[BostonCard]

One incident was a swastika painted on the wall of a Jewish fraternity house at UC Davis after a campus divestment campaign.  The frat boys claim this incident was the work of pro-Palestinian BDS activists.  But neither they nor the campus cops have come forth with a shred of evidence.  Their charge, nevertheless, follows a broader trend labeled the New Anti-Semitism.  Defenders of the Israeli government equate criticisms of Israel, especially university divestment proposals, with earlier forms of anti-Semitism based on Christian theology or Nazi-type racial theories. - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/03/blowback-o...UIFPk.dpuf

This makes no sense.  A swastika is a anti-Semitic message very distinct from opposition of Israel.  I certainly believe one can oppose Israeli policy without being antisemitic, and, I too disagree with much of Likud policy.  But spray-painting a swastika painted on a wall of a Jewish fraternity is more than mere "blowback" for Israeli policies.  There is certainly a line between opposition of Israeli policy, and antisemitism, but a swastika crosses it.

The questioning of the student at UCLA, while inappropriate, may or may not have been motivated by animus towards Jews.  But it is hard to see how painting a swastika isn't either anti-semitism or wanton disregard for the reception it would receive.

BC

[BostonCard]

One incident was a swastika painted on the wall of a Jewish fraternity house at UC Davis after a campus divestment campaign.  The frat boys claim this incident was the work of pro-Palestinian BDS activists.  But neither they nor the campus cops have come forth with a shred of evidence.  Their charge, nevertheless, follows a broader trend labeled the New Anti-Semitism.  Defenders of the Israeli government equate criticisms of Israel, especially university divestment proposals, with earlier forms of anti-Semitism based on Christian theology or Nazi-type racial theories. - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/03/blowback-o...UIFPk.dpuf

This makes no sense.  A swastika is a anti-Semitic message very distinct from opposition of Israel.  I certainly believe one can oppose Israeli policy without being antisemitic, and, I too disagree with much of Likud policy.  But spray-painting a swastika painted on a wall of a Jewish fraternity is more than mere "blowback" for Israeli policies.  There is certainly a line between opposition of Israeli policy, and antisemitism, but a swastika crosses it.

The questioning of the student at UCLA, while inappropriate, may or may not have been motivated by animus towards Jews.  But it is hard to see how painting a swastika isn't either anti-semitism or wanton disregard for the reception it would receive.

BC

[dabigv13]

Well, I think it depends on if you look at the intent of the perpetrator or the reception of the victim/public. I think it's much more likely than not that most people who spraypaint swastikas have no concept of the tenets of national socialism.

[dabigv13]

Well, I think it depends on if you look at the intent of the perpetrator or the reception of the victim/public. I think it's much more likely than not that most people who spraypaint swastikas have no concept of the tenets of national socialism.

[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=12033.msg117338#msg117338 date=1430173453]
[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=12033.msg117331#msg117331 date=1430164773]
... though I suppose you could make the case that intent doesn't really matter with hate speech.

hmmmmmm.

I'll go with: that's a brilliantly subtle exposure of the irony inherent in the definition.
[/quote]

One would have to be exceedingly ignorant not to know the implications of such a signal.  Thus, even if the intent was not to be explicitly express hate towards Jews on campus, one can argue that the callous disregard for the implications of such a symbol is itself hate.  In other words, the people who did it must have known the reaction it was going to cause and did it anyways, which itself is an expression of antisemitism.

By the way, that doesn't change if it was a member of a Jewish group "falsely portraying an antisemitic element at Stanford." Indeed, you can argue it is even more despicable, for it would be impossible for such a person not to know the reaction it would cause.  For such a person to be so callous and show a wanton disregard for the feelings of fellow Jews makes it worse, in my opinion.

I'm sorry, there are some symbols that are so clearly a sign of hatred that their use, even if not intended to be an expression of hatred, are a sign thereof.

BC
[/quote]

It's a sensitive topic, so I guess I had better be crystal clear.

