Michael Tomasky’s editorial in The New Republic today. He’s right on all points. TC Almost everyone has been piling on that pitiful troika of elite university presidents after their congressional testimony on Tuesday. A few other folks, people I know and respect like
Have to agree that these Presidents were ill-prepared. Congressional interrogations are not like the old days where the person testifying was treated with the respect and the courtesy due their position. Tough questions for sure, but then the intent was to learn and draw conclusions about the positions before the committee. A college president walking into the den of MAGA could not have been more effete than the clips I saw. Every answer provided should have been preceded by a 5-second stare at the interrogator, as in What in the world are you asking such a question? And, Are you a moron? Maybe 7 seconds. Followed by an answer that has passion and values, probably to a question they had prepared to substitute into the record. Embarrassing as an act of political suicide.
"Every answer provided should have been preceded by a 5-second stare at the interrogator, as in What in the world are you asking such a question? And, Are you a moron? " YES.
At the risk of repetition, below is the Comment I posted at Robert Hubbell's newsletter, in response to his take on the testimony by the three university presidents, which reserved criticism for the university presidents, failing to note how they were sandbagged (and, yes, woefully unprepared, as Mr. Tomasky points out), with not a word of critique for Rep. Stefanik.
It is not evident in the extensive reporting on the subject of questioning by Elise Stefanik during the hearing Mr. Hubbell refers to in this post, that those writing about this event watched the video of Ms. Stefanik's questioning. I have provided medical-legal testimony hundreds of times and it requires extensive experience to respond appropriately when questioning is carried out in the tone and manner as exhibited by Ms. Stefanik. She utilizes the technique of rapid-fire delivery in an imperious tone which is intimidating to those with little experience being interrogated as a hostile witness would be. She also uses the technique of asking a long complicated question and demanding that it be answered yes or no. She also used the method of adding the word, "Correct?" at the end of a statement, thereby channeling the witness into endorsing how the interrogating party wishes to phrase things, rather than speak their own words. She also would interrupt the witness, which is intimidating and, frankly, disrespectful and bullying. In my view, Ms. Stefanik's questioning was not designed to explore or illuminate. It was designed to intimidate and sandbag the witness, and, reading the commentary about it, that proved successful.
This was Ms. Stefanik's first question to Dr. Gay that included the word "intifada": "You are president of Harvard, so I assume you are familiar with the term 'intifada', correct?" It is evident from the response that the witness was not familiar with the term. She said, "I have heard that term, yes."
Having heard a word and being "familiar" with it are two different things. Beyond that, being familiar with a word does not mean that a person is intimately aware of the precise definition of it. Therefore, Dr. Gay did not express familiarity - she only said she had heard it, which allows that she might not be familiar with the meaning of it.
Ms. Stefanik than asserted, "And you understand that the use of the term 'intifada' in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict is indeed a call for violent, armed resistance against the state of Israel including violence against civilians and the genocide of Jews. Are you aware of that?"
First, that characterization of the use of the word intifada is not accurate, since the word refers to a wide variety of actions resisting military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza following the 1967 war, and considered illegal under international law since that time, and the right of occupied populations to resist that occupation is recognized as legitimate. The first intifada, which began in 1987, was predominantly peaceful, for example (the first suicide bombing, for example, did not place until 1993), and the violence that did occur in the first 13-months of the first intifada brought about the deaths of 12 Israelis and 332 Palestinians.
Therefore, Dr. Gay's answer should have been that Ms. Stefanik's characterization of "intifada' as synonymous with a call for genocide of Jews was inaccurate.
Instead, Dr. Gay replied, "That type of personal speech is personally abhorrent to me." That answer is tangential and does not endorse that Ms. Stefanik's characterization of the meaning of the word "intifada" was correct.
Ms. Stefanik then said, "And there have been multiple marches at Harvard with students chanting. 'There is only one solution, intifada revolution', and 'globalize the intifada', is that correct?" Dr. Gay replied, "I have heard that thoughtless, reckless and hateful language on our campus, yes."
Here, Ms. Stefanik has effectively sandbagged Dr. Gay into appearing to endorse the incorrect characterization of what those phrases mean.
For example, I take the "intifada revolution" to mean resistance of an illegal military occupation, which can refer to a wide variety of actions, including marching and chanting, as the students were doing, and that such actions should be carried out around the globe in solidarity with the aims of the Palestinians of the occupied territories to end that occupation. No doubt some would take the meaning further and advocate for violence, but those options do not define the term intifada as explicitly calling for genocide, which is what Ms. Stefanik is claiming it means.
