Letters: MAGA hypocrisy; A dangerous precedent
MAGA hypocrisy
MAGA Republicans again show that rules don’t apply to them or to their presumptive presidential nominee.
Representative Elise Stefanik criticized three university presidents who tried, unsuccessfully, to articulate the difference between free speech and harassment/bullying. The presidents argued that context matters, that even the most distasteful speech is not punishable unless it targets an individual/s. Stefanik interrupted and disparaged them for not giving the answers she wanted.
The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Stefanik and MAGA colleagues remain conspicuously silent when former president Trump engages in threatening and violent speech, much of it specifically targeted at individuals.
Trump encouraged and incited the violent mob on January 6, 2021, that left dozens of police officers injured. His violent rhetoric is directed against his political opponents and their families resulting in dozens of credible death threats and the need for heightened security.
Trump persists in targeting those involved in the case accusing him of conspiracy to overturn his 2020 defeat, despite repeated warnings from federal officials to refrain from rhetoric that could “incite violence or civil unrest.” A gag order, he claims, infringes on his first amendment rights.
Trump echoes dictators, calling his political enemies, “vermin” and pledging to “root them out.” He called Mark Milley, outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, a traitor who deserves to be executed.
Why do MAGA politicians demonize university administrators for failing to forcefully condemn hate speech while condoning the vicious speech of their fearless leader?
A dangerous precedent
Legal arguments and moral arguments are not synonymous. When laws satisfy the moral conscience of the majority, legality and morality are easily conflated. When laws and policies are questioned by some on moral grounds and supported by others, debates, protests and counter protests result. The First Amendment is a bedrock of U.S. law and policy. It was built into the Constitution to create safe legal space for disagreement over moral principles.
The congressional committee members conflated law and morality; the college presidents separated the two. During the university presidents’ testimony before Congress, members pushed the administrators to answer questions about antisemitism — an especially complex issue because of campus protests over Israel/Palestine. Congress members asked oversimplified questions and demanded yes/no answers. Free speech is a complicated legal issue. It’s not easy to say when free speech becomes incitement. The committee only addressed antisemitism; other minorities were hardly mentioned. Complexity was sidestepped. The hearing failed as an inquiry; it appeared to me as an assault on the presidents’ integrity as leaders. The women were grilled for four hours. The fiasco won’t result in harmony at Penn, Harvard or MIT; it will further fuel flames of division.
To solve complex problems, thought must be given to how arguments are framed. When the nuances of disagreements are ignored, results are vulnerable to manipulation. In this case, Congress members judged Dr. Magill, a highly qualified scholar/teacher of administrative and constitutional law, as immoral based on her legally sound responses forcing her to resign. A dangerous precedent.