My own comment was not on the overall topic of discussion here, but specifically on the rather odd contention that "intent doesn't really matter with hate speech". As I understand the term "hate speech", the entire construct is based upon intent - intent to harm somebody because of their religion, race, etc.
Thus I thought that stupac might be going for some further unstated proposition with the oxymoron.

[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=12033.msg117338#msg117338 date=1430173453]
[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=12033.msg117331#msg117331 date=1430164773]
... though I suppose you could make the case that intent doesn't really matter with hate speech.

hmmmmmm.

I'll go with: that's a brilliantly subtle exposure of the irony inherent in the definition.
[/quote]

One would have to be exceedingly ignorant not to know the implications of such a signal.  Thus, even if the intent was not to be explicitly express hate towards Jews on campus, one can argue that the callous disregard for the implications of such a symbol is itself hate.  In other words, the people who did it must have known the reaction it was going to cause and did it anyways, which itself is an expression of antisemitism.

By the way, that doesn't change if it was a member of a Jewish group "falsely portraying an antisemitic element at Stanford." Indeed, you can argue it is even more despicable, for it would be impossible for such a person not to know the reaction it would cause.  For such a person to be so callous and show a wanton disregard for the feelings of fellow Jews makes it worse, in my opinion.

I'm sorry, there are some symbols that are so clearly a sign of hatred that their use, even if not intended to be an expression of hatred, are a sign thereof.

BC
[/quote]

It's a sensitive topic, so I guess I had better be crystal clear.

My own comment was not on the overall topic of discussion here, but specifically on the rather odd contention that "intent doesn't really matter with hate speech". As I understand the term "hate speech", the entire construct is based upon intent - intent to harm somebody because of their religion, race, etc.
Thus I thought that stupac might be going for some further unstated proposition with the oxymoron.

[stupac2]

It's a sensitive topic, so I guess I had better be crystal clear.

My own comment was not on the overall topic of discussion here, but specifically on the rather odd contention that "intent doesn't really matter with hate speech". As I understand the term "hate speech", the entire construct is based upon intent - intent to harm somebody because of their religion, race, etc.
Thus I thought that stupac might be going for some further unstated proposition with the oxymoron.

I thought that calling it "trolling" would be clear. A troll is a person who says things he doesn't believe in order to get a reaction. It seems completely clear to me that a skinhead vandalizing a building with a swastika has a completely different mindset than someone who doesn't actually hate Jews, but wants to stir the pot. Whether or not that matters in terms of hate speech is something I'm not certain about (and frankly I don't really care).

All I know is that the idea that Stanford is inhospitable toward Jews is completely ludicrous based on my time there. Really the idea that academia, where Jews are probably the most overrepresented minority, is hostile to Jews is the sort of proposition that we should be really skeptical about.

[stupac2]

It's a sensitive topic, so I guess I had better be crystal clear.

My own comment was not on the overall topic of discussion here, but specifically on the rather odd contention that "intent doesn't really matter with hate speech". As I understand the term "hate speech", the entire construct is based upon intent - intent to harm somebody because of their religion, race, etc.
Thus I thought that stupac might be going for some further unstated proposition with the oxymoron.

I thought that calling it "trolling" would be clear. A troll is a person who says things he doesn't believe in order to get a reaction. It seems completely clear to me that a skinhead vandalizing a building with a swastika has a completely different mindset than someone who doesn't actually hate Jews, but wants to stir the pot. Whether or not that matters in terms of hate speech is something I'm not certain about (and frankly I don't really care).

All I know is that the idea that Stanford is inhospitable toward Jews is completely ludicrous based on my time there. Really the idea that academia, where Jews are probably the most overrepresented minority, is hostile to Jews is the sort of proposition that we should be really skeptical about.

[yvonne]

Isn't SAE the frat that came out of the South during Reconstruction? "There'll never be a ... SAE"

[yvonne]

Isn't SAE the frat that came out of the South during Reconstruction? "There'll never be a ... SAE"

[CTcard]

spray-painting a swastika painted on a wall of a Jewish fraternity is more than mere "blowback" for Israeli policies.  There is certainly a line between opposition of Israeli policy, and antisemitism, but a swastika crosses it.