Ms. Stefanik then proceeded in her method of corralling Dr. Gay, she said, "So, based upon your testimony, you understand that this call for intifada is to commit genocide against the Jewish people in Israel and globally, is that correct?"
That misstates Dr. Gay's testimony, which a review of the above summary makes clear. Dr. Gay then reverted to her boilerplate response about her personal abhorrence at this "hateful" speech.
In her next question, Ms. Stefanik then expanded her claim that the term intifada and phrases that include it call for "the elimination of Israel." That makes her characterization of the term even more inaccurate. This is yet another method used in questioning by prosecutors facing a hostile witness.
She then again mischaracterized Dr. Gay's testimony, claiming that Dr. Gay had testified that this was Dr. Gay's understanding of the word 'intifada."
Similar close analysis of the remainder of Ms. Stefanik's additional 3-minutes of questioning of Dr. Gay reveals similar methods and mischaracterization. Unfortunately, the sound bites and headlines fail to reflect an appreciation for the complexity here.
Frankly, this carelessness led Mr. Hubbell to endorse the narrative that the responses of these three university presidents qualified as anti-semitic endorsement of genocide against the Jewish people.
That is a gross mischaracterization, as the additional 3-hours of testimony, including the opening statements by each of the witnesses, made clear.
With regard to the question about whether Harvard would rescind admission offers or take other disciplinary students against students using the phrase "from the river to the sea" or the word "intifada advocating for the murder of Jews", here again, Rep. Stefanik further expands her assertion to name a different phrase, which is a sandbagging rhetorical device, for which this witness was not prepared.
Mr. Hubbell claims that "As the question was starkly framed by Rep. Stefanik, that answer was self-evident." I disagree, and the above explication of the question-and-answer by Ms. Stefanik demonstrates why I hold this view.
It is important to note that Ms. Stefanik's support of Israel is unqualified. In March of this year, when President Biden expressed concern about the state of democracy in Israel, in light of the effort to overhaul the judicial system to make it subordinate to the legislative branch, which Netanyahu directed as P.M. (efforts that brought about the most long-standing and massive protests Israel has ever seen), Ms. Stefanik said the next day 3/30/2023 that President Biden's remarks were "hostile" and "shameful." In fact, President Biden's concern on this issue is in line with the majority of the residents of Israel.
In the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, it is crucial that words and phrases, and questions and the answers to them, be very carefully analyzed to avoid miscommunication that can then be exploited for political purposes.
In other words - a Republican-run hearing. Their point is not to elicit information from witnesses - the whole point IS to sandbag, intimidate & mischaracterize - getting those soundbites out there. It doesnt matter who the witness is or what their expertise is - those are the points each Repub. is looking for - nothing else.
Yep, that's the deal. I just thought it might be instructive to describe the methodology. Anyone going in front of these congressional panels should be prepared to turn the tables by pointing to the hypocrisy of those doing the questioning, and be prepared to evade being channeled into endorsing wording that is not one's own. You are so right that the soundbites are the game, and they are very, very good at it. You have to be ready with soundbites of your own.
I was verbally assaulted like this once by a "Christian" state representative when I was giving testimony, but it also felt like a physical assault, like the breath was sucked out of me. Yes, anyone going up against these tyrants needs to be thoroughly prepped with facts and responses, but also conditioned to withstand pure evil.
You are so correct, and I can fully understand how you felt. It was not until I had gone through at least 20 depositions or more, before I had settled into the realization that the power dynamic favors the deponent, IF they know that, and have a few tools for how to respond when questioning becomes aggressive and manipulative. For example, if a question is at all lengthy, the witness/deponent can simply reply, "I don't understand the question", or "I disagree with the pretext of your question." One can also call out the method of making a long statement and then demanding, "Correct" at the end to create a "question." For example, "Representative Stefanik, I have my own way of explaining what I want to say, and with topics as important and complex as what we are discussing here today, I am not willing to endorse your wording as 100% what I would say, especially when it is a long statement to which the word "correct" is added at the end, which makes a statement grammatically transform into what is only technically a question." OMG, if Dr. Gay had said that, I would have laughed out loud. Stefanik would likely have embarrassed herself, since she is a bully, and we all know that happens when people successfully stand up to bullies. Another tool that the university presidents failed to use if is to provide a very long answer, which chews up time, and if the congressperson tries to cut you off, you patiently explain that their question deserves a complete answer. I saw Dick Cheney totally disarm a quality journalist as if it were child's play, using such techniques. It's not just a matter of knowledge, as the hearing with these university presidents revealed.
