conversation when one side has a biased view about $symbol. Both communicating parties need to reach the same interpretation of a message, otherwise the conversation is broken. Thats why you shouldnt say the N-word or throw out a heil heart on stage (unless you want to hide behind this ambiguity). Or why its so difficult to have critical conversations with strong believers, for you its just evolution or vaccines but for the other side it may affect the core of their identity and the ape goes defense mode.
The result is that the discourse does not deal with differentiated cases but _only_ with simplistic labels like "chill speech", "woke", etc. because the more biased side drags it down into the mud.
For instance, the "chill speech" label is actually dependent on the "racist" label that initiated it. If a case shows clear racist behavior, then dismissing the lefts reaction as censorship is unjustified or biased. The other way works too, if there is no racist behavior, the censorship blame would be justified.
And since you cant look into peoples heads to clearly identify racist intentions, it falls back to interpreting messages. The problem with biased people is, they are not aware even of their unawareness. If you would ask Musk whether he is a neo-nazi, his response would be something like "hell no". Fast forward the dystopian timeline and his response might be "always have been".
The left has IMO more unbiased awareness about systemic issues -- but is not free of bias either. The right is in its core biased indentity politics about $culture -- but is not totally host to tribalism either.
My advise, avoid popular symbols at all cost and if you come close to using one, augment it with case specific background, even a vague "_unjustified_ chill of speech" would suffice. If someone opens with "the woke left" and shows no signs of differentiation -- or even better, acknowledgement of core leftist topics -- i mentally turn away. The comment you replied to was about personal anekdotes and projections and the one symbol that rubs me the wrong way too, even before trumps abuse.
ah, some both sides claims while people are disappeared
>It's not that hard as a foreign student to not join political protests in favor of terrorist groups.
I obviously don't support terrorism, but people unambiguously have the right to protest in favour of terrorist groups. It's only when they provide material support to these groups that they actually commit a crime.
Who is supporting terrorist groups? Pro-Palestinian protesting is not support for terrorism.
Nothing in that article implies supporting terrorism. They support Palestine.
People conflating supporting Palestine with supporting terrorism should be ashamed of themselves, as Israel is the biggest terror state in the world.
This guy perhaps?
> Many countries completely ban non citizens from joining political protests, even ostensibly western countries.
Which ones?
In the UK we don't discriminate based on citizenship, or even if the protests are political or not !
Protest marches - no wait, the term is less specific: "public processions" - can have restrictions imposed for basically any reason. Restrictions can be imposed if (this is just a selection):
- They basically generate noise
- May cause prolonged disruption of access to any essential goods or any essential service
- May cause the prevention of, or a hindrance that is more than minor to, the carrying out of day-to-day activities
- May cause the prevention of, or a delay that is more than minor to, the delivery of a time-sensitive product to consumers of that product
Not forgetting there are probably 10-20 general Public Order Offences that can be used against a person, such as wilful obstruction of a highway or public nuisance.
Then we also have Serious Disruption Prevention Orders (SDPOs). SDPOs are civil orders that enable courts to place conditions or restrictions on an individual aged over 18 (such as restrictions on where they can go and when) with the aim of preventing them from engaging in protest-related activity that could cause disruption. Breaching an SDPO is a criminal offence.
And the cherry on the cake: by law you must tell the police in writing 6 days before a public march if you're the organiser (which is to say, get the police's permission)
Germany bans pro-Palestine protests (officially they're still legal, but they've been arresting people since it began and they've just started deporting people for participating in completely legal protests) but I think that's a slightly different criterion than the one you asked for.
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Supporting Palestinians that Israel has been killing for over a year (+50k killed, most were women and children), while starving the rest and ethnically cleansing them, is not supporting terrorism.
Too many have been killed, for sure, but you should probably use sources other than the Hamas Health Ministry:
https://www.euronews.com/2025/04/03/hamas-run-health-ministr...
1. Hamas bears the moral responsibility for all of the suffering in the war they started on October 7th, and the Palestinian people bear the moral responsibility of electing and supporting them (and participating in the invasion, and not returning the hostages).
2. Even Hamas now admits most deaths have been military aged males: https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-848592
3. How can you argue that Gaza has been starved and ethnically cleansed when the population of the Gaza strip has increased since the start of the war?
I strongly agree, unfortunately they feel strongly differently after spending a lot of money to get on the courses. Frankly the law of the land is the latter, but this is one of the problems with cladding cultures and attitudes which needs addressing rather than glossing over...