Is SAE a Jewish fraternity?

No. But perhaps it has that flavour at Stanford today??

Alpha Epsilon Pi is a Jewish fraternity at Stanford.
http://aepi.stanford.edu/pages/chapter_history

[CTcard]

spray-painting a swastika painted on a wall of a Jewish fraternity is more than mere "blowback" for Israeli policies.  There is certainly a line between opposition of Israeli policy, and antisemitism, but a swastika crosses it.

Is SAE a Jewish fraternity?

No. But perhaps it has that flavour at Stanford today??

Alpha Epsilon Pi is a Jewish fraternity at Stanford.
http://aepi.stanford.edu/pages/chapter_history

[Ronnietrader]

"All I know is that the idea that Stanford is inhospitable toward Jews is completely ludicrous based on my time there. "

Not sure when you went to Stanford, but times have changed.  Not just here, but on campuses around the country, especially in California.  Many Jewish students are made to feel like outcasts.  Even John Hennessy has said the issue of divestment of Israel (which typically pits minorities against Jewish students) has been the most divisive -- by far --during his three decade time at Stanford.

[Ronnietrader]

"All I know is that the idea that Stanford is inhospitable toward Jews is completely ludicrous based on my time there. "

Not sure when you went to Stanford, but times have changed.  Not just here, but on campuses around the country, especially in California.  Many Jewish students are made to feel like outcasts.  Even John Hennessy has said the issue of divestment of Israel (which typically pits minorities against Jewish students) has been the most divisive -- by far --during his three decade time at Stanford.

[jacketree]

AEPi is the Jewish fraternity everywhere.  When I was an UG, they made the best pizza in downtown Atlanta. Probably kept half of our brotherhood, including me, alive to a certain extent.

I honestly don't know how a "Jewish fraternity" works.  Can they specifically exclude prospective members on the basis of religion and remain on campus?  Or do they just assume that only Jews will want to pledge a Jewish fraternity and leave it there?

I joined my own fraternity because there was none of that.  We had black brothers, Jewish brothers, a Hindu, a Buddhist, Asian brothers, a Puerto Rican from Puerto Rico, an Arab brother (guy from Riyadh; don't really know if he was Muslim, but who cares) and horrors of all horrors....Yankees.  (Brooklyn and the greater Long Island area were well represented for some odd reason.)  I was a guy from Colorado, which wasn't unusual for distance because we had guys from So Cal, Alaska and Maine.  No women beyond "little sisters" or anyone we could fool into coming through our door, so there were limits to our great inclusiveness of course.  Frankly we'd take Mohammet, Jugdish, Sidney and Clayton as long as they could pay the rent.  And throw a football.

[jacketree]

AEPi is the Jewish fraternity everywhere.  When I was an UG, they made the best pizza in downtown Atlanta. Probably kept half of our brotherhood, including me, alive to a certain extent.

I honestly don't know how a "Jewish fraternity" works.  Can they specifically exclude prospective members on the basis of religion and remain on campus?  Or do they just assume that only Jews will want to pledge a Jewish fraternity and leave it there?

I joined my own fraternity because there was none of that.  We had black brothers, Jewish brothers, a Hindu, a Buddhist, Asian brothers, a Puerto Rican from Puerto Rico, an Arab brother (guy from Riyadh; don't really know if he was Muslim, but who cares) and horrors of all horrors....Yankees.  (Brooklyn and the greater Long Island area were well represented for some odd reason.)  I was a guy from Colorado, which wasn't unusual for distance because we had guys from So Cal, Alaska and Maine.  No women beyond "little sisters" or anyone we could fool into coming through our door, so there were limits to our great inclusiveness of course.  Frankly we'd take Mohammet, Jugdish, Sidney and Clayton as long as they could pay the rent.  And throw a football.

[terry]

Many Jewish students are made to feel like outcasts.

How?

[terry]

Many Jewish students are made to feel like outcasts.

How?