I send out a sort of "newsletter" to members of my climate change advocacy group (CCL) and other folks I have met up with over the last few years. This is an example of the kind of thing this may include (taken from most recent one):
In the 10/2023 issue of the journal Biological Conservation is a massive study of wildlife rehabilitation efforts (674,320 records, spanning 1975-2019) that demonstrated how human activities are impacting animals in the wild, as the interface with humans increases due to habitat encroachment and other factors.
Climate change is another way that human activity is threatening wildlife. Specifically in relation to climate change, the article points out that extreme weather events, to which climate change is contributing, were followed by increased numbers of animals arriving at rehab centers over the subsequent week.
This varied by location and type of event. Hurricanes and floods in southern Florida were particularly problematic. This effect was greater in more recent years, which the authors considered as possibly due to the increasing intensity and frequency of extreme weather events over time (NAS, 2016; Ummenhofer and Meehl, 2017). Per other studies, multiple other extreme events adversely affect wildlife health, mortality, and reproduction. These include cyclones, droughts, high rainfall, floods, cold waves, heat waves, and marine heat waves (Cohen et al., 2020; Maxwell et al., 2019; Piatt et al., 2020; Pruvot et al., 2019). Heat, as one example, may have immediate effect on one species (e.g., mass die-off of bats, or marine birds), but affect other species in more gradual fashion. The authors recommend that disaster management plans take the effects on wildlife into account, particularly for rare and endangered species, and increased funding for wildlife rehab centers following such events.
TAKEAWAY: This represents yet another complication and cost, both financial and in animal suffering and population declines, of extreme weather events, which are already recognized as greatly taxing governmental and private resources.
************
One of the other sections of that newsletter provided an explicit comparison of the weapons available to and used by Hamas fighters versus those of the Israeli Defense Forces, and how this quite phenomenal power imbalance is reflected in the tactics utilized by these opponents (guerrilla attacks versus massive bombing). So, you can see my net is a wide one.
If this is the kind of thing you might find of interest, send me an email at bertrandbartok@gmail.com, and I will include you. If you find you deleting it without reading it at all, just ask to be removed - no worries. Just a thought. Gary
TC. I was wondering last night, why did Tuberville release his hold on military promotions now and what strategy is behind the 11 exceptions of highest ranking leadership positions just before we go into holiday recess and the start up of the 2024 election cycle? Then, I got to remembering Trump's promise to clean house, get even, and make day 1 of his presidency a day to remember. I don't know a lot about all of the 11 highest ranking nominations/promotions on hold, but why those to remain on hold probably through primaries and up to November voting? Would these position become the core for Trump politicizing the leadership of the military? His praetorian guard, so to speak, or his Generals and Admiral to be in place and ready to carry out his take over or actual coup? If those and a few other highest level officers of our military be up for promotion, where would the best nominees come from? Project 2025 being readied under the careful hands of Tuberville and Johnson? The only thing worse than overestimating the intelligence of our opponents is to underestimate the cunning and strategic skills that have made them such a threat. Your thoughts?
Well, unfortunately there are a large cohort of senior military who live up to the caricature of the Military Wingnut Dumbass, along the Curt LeMay prototype, so yeah, given the 11 are all the senior operational theater/major command commanders, Tuberville could be holding them open for the election. Not a good sign. But with only 11 the Democrats could break things with individual votes, if they're smart enough to realize it's Important (always a question whether they do).
I agree that the delay in approving the four-star generals is so those positions can be given to different high-ranking military men who would lick Trump's shoes on Day One and thereafter, and that they would follow his orders under the Insurrection Act. We cannot let that happen.
You can have mine too. Exactly what it looks like to me. Chump is driving the narrative with the rep reps as surrogates until he can sit on the throne himself. Be very afraid.
I have believed all along that abortion was contentious enough cover that people would not think of that. All the discussion has been about paid travel for female personel and the lives on hold for military families. Holding up the highest slots are very much in keeping with the expressed day one plans.
he makes a good point. At the very LEAST the initial response should have been "why do you think genocide is part of intifada in general? Are you in agreement with Hamas, a group of about 30K people out of billions in the world as to the definition? Or are you just making up a definition in aid of making a "gotcha."
Stefanik also referred to this as the Israeli ARAB war. Last I heard there were a whole lot of Arabs who deplore it, and in the case of Qatar are actively working to resolve it.
I used to make the same mistake of conflating Palestinians with Arabs (or Muslims, for that matter). then I found myself working with a woman who was a very angry Palestinian and an absurdly devout Catholic. I mean the kind of Catholic who thought that prick Ratzinger needed to be loved BECAUSE he'd been elected Pope.
