Ira Stoll, I'd be interested in more on Syria and how events in Lebanon and Israel in particular are affecting it. Also, on how that might affect the decisions of the Trump administration in its approach to the region. We saw at least some Syrians celebrating after Israel took out Nasrallah. How widespread is that sentiment? What should the US do to push things in a new and creative way there, and what are the likely views of key players in the Trump administration about such possibilities?
The Harvard Kennedy School statement appears to ban attributing any quote even if it was a statement by the professor: “All HKS events are, unless otherwise explicitly stated, not for attribution. This means you can share in a general way what you learned, but not who said what, without expressed permission.”
If that is indeed the meaning of that language, it seems difficult to justify.
I kept pages of great quotes from my college chemistry professor Leonard Nash. One that I often quote to my kids is "rigor can be mindless". It was said in the context of chemistry calculations, but it has the same spirit as the caution about excessive respect for process rules when those rules are being applied in outrageous ways. The declaration of the UK foreign minister that Netanyahu would be arrested upon entering the UK is an example of his phenomenon.
This non-attribution rule seems to accept the hoopla about "doxing" that the pro-Hamas crowd at Harvard latched onto to make it seem as though they were the victims in the post-October 7 confrontations rather than the Jewish students they were intimidating. That is, the assumption was they (the protestors) should not be made to identify themselves and take personal ownership of the views they were broadcasting. My attitude is, if you say it, you should own it. It seems pretty basic to me to the idea of a university, that it would absolutely insist on individuals being absolutely protected in their speech and absolutely obligated in return to openly stand behind what they say.
This fits with the "Spot the Idiots" principle that James Taranto used repeatedly in his WSJ "Best of the Web" column. This principle holds that one of the advantages of free speech is that it makes it easier to spot the idiots.
Publishing the names of anti-Israel students at elite colleges was fair game under this approach. It is only the publication of private information such as contact information that should be considered doxxing.
The question here is whether to invoke "Spot the Idiots" only for public statements or also for statements in class, and whether this applies to students or to both students and faculty.
"...If the incoming Trump team moves quickly and with sophistication (granted, a big “if”), ..."
Snarkiness is not a good look.
Ira Stoll, I'd be interested in more on Syria and how events in Lebanon and Israel in particular are affecting it. Also, on how that might affect the decisions of the Trump administration in its approach to the region. We saw at least some Syrians celebrating after Israel took out Nasrallah. How widespread is that sentiment? What should the US do to push things in a new and creative way there, and what are the likely views of key players in the Trump administration about such possibilities?
The Harvard Kennedy School statement appears to ban attributing any quote even if it was a statement by the professor: “All HKS events are, unless otherwise explicitly stated, not for attribution. This means you can share in a general way what you learned, but not who said what, without expressed permission.”
If that is indeed the meaning of that language, it seems difficult to justify.
I kept pages of great quotes from my college chemistry professor Leonard Nash. One that I often quote to my kids is "rigor can be mindless". It was said in the context of chemistry calculations, but it has the same spirit as the caution about excessive respect for process rules when those rules are being applied in outrageous ways. The declaration of the UK foreign minister that Netanyahu would be arrested upon entering the UK is an example of his phenomenon.
This non-attribution rule seems to accept the hoopla about "doxing" that the pro-Hamas crowd at Harvard latched onto to make it seem as though they were the victims in the post-October 7 confrontations rather than the Jewish students they were intimidating. That is, the assumption was they (the protestors) should not be made to identify themselves and take personal ownership of the views they were broadcasting. My attitude is, if you say it, you should own it. It seems pretty basic to me to the idea of a university, that it would absolutely insist on individuals being absolutely protected in their speech and absolutely obligated in return to openly stand behind what they say.
This fits with the "Spot the Idiots" principle that James Taranto used repeatedly in his WSJ "Best of the Web" column. This principle holds that one of the advantages of free speech is that it makes it easier to spot the idiots.
Publishing the names of anti-Israel students at elite colleges was fair game under this approach. It is only the publication of private information such as contact information that should be considered doxxing.
The question here is whether to invoke "Spot the Idiots" only for public statements or also for statements in class, and whether this applies to students or to both students and faculty.