[stupac2]

"All I know is that the idea that Stanford is inhospitable toward Jews is completely ludicrous based on my time there. "

Not sure when you went to Stanford, but times have changed.  Not just here, but on campuses around the country, especially in California.  Many Jewish students are made to feel like outcasts.  Even John Hennessy has said the issue of divestment of Israel (which typically pits minorities against Jewish students) has been the most divisive -- by far --during his three decade time at Stanford.

I graduated in 2009. I really doubt it's changed all that much in 6 years, it's not like the political situation is that much different.

Also, I think you're confusing antisemitism with disagreement about Israel. Reasonable people can think that divesting from Israel is necessary without being antisemitic. (Were people who wanted divestment from South Africa routinely called racist against white people? Not that I'm claiming they're similar, just that it's generally the same type of argument on the pro-divestment side, but radically different ones on the anti side.) Although I suppose it's possible that the way the divestment argument plays out involves antisemitism, though IIRC there was plenty of talk about this when I was there and if made Jews uncomfortable, well, none of my many Jewish friends told me.

[stupac2]

"All I know is that the idea that Stanford is inhospitable toward Jews is completely ludicrous based on my time there. "

Not sure when you went to Stanford, but times have changed.  Not just here, but on campuses around the country, especially in California.  Many Jewish students are made to feel like outcasts.  Even John Hennessy has said the issue of divestment of Israel (which typically pits minorities against Jewish students) has been the most divisive -- by far --during his three decade time at Stanford.

I graduated in 2009. I really doubt it's changed all that much in 6 years, it's not like the political situation is that much different.

Also, I think you're confusing antisemitism with disagreement about Israel. Reasonable people can think that divesting from Israel is necessary without being antisemitic. (Were people who wanted divestment from South Africa routinely called racist against white people? Not that I'm claiming they're similar, just that it's generally the same type of argument on the pro-divestment side, but radically different ones on the anti side.) Although I suppose it's possible that the way the divestment argument plays out involves antisemitism, though IIRC there was plenty of talk about this when I was there and if made Jews uncomfortable, well, none of my many Jewish friends told me.

[fullmetal]

stupac2, I graduated a little before you, but hearing from campus administrators who are worried about the situation tells me that, at the very least, campus administrators are worried about the situation.  If you don't think this situation is any different from our era, then I don't know what to tell you.

[fullmetal]

stupac2, I graduated a little before you, but hearing from campus administrators who are worried about the situation tells me that, at the very least, campus administrators are worried about the situation.  If you don't think this situation is any different from our era, then I don't know what to tell you.

[yvonne]

hearing from campus administrators who are worried about the situation tells me that, at the very least, campus administrators are worried about the situation. 

Nothing gets by you.

[yvonne]

hearing from campus administrators who are worried about the situation tells me that, at the very least, campus administrators are worried about the situation. 

Nothing gets by you.

[teejers1]

Not sure when you went to Stanford, but times have changed.  Not just here, but on campuses around the country, especially in California.  Many Jewish students are made to feel like outcasts.  Even John Hennessy has said the issue of divestment of Israel (which typically pits minorities against Jewish students) has been the most divisive -- by far --during his three decade time at Stanford."

I just don't buy the third sentence, at least as it pertains to Stanford.  And like others, I don't equate criticism of Israeli actions with anti-Semitism.  Actually, I am pro-Israel . . . except for the settlements, which I view as pretty indefensible and a significant hurdle to a two-state solution (though I also agree with prior comment that Palestinians are at fault for refusing prior compromises, especially the one brokered by Bill Clinton).

And separately, I view "hate crimes" as bad policy.  Punish the act(s), not what someone was supposedly thinking when engaged in the misconduct.  Seems straightforward to me, but then again, a lot of what I think is common-sensical is at odds with policy (or conventional wisdom or what have you).

[teejers1]

Not sure when you went to Stanford, but times have changed.  Not just here, but on campuses around the country, especially in California.  Many Jewish students are made to feel like outcasts.  Even John Hennessy has said the issue of divestment of Israel (which typically pits minorities against Jewish students) has been the most divisive -- by far --during his three decade time at Stanford."