> Wesleyan has a rich history of activism and protest, and not always entirely peaceful (Roth’s predecessor, Doug Bennet, had his office firebombed at one point).
Arson is not protest. Arson is a VIOLENT type of activism, which is legally classified as terrorism.
Trump (or anybody) shouldn't be allowed to punish folks for speech or peaceful protest. Unfortunately, folks are calling VIOLENT acts like arson and battery "protest", and threats of bodily harm "speech" ("harassment" or "assault" under most US criminal law) -- we should be in favor of the government stepping in to protect people from arson, battery, and assault/ harassment.
> he did not give in to the illiberal demands of the left to chill speech post-2020,
Roth has been president since 2007. What was his response to Nick Christakis's struggle session (plenty of video of that) or Erika Christakis leaving Yale, after she penned an e-mail that students should be able to handle Halloween costumes they find offensive?
The American Left has been illiberal and going after speech for decades; it didn't start post-2020.
If the state is illegitimate then it is permissible or perhaps an obligation to topple it, according to people like the revolutionaries that founded the USA. That is, it doesn't necessarily matter what is legal or not, if the state misbehaves then you should put it to the guillotine or fire or bear arms or whatever suits you.
As an outsider it's always funny to see people write about the "American Left", as if there were any leftist movements of national importance in the US. As if Food Not Bombs had at some point had a majority in congress or something, it's just a ridiculous idea. If that happened there would be a bloody purge, Pinochet style but bigger.
> The American Left has been illiberal and going after speech for decades; it didn't start post-2020.
Good that the free-speech absolutist Musk is there to ban everyone on Twitter who calls him out on his lies, trying to buy democratic elections, and do nazi salutes.
> Arson is a VIOLENT type of activism, which is legally classified as terrorism.
Lithium-ion batteries in badly made cars are prone to ...combustion.
> They'll make it through if they bend the knee. Otherwise the regime will destroy them, and the conclusion will be that it's all because of these darned radical leftists.
Well, it is, isn't it? They required complete loyalty to the ideology before accepting any faculty: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/08/us/ucla-dei-statement.htm...
They shouldn't have gone that far.
> I understand you’re fighting for what you believe in.
In your mind, what do you think I believe in?
I ask this because the only point I made in that message was in response to the "bend the knee" comment.
The one side required "bend the knee". Now the other side requires it. Why be surprised?
I don't see much talk of donors? My impression is that, as in many situations, the super-wealthy are forming a dominant class - as if it's their right - rather than respect democracy and freedom, and attacking university freedom. Didn't some person engineer the Harvard leader's exit?
Roth says the Wesleyan board is supportive; maybe they are just lucky.
Being a super wealthy alum is a prerequisite for being a Trustee, and University Trustees are the group that University Presidents report to.
This is why I always have and always will prefer community colleges. Their boards are elected officials. Not perfect, but 1000 times better than just having wealth.
Election is a bad way to choose almost anything. The enthusiasm of Americans for adding yet more elected roles rather than, say, having anything done by anybody competent is part of how they got here. The only place elections are even a plausible choice is political office - with an election and as close as you can to universal suffrage now the idiots running things are everybody's fault, although Americans even managed to screw that up pretty good. Sortition would probably be cheaper, but elections are fine for this purpose.
I prefer the way it used to be in Finland (and still mostly is). Board members are elected by the people affiliated with the university. Votes might be split 4:3:3 or 5:4:4 between professors, other staff, and students. Some board positions are representatives of the three internal groups, while the rest are outsiders. You get all kinds of interesting people from business leaders to activists to former national presidents in the board, while avoiding politruks elected or appointed by random outsiders.
Columbia has an endowment that stands (pre- Liberation Day) at 15 billion dollars.
They kowtowed to some of the militant Zionist interests involved in that endowment in order to attain a fractionally higher return, and betrayed their students.
They kowtowed to the fascist administration on the grounds that it was threatening 400 million dollars in grants, and betrayed their students to the point of facilitating a project to unilaterally deport many of them based on Constitutionally protected quasi-private speech.
At this point I don't think they want or deserve to be called a university. Let's go with "Tax-exempt investment fund".
There is an ongoing genocide in Gaza and genocidal language is commonplace in Zionist discourse. If there are cases of hate speech on the pro Palestinian side, they pale in comparison to speech from the other side.
