From reader Michael Zuckerman (retired Penn professor):
I’ve savored and loved so many of these notebook entries. I write to you about this one and not the others because it is as brilliant and delicious as the others and also wonderfully timely. I laughed myself silly thinking of a Penn president trashing Wharton as you do.
I like Liz Magill. I was not impressed with her response when some idiots took over Franklin Field during homecoming in 2022, expressing their right to free speech but infringing on the rights of players and spectators. I gave her a pass since she was new to the job.
Her response to the gotcha question would have been fine if she had left out the “context“ comment, which parroted the lame response from Harvard’s weak president. She couldn’t win at home; either side would condemn her no matter her response.
I agree that she shouldn’t have lost her job over it, and a strong board would have had her back. It appears that only Bok had the guts.
Sad chapter in Penn history, but hopefully our next president will be strong enough to change the intolerance on both sides of many divergent views. We could start with possibly allowing some faculty with more conservative views to express those views without fearing for their jobs.
Amy Gutmann began the moral decay with numerous landmines she planted on campus ready to blow up for the next Penn President.
She did her level best to destroy women's athletics with the sophomoric stupidity of the Lia Thomas fiasco, and against all principles of Freedom of Speech she is reported to have threatened repercussions against anyone who opposed her decision to destroy women's sports; allowing the curious and suspicious Biden Center, named for a man so obtuse he never have been admitted to Penn, and not defusing the snowflake's, anti-academic nonsense against the tenure of brilliantly challenging Professor Wax in the law school. Wax is exactly the professor needed to prepare students for the big bad world. There are other landmines still on a hair trigger on campus left by Gutmann.
Our Penn Trustees, with their recently awakened righteous sanctimony, failed to fire the Penn President who seemed determined to threaten free speech on campus, and half cocked, fired the wrong Penn President.
In some people's view, my own too, the trustees and Congress hauled the wrong President of Penn into the docket.
It was Amy Gutmann, the previous President of Penn, who was the real and known threat to free speech herself by her threats to anyone who opposed her decision to allow a 6'4" man to compete as a women on the Penn Women's Swimming team. Threats of repercussions if the athletes, coaches, AD or faculty opposed her. Free Speech at Penn? Not allowed by President Gutmann.
Do you know how many Penn Alums are boiling mad about Gutman's reprehensible and autocratic behavior about that?
And mad about the other landmines she left on campus as she skated away to be an ambassador in a rather suspicious Quid Pro Quo with Biden after she permitted the highly suspect and oddly financed Biden Center on Penn's Campus
Gutmann gutted free speech on Penn's campus, and it was her successor who was called in front of the trustees and Congress.
Dan... Penn is a private institution. It has a code of student conduct. Under the sub-heading "Responsibilities of Student Citizenship" of that code is this..."Students are expected to exhibit responsible behavior regardless of time or place. Failure to do so may result in disciplinary action by the University. Responsible behavior is a standard of conduct which reflects higher expectations than may be prevalent outside the University community. Responsible behavior includes but is not limited to the following obligations:" There is a list of 10 such obligations. Under item #4, the last sentence states: "Student speech may be subject to discipline when it violates applicable laws or University regulations or policies."
All Liz Magill needed to do was to quote that code of conduct and mention that disciplinary action is going to be considered for the hate speech.
Also, I have to say that I do take issue with Judy Seitz (that's how I knew her in 1962) Rodin. There is too much "bad" speech, most especially by people of power...influential people. And it goes unchecked. Trump lied his way through four years of his presidency. Is the antidote MORE speech, as Ms. Rodin put it? The problem is that far more people hear the president's "bad" speech than anyone else's "antidotal" speech.
She should have said, I just read a wonderful book by James McBride called “The Heaven and Earth Grocery Store.” McBride’s mother was Jewish. His father was black. The book is about a community, near the old Pennhurst mental hospital, of a fascinating mix of Jews and blacks in the early part of the 20th century who rally around a deaf boy who is confined at Pennhurst. The readers will learn how communities can bond together and appreciate their differences. The characters are vividly drawn characters you’d love to know. The writing has sentences you’d like to read over again and again. The book leaves you filled with hope which what our focus as Presidents of universities should be. You do read Ms. Stefanik don’t you?
I should have said that calls for genocide are not free speech. I do understand that there are some limits on free speech.
As Justice Holmes wrote – The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.
And as our Founder, Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1922 (as Silence DoGood):
“Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech; which is the Right of every Man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or controul the Right of another: And this is the only Check it ought to suffer, and the only Bounds it ought to know.
From reader Michael Zuckerman (retired Penn professor):
I’ve savored and loved so many of these notebook entries. I write to you about this one and not the others because it is as brilliant and delicious as the others and also wonderfully timely. I laughed myself silly thinking of a Penn president trashing Wharton as you do.
From reader John Owens (Penn '64):
I like Liz Magill. I was not impressed with her response when some idiots took over Franklin Field during homecoming in 2022, expressing their right to free speech but infringing on the rights of players and spectators. I gave her a pass since she was new to the job.