I just don't buy the third sentence, at least as it pertains to Stanford.  And like others, I don't equate criticism of Israeli actions with anti-Semitism.  Actually, I am pro-Israel . . . except for the settlements, which I view as pretty indefensible and a significant hurdle to a two-state solution (though I also agree with prior comment that Palestinians are at fault for refusing prior compromises, especially the one brokered by Bill Clinton).

And separately, I view "hate crimes" as bad policy.  Punish the act(s), not what someone was supposedly thinking when engaged in the misconduct.  Seems straightforward to me, but then again, a lot of what I think is common-sensical is at odds with policy (or conventional wisdom or what have you).

[CTcard]

I don't equate criticism of Israeli actions with anti-Semitism. 

I don't either and I am pretty sure that at least most American Jews don't, though there has been considerable reporting of tensions arising in American Jewish communities over issues related to supporting the current Israeli government or not.

More to the point here, it is true that there have clearly been some situations that I have personally seen on college campuses lately where criticism the current Israeli government policies and support for a nation-state for Palestinians has morphed into expressions that have looked or sounded pretty antisemitic to me. A specific complaint turning to an intemperate condemnation of a broad swath of people is not exactly a rare occurrence - and something that needs to be addressed.

[CTcard]

I don't equate criticism of Israeli actions with anti-Semitism. 

I don't either and I am pretty sure that at least most American Jews don't, though there has been considerable reporting of tensions arising in American Jewish communities over issues related to supporting the current Israeli government or not.

More to the point here, it is true that there have clearly been some situations that I have personally seen on college campuses lately where criticism the current Israeli government policies and support for a nation-state for Palestinians has morphed into expressions that have looked or sounded pretty antisemitic to me. A specific complaint turning to an intemperate condemnation of a broad swath of people is not exactly a rare occurrence - and something that needs to be addressed.

[Ronnietrader]

Please go ahead and criticize Israel for her politics.  That is not only your right but responsibility in living in a democracy here and in Israel.  It is singling out (and arguably obsession) of Israel that unfairly makes Jewish students uneasy.  Is there a divestment campaign against Russia for its operations in Ukraine?  How about Iran and Yemen?  China with Tibet?  Egypt's sealing the Gaza border?  Or how about the persecution of gays and second class citizenship given to women in many Arab nations?  What about when Jordan "occupied" the same land pre-1967?  I can go on and on, yet only Israel is brought up to ASSU for divestment and allegedly has the most powerful students coalition on campus ask a potential endorsee if her Judaism will preclude her from voting fairly on the topic.  The BDS movement's only goal is to end Israel as a Jewish state.  More than two-thirds of the student senate has implicitly signed on to that while recent measures at Texas, Michigan, and Princeton failed while Northwestern passed with a much lower margin.  And now we have a swastika painted on fraternity which has at least 10 Jewish members including it's VP.  So yes, there is a burgeoning antisemitism problem at Stanford which the Administration wants to stop immediately before students and faculty start to look elsewhere.
 

[Ronnietrader]

Please go ahead and criticize Israel for her politics.  That is not only your right but responsibility in living in a democracy here and in Israel.  It is singling out (and arguably obsession) of Israel that unfairly makes Jewish students uneasy.  Is there a divestment campaign against Russia for its operations in Ukraine?  How about Iran and Yemen?  China with Tibet?  Egypt's sealing the Gaza border?  Or how about the persecution of gays and second class citizenship given to women in many Arab nations?  What about when Jordan "occupied" the same land pre-1967?  I can go on and on, yet only Israel is brought up to ASSU for divestment and allegedly has the most powerful students coalition on campus ask a potential endorsee if her Judaism will preclude her from voting fairly on the topic.  The BDS movement's only goal is to end Israel as a Jewish state.  More than two-thirds of the student senate has implicitly signed on to that while recent measures at Texas, Michigan, and Princeton failed while Northwestern passed with a much lower margin.  And now we have a swastika painted on fraternity which has at least 10 Jewish members including it's VP.  So yes, there is a burgeoning antisemitism problem at Stanford which the Administration wants to stop immediately before students and faculty start to look elsewhere.
 

