| To quote the exchange (taken from https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/8/gay-apology-con...): “At Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment?” Stefanik asked. “It can be, depending on the context,” Gay responded. But Stefanik pressed Gay to give a yes or no answer to the question about whether calls for the genocide of Jews constitute a violation of Harvard’s policies. “Antisemitic speech when it crosses into conduct that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation — that is actionable conduct and we do take action,” Gay said. Stefanik tried again. “So the answer is yes, that calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard code of conduct, correct?” Stefanik asked. “Again, it depends on the context,” Gay said. --- The middle part with its "that is actionable conduct and we do take action" could mean that she understood the question as "does the university take action?", and that truly depends on the context: There are situations that aren't the university's business but law enforcement's. (even though I'm not saying that she took it that way, I don't know what she thought at that moment, but it seems like it wasn't a lot.) Even with such a 'most charitable' interpretation her communication sucks though, which makes her unsuitable for a role that's to a larger part that of a figure head. And with any other interpretation, she's even less suitable for basic decency reasons. |