Regardless we shouldn’t be rounding up and imprisoning folks if they disagree with your politics. This is what is getting lost in this specific case.
>Do you think calling for the genocide of Jews
I'm guessing the motte associated with this particular bailey won't be nearly as clear in its violation of such codes.
If someone said they wanted another kistallnacht while holding torches and refusing to allow jews to walk down the street, would you know what they meant? Are they just talking about breaking some glass at a jewish wedding? Maybe they just want to go to one of those rage rooms?
Just so we're clear, people are still losing their minds when someone "finds" a noose-like knot in the vicinity.
There is no baily here.
Your argument is so out of touch I can only assume it’s being made in bad faith.
Many of the pro-Palestinian protesters are also Jewish. Equating all Jewish people with Israel and Zionism is insidious and misleading.
What on Earth? How is their argument out of touch or made in bad faith? It's a reasonable and popular line of reasoning that you disagree with strongly. Assuming the best possible interpretation is one of our community guidelines, please follow it.
Except they're not mainstream Jewish. Jewish Voice for Peace has been linked to known terrorists and receives support from anti-Jewish interests. At best, they're "useful idiots" but more realistically they were long corrupted by anti-semitic interests.
https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/jewish-voice-peac...
> Many of the pro-Palestinian protesters are also Jewish
Nearly every person who claims to be jewish, when pushed turns out to be "jewish" it's essentially a strange version of blackface and fairly bigoted.
Exactly. Most people of Jewish faith I have met puts the interests of Israel above those of the United States, because it is in their religion to return to the homeland. Look no further than Pelosi arguing that if the Capitol burned to the ground, as long as Israel prospers, elected officials will remain committed to Israel (and the crowd at that Jewish council cheered on). Btw, one cannot find this video anywhere anymore (you will find it on Facebook using Pelosi Capitol). I wonder why.... People advocating for Israel at this point are traitors to the United States and should be treated as such. When elected officials like Pelosi would rather the capitol burns to the ground but Israel prospers, I feel nothing short of dread. But students writting opeds opposing Genocide is the story...
> What you're looking for is a town square where everyone can protest to their hearts content. You're not looking for a place of quiet contemplation and study.
The university quad, a multipurpose public space designated for students, is basically the only type of public, physical town square left in this entire country.
As another Jew, the way non-Jews are using us as a cudgel to crack down on free speech certainly doesn't feel like "support". As one of history's leading targets when it comes time to scapegoat a minority, I get more antisemitic vibes from the "we have to sacrifice our American ideals to protect the Jews" folks than the "stop killing Palestinians" ones.
A significant number of Columbia students are Jewish and were largely protesting the genocide. Almost the entirety of this movement had zero issue with Jews, only with the actions of Israel and Zionism. A significant number of outside agitators were older Jewish Zionists or (often) Zionist evangelicals who lived within driving distance and wanted to start a fight. 50 year old drunk men wearing Israeli flags and pushing into the crowd in groups.
I watched this narrative get created and promoted without any evidence; Video after video showed peaceful and surprisingly media-savvy students (I mean, it is Columbia). Every politician and most media organizations taking direct input from Israeli government officials or AIPAC. On MSNBC and CNN we heard voice after voice after voice pronouncing expert opinions on the shame of this protest/terrorism in an Israeli accent. Administration officials trying to expel anybody caught on camera who was identifiable. While the bombs dropped on Gaza.
I can't say with any confidence that there was absolutely zero conflict, but the absolute confidence that every figure of authority immediately brought to bear on the subject of all Jews being purged by Hamas terrorists from Columbia and needing the National Guard to be called out to protect them? It was beyond the pale.
All of the video I watched of actual Zionist students (or student-aged people) had them victim-posing for social media after throwing themselves into the protest and being largely ignored.
Harvard's rolling over was particularly annoying, they have a 52 billion dollar endowment! If any university could afford to make a stand and lose funding over it it's Harvard. What's the point of this massive pile of money if you never dip into it in exceptional circumstances?
Universities typically only spend about 5% of their endowments per year, since it has to last forever. And much of it comes with restrictions on what it can be spent on, those come from the donors wishes. So money in the endowment that's for the theater department or to support an econ professorship can't be repurposed to support federal funds that supported cancer research.
Harvard's endowment could fund all research at the university for many decades.
Harvard chose to roll over for Trump, and I think the main reason is that the board of the Harvard Corporation largely agrees with him.
https://archive.ph/a9ie5