[stupac2]

stupac2, I graduated a little before you, but hearing from campus administrators who are worried about the situation tells me that, at the very least, campus administrators are worried about the situation.  If you don't think this situation is any different from our era, then I don't know what to tell you.

I really don't see how that follows. It's very plausible that the same underlying reality has just received new attention/spin so that while nothing of substance has changed, the administrators (who are, in my experience, more worried about perceptions than realities anyway) are now worrying about ghosts.

[stupac2]

stupac2, I graduated a little before you, but hearing from campus administrators who are worried about the situation tells me that, at the very least, campus administrators are worried about the situation.  If you don't think this situation is any different from our era, then I don't know what to tell you.

I really don't see how that follows. It's very plausible that the same underlying reality has just received new attention/spin so that while nothing of substance has changed, the administrators (who are, in my experience, more worried about perceptions than realities anyway) are now worrying about ghosts.

[BostonCard]

Nicely put CTCard.

Although MOST people can and do differentiate between the policy of the Israeli government and animus towards Jews (many of whom disagree with the Israeli government), SOME people can blur the lines.  Moreover, a tense situation like the divestment debate can bring out latent antisemitism.  Both of these factors may be leading towards a climate that is less hospitable towards Jews than the warm environment that was present while I was at Stanford (mid-90's).

The converse situation is also possible.  While MOST Jews can and do differentiate between criticism of the Israeli government and animus towards Jews, SOME Jews fail to see that distinction and interpret criticism of Israel as blanket criticism of Jews.  Moreover, a tense situation like the divestment debate can bring out latent fears of anti-semitism.  Both of these factors may be leading towards a climate that makes Jews feel that Stanford is not the warm environment that existed while I was at Stanford (mid-90's).

BC

[BostonCard]

Nicely put CTCard.

Although MOST people can and do differentiate between the policy of the Israeli government and animus towards Jews (many of whom disagree with the Israeli government), SOME people can blur the lines.  Moreover, a tense situation like the divestment debate can bring out latent antisemitism.  Both of these factors may be leading towards a climate that is less hospitable towards Jews than the warm environment that was present while I was at Stanford (mid-90's).

The converse situation is also possible.  While MOST Jews can and do differentiate between criticism of the Israeli government and animus towards Jews, SOME Jews fail to see that distinction and interpret criticism of Israel as blanket criticism of Jews.  Moreover, a tense situation like the divestment debate can bring out latent fears of anti-semitism.  Both of these factors may be leading towards a climate that makes Jews feel that Stanford is not the warm environment that existed while I was at Stanford (mid-90's).

BC

[Rally]

stupac2, I graduated a little before you, but hearing from campus administrators who are worried about the situation tells me that, at the very least, campus administrators are worried about the situation.  If you don't think this situation is any different from our era, then I don't know what to tell you.

I am not Jewish and don't pay that much attention to Israeli affairs, but I do have the impression antisemitism is growing worldwide, in the U.S., and on college campuses.  When I read things like a UN commission singalling Israel out as the worst human rights violator in the world (a list the U.S. often makes as well) I have to wonder if antisemitism isn't at least partially involved. 

I suspect on campus, if one were to stand up and defend the Israeli government, at least some would sneer, maybe under their breath, maybe not, "Jew." 

I agree with whoever said, above, something like where is the call for divestment from China?  Saudi?  Until then I write these kids off as not yet emotionally mature or, perhaps, antisemitise.  I can't wait until the UN thanks Israel and many Arab nations for sending aid to Nepal.  Oh, wait . . . .

[Rally]

stupac2, I graduated a little before you, but hearing from campus administrators who are worried about the situation tells me that, at the very least, campus administrators are worried about the situation.  If you don't think this situation is any different from our era, then I don't know what to tell you.

I am not Jewish and don't pay that much attention to Israeli affairs, but I do have the impression antisemitism is growing worldwide, in the U.S., and on college campuses.  When I read things like a UN commission singalling Israel out as the worst human rights violator in the world (a list the U.S. often makes as well) I have to wonder if antisemitism isn't at least partially involved. 

