It's not just the $100 million revoked donation. The Wharton School of Business, part of U Penn and one of the greatest business schools in the world, is surely one of their biggest magnets for donor money.
And their Board of Advisors wants Magill out, says UPenn's paper, the Daily Pennsylvanian.
The Wharton Board of Advisors is calling on the University to change leadership with "immediate effect," according to a letter to Penn President Liz Magill first obtained by The Daily Pennsylvanian.
The letter describes the Board's concern about "dangerous and toxic culture" at Penn that they said the University leadership has allowed to exist. The letter adds that the University leadership "does not share the values of our Board."...
"In light of your testimony yesterday before Congress, we demand the University clarify its position regarding any call for harm to any group of people immediately, change any policies that allow such conduct with immediate effect, and discipline all offenders expeditiously," the letter said.
The last part suggests a way for Magill to keep her job -- if she disciplines all offenders. But I don't think she wants to do that.
In the sidebar, I mentioned that Ross Stevens had withdrawn a $100 million donation. He said that the university had violated an anti-discrimination clause in their contract.
He adds that he'll give UPenn the $100 million... as soon as McGill is fired.
Mr. Stevens and Stone Ridge would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter further and give the University a chance to remedy what Stone Ridge believes are likely violations of the LP Agreement if, and when, there is a new University President in place. Until then, there can be no meaningful discussion about remedying the University's ongoing failure to honor is obligations.
Many of you may, like me, be of two minds on this issue.
On one hand: Your rules. These are your rules. We're going to make you choke on them until you spit them out and admit they're poison.
But it does feel wrong to be demanding that universities crack down on offensive speech.
Still, they already have been outlawing virtually all "offensive" speech. What they're doing here is selectively allowing some favored hate speech.
Glenn Reynolds puts it perfectly:
[A]s much as I enjoy seeing these people stew in the juices of their hypocrisy -- and believe me, enjoy it I do -- it is nonetheless true, as Eugene Volokh cogently points out, that free speech principles, and the First Amendment where it applies, prevent things like a selective ban on anti-semitism, or on "advocacy of genocide" or whatever.
But think how much easier the life of these administrators would be if they and their institutions had just had some principles. If they had a record of allowing student and faculty speech on everything without punishment, they could point to that record and say, sure, some of our students are saying monstrous things, but we believe in free speech and that the best way to deal with monstrous ideas is by discussing, and refuting, them in the open.
Of course, they can't say that, because it isn't true -- and, more importantly, it obviously isn't true. Top universities have for years been denying the value of free speech, and even suggesting it is some sort of questionable relic of white supremacy, or Christian Nationalism, or something. They've been centers for the belief that the way to deal with ideas you don't like isn't to refute them, but to ruthlessly suppress them.
Well, when that's your stance -- and we all know that it largely has been theirs -- suddenly appearing before Congress and parsing free speech doctrine to a nicety isn't very convincing. When you censor any speech, you make yourself responsible for whatever you allow.
Emphasis added.
Yes, that's it, that's it! That's been tip of my tongue for days now!
If you have a flat policy of allowing all speech, you do not necessarily endorse any kind of speech -- it's simply your policy to allow all kinds of speech. Your endorsement is not implied.
But if your policy is to routinely censor speech, and only selectively allow speech, then you definitely are endorsing the speech you permit, because you've shown what you do with speech you don't endorse: you censor it, you forbid it. Therefore, in a regime or routine censorship, any permitted speech is officially endorsed speech.
The below video from FP.com makes a similar point, for you Visual Learners. Their argument is just contrasting the two wildly different standards employed by these formerly "elite" universities:
For all browner-skinned students, and for gays and especially trans students, the policy is "safety first:" any claim of "harm" from speech is presumed to not only be true but to be absolutely controlling. If someone says they're harmed by speech, that speech must be shut down.
But for Jews -- and, of course, for all non-minority men and straights -- the policy is "anything goes."
This cannot be sustained. You cannot claim "the Constitution" demands this.
The Constitution has nothing to do with this Different Rights For Different People regime.
By the way, Magill was asked why Joe Biden was paid almost a million dollars for a no-show "job" at UPenn -- a million dollars for two years a couple of months' non-work -- and why suddenly millions of dollars in anonymous donations from China began flowing in after Biden was hired to do nothing.
She said he had a "wide range" of duties, which she failed to specify.
Those duties did not include teaching classes or actually doing anything. She does mention that he "attended" some meetings.
There's so much corruption here. The "elites" are just absolutely rotten.
The whole rotten upper structure needs to be torn out and rebuilt with fresh untainted wood.