Her response to the gotcha question would have been fine if she had left out the “context“ comment, which parroted the lame response from Harvard’s weak president. She couldn’t win at home; either side would condemn her no matter her response.
I agree that she shouldn’t have lost her job over it, and a strong board would have had her back. It appears that only Bok had the guts.
Sad chapter in Penn history, but hopefully our next president will be strong enough to change the intolerance on both sides of many divergent views. We could start with possibly allowing some faculty with more conservative views to express those views without fearing for their jobs.
They fired the wrong Penn President!
Amy Gutmann began the moral decay with numerous landmines she planted on campus ready to blow up for the next Penn President.
She did her level best to destroy women's athletics with the sophomoric stupidity of the Lia Thomas fiasco, and against all principles of Freedom of Speech she is reported to have threatened repercussions against anyone who opposed her decision to destroy women's sports; allowing the curious and suspicious Biden Center, named for a man so obtuse he never have been admitted to Penn, and not defusing the snowflake's, anti-academic nonsense against the tenure of brilliantly challenging Professor Wax in the law school. Wax is exactly the professor needed to prepare students for the big bad world. There are other landmines still on a hair trigger on campus left by Gutmann.
Our Penn Trustees, with their recently awakened righteous sanctimony, failed to fire the Penn President who seemed determined to threaten free speech on campus, and half cocked, fired the wrong Penn President.
Gardner A. Cadwalader, Penn 1970
You briefly alluded to Martin Luther. Here's a link to an article regarding his antisemitic views:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism
You briefly alluded to Martin Luther. Here's a link to an article regarding his antisemitic views:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism
Freedom of Speech at Penn
Gardner Cadwalader <gacadwalader@gmail.com>
Mon, Dec 11, 5:31 PM (15 hours ago)
Laura,
In some people's view, my own too, the trustees and Congress hauled the wrong President of Penn into the docket.
It was Amy Gutmann, the previous President of Penn, who was the real and known threat to free speech herself by her threats to anyone who opposed her decision to allow a 6'4" man to compete as a women on the Penn Women's Swimming team. Threats of repercussions if the athletes, coaches, AD or faculty opposed her. Free Speech at Penn? Not allowed by President Gutmann.
Do you know how many Penn Alums are boiling mad about Gutman's reprehensible and autocratic behavior about that?
And mad about the other landmines she left on campus as she skated away to be an ambassador in a rather suspicious Quid Pro Quo with Biden after she permitted the highly suspect and oddly financed Biden Center on Penn's Campus
Gutmann gutted free speech on Penn's campus, and it was her successor who was called in front of the trustees and Congress.
They shot the wrong President!
Gardner A. Cadwalader
Penn 1970
Dan... Penn is a private institution. It has a code of student conduct. Under the sub-heading "Responsibilities of Student Citizenship" of that code is this..."Students are expected to exhibit responsible behavior regardless of time or place. Failure to do so may result in disciplinary action by the University. Responsible behavior is a standard of conduct which reflects higher expectations than may be prevalent outside the University community. Responsible behavior includes but is not limited to the following obligations:" There is a list of 10 such obligations. Under item #4, the last sentence states: "Student speech may be subject to discipline when it violates applicable laws or University regulations or policies."
All Liz Magill needed to do was to quote that code of conduct and mention that disciplinary action is going to be considered for the hate speech.
Also, I have to say that I do take issue with Judy Seitz (that's how I knew her in 1962) Rodin. There is too much "bad" speech, most especially by people of power...influential people. And it goes unchecked. Trump lied his way through four years of his presidency. Is the antidote MORE speech, as Ms. Rodin put it? The problem is that far more people hear the president's "bad" speech than anyone else's "antidotal" speech.
The MIT Board chairman responded on their president’s congressionally proposed resignation: “no, she is doing a fine job.”
Dan you have outdone your self
I couldn't have said this bettter
As a non-Zionist Jewish critic of Israel snd a holder of two graduate degrees
From Penn I was tempted to write to the university , but you have put good words to what was in my mind
Clearly this has been a Neo conservative
Attack on the liberal university culture in America and ironically on least historically any Semitic university in the Ivy League
She should have said, I just read a wonderful book by James McBride called “The Heaven and Earth Grocery Store.” McBride’s mother was Jewish. His father was black. The book is about a community, near the old Pennhurst mental hospital, of a fascinating mix of Jews and blacks in the early part of the 20th century who rally around a deaf boy who is confined at Pennhurst. The readers will learn how communities can bond together and appreciate their differences. The characters are vividly drawn characters you’d love to know. The writing has sentences you’d like to read over again and again. The book leaves you filled with hope which what our focus as Presidents of universities should be. You do read Ms. Stefanik don’t you?
I should have said that calls for genocide are not free speech. I do understand that there are some limits on free speech.
As Justice Holmes wrote – The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.
And as our Founder, Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1922 (as Silence DoGood):
“Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech; which is the Right of every Man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or controul the Right of another: And this is the only Check it ought to suffer, and the only Bounds it ought to know.