I suspect on campus, if one were to stand up and defend the Israeli government, at least some would sneer, maybe under their breath, maybe not, "Jew." 

I agree with whoever said, above, something like where is the call for divestment from China?  Saudi?  Until then I write these kids off as not yet emotionally mature or, perhaps, antisemitise.  I can't wait until the UN thanks Israel and many Arab nations for sending aid to Nepal.  Oh, wait . . . .

[SUBuddha]

I am as goyim as it gets. I did run the summer camp at the JCC for several years (sorry not to make light but that phrase seems to echo the Holiday Express ads to me), and I am very aware of antisemitism both in general, and against people I know. When I saw the article on SAE my first thought was that it was despicable, but that the criminal was accusing SAE of being antisemitic, not being antisemitic themselves. The pentagram at one of the other houses seems to affirm that to me. In essence, my gut reaction was that this act was accusing SAE (which was my fathers fraternity on the farm in the '60s) of antisemitism.

When I was an undergrad my fraternity (we did not have a house) frequently made jokes about the lack of diversity and apparent closet racism in SAE and Sigma Chi. Then again my fraternity was very diverse and had many racial groups and openly gay members. So, perchance, we were hyper sensitive to diversity issues.

I actually remember a band skit at halftime during my time on the farm that accused a couple of houses of racism during David Duke's short lived run for president. IIRC they suggested that if Duke won Sigma Chi would be renamed Kappa Kappa Kappa.

I get the offensiveness of the symbols used and despise it, but it could be that the symbols were not an attack on SAE's possibly Jewish members, but instead, an indictment of their non-diversity. They may be a different house from 20 years ago (I hope so at least), and no matter the reason, I can clearly see how that symbol is seen as an attack on a population on campus.

However, like Stupac, in my time on campus, I never observed any acts of overt antisemitism on campus. Homophobia, yes, antisemitism, no.

[SUBuddha]

I am as goyim as it gets. I did run the summer camp at the JCC for several years (sorry not to make light but that phrase seems to echo the Holiday Express ads to me), and I am very aware of antisemitism both in general, and against people I know. When I saw the article on SAE my first thought was that it was despicable, but that the criminal was accusing SAE of being antisemitic, not being antisemitic themselves. The pentagram at one of the other houses seems to affirm that to me. In essence, my gut reaction was that this act was accusing SAE (which was my fathers fraternity on the farm in the '60s) of antisemitism.

When I was an undergrad my fraternity (we did not have a house) frequently made jokes about the lack of diversity and apparent closet racism in SAE and Sigma Chi. Then again my fraternity was very diverse and had many racial groups and openly gay members. So, perchance, we were hyper sensitive to diversity issues.

I actually remember a band skit at halftime during my time on the farm that accused a couple of houses of racism during David Duke's short lived run for president. IIRC they suggested that if Duke won Sigma Chi would be renamed Kappa Kappa Kappa.

I get the offensiveness of the symbols used and despise it, but it could be that the symbols were not an attack on SAE's possibly Jewish members, but instead, an indictment of their non-diversity. They may be a different house from 20 years ago (I hope so at least), and no matter the reason, I can clearly see how that symbol is seen as an attack on a population on campus.

However, like Stupac, in my time on campus, I never observed any acts of overt antisemitism on campus. Homophobia, yes, antisemitism, no.

[BostonCard]

Wouldn't that be like hanging a noose from a tree to send a message that a fraternity was racist?  Even if the intent was to make a statement about sae, it was such callous disregard for the sensitivities attached to the symbol that it was blatantly offensive to Jews (and more broadly to anyone with reasonable sensitivities), just like a noose would be blatantly offensive to Blacks, but more broadly to anyone who saw it.

BC

[BostonCard]

Wouldn't that be like hanging a noose from a tree to send a message that a fraternity was racist?  Even if the intent was to make a statement about sae, it was such callous disregard for the sensitivities attached to the symbol that it was blatantly offensive to Jews (and more broadly to anyone with reasonable sensitivities), just like a noose would be blatantly offensive to Blacks, but more broadly to anyone who saw it.

BC