If you dwell too much on convincing the faculty that you're not just a money-raiser, that you're down with tolerance absolutely, you may not have words for normies, much less for the glibly intolerant.
VERY well put!! And yes - they certainly should have been better prepared. It would seem that none of them have made the effort to actually WATCH what goes on in these Republican-run hearings. I dont watch them much at all. BUT having seen the video clips of the ones where the witnesses actually took these attackers on? They're all over Utube. Someone made sure THEY were prepared & ready!
The university presidents mostly have a cushy job except for the PR aspects. Most of them are picked because they’re the least offensive choice for a go between for the school and legislators, the media, and the general public. Bland and vanilla are the flavors of the day here…hard to get passion and drama from a dead fish because the wrong words or context will get them in hot water so fast, so they have to be that way to save their jobs.
fundraising is PRECISELY the reason they're "elected." fundraising and looking like they're "serious enough" (whatever THAT might have meant...obviously, in THIS case, there's some significant "falling short."
I figure THIS single aspect is especially important in this era of unaffordable college, although I'm unaware of ANY college presidents who have spoken up about this scandalous situation. in fact, I wonder how long a president would last who decided to attack obscene tuition charges. I know a kid who's on a mostly full scholarship at the University of Rochester. he wrote a paper that every person in his family thought was brilliant. I asked for a copy and thought that since the kid was a freshman who hadn't yet taken a real composition class, I might have been able to grant it a C (or even C plus) if it had been significantly revised so that it, at very least, fulfilled the assignment. but to keep the peace, I said that the situation didn't include me. it was a smart move...the teacher gave the paper a B+. I found a listing of national tuition rates, and The University of Rochester has one of the very highest in the country...$65,000/year. obscene at a quarter of the price. and that's not even mentioning all the famously scintillating Rochester nightlife.
now one thing has gotta be true: either the teacher is incompetent (and MANY college teachers are incompetent as TEACHERS because most of them have never had to demonstrate any kind of competence in the classroom) OR they're calculating that if they want to keep the peace (not to mention the job itself), they'd better give out good grades. that tenure shit don't grow on trees. and now, I'm wondering what percentage of the faculty is adjunct...
It's choice #2 - a C grade is hardly ever given and if it was, the kid would be contesting it in front of some committee, with his attorney, and the school would be persecuting the teacher. American higher education is so corrupt now it's unbelievable. 20 years ago, while I was in a "fallow" period screenwriting-wise, I was asked and accepted to teach screenwriting at the Pasadena arts high school - a "selective" school. The first day, I asked how many had read 10 books in the previous year they didn't have to for school. No response. I kept knocking it down one, and FINALLY got two kids to raise their hands for reading TWO BOOKS they didn't have to. I gave them a lecture on how you cannot write if you do not read, and then I asked them to write a five sentence paragraph about themselves. Most of them were unreadable, and when they were returned with "F" on them - and the three high grades were two Ds and a C, there was a revolt. "I've never gotten a grade below B, and only 3 of those!" from one kid. Two of them started crying. At the end of the class, I went to the office and told them I was quitting, that they were harming the kids by letting them thing bullshit work was good. I pointed out that Real World doesn't give fucking participation trophies.
you sound like me, Tom. but that's hardly accidental.
your story is very consistent with stories I keep hearing from friends who ended up teaching in college, which was my original plan. I'm glad I didn't go that route.
I was reading the student evaluations of my old friend's kid, the legal historian who was hired with tenure by his alma mater, the University of Michigan Law School. they were universally excellent, but there were comments about the course's demands that seemed to come from spoiled snowflakes.
I managed to pull a five-credit D in Elementary Calculus (with tutoring by one of the leading lights of the Math Dept....sometimes, it's good to have friends in high places) and I was fucking ecstatic. I was a star English student, but at the end of the semester for which I was drunk every day, I got Ds in pretty much everything.
and as much as I hate to admit this, if I'd been in a school with a $64,000.00/yr. pricetag, I would have done some official bitching and moaning.
there's gotta be a better way.
actually, there ARE, but they'd make too many rich people too upset.
Thank you, TC. Mr. Tomasky is passionately correct. I often think of a verbal encounter with someone like Ms. Stefanik or Ms. Greene. Withering would begin with my glance to them and continue to full out desiccation of their holier than thou, misguided, stupid (a choice), MAGAt views of We the People by simply infusing my passion for democracy and my love of neighbor into my retort.
This is not the time to be mealy mouthed and complacent and assuming. Sharpen the tongue and get your passion for our country into the forge and fire it up!
Salud, TC. Do you have some holiday decorations out? Perhaps a catnip elf for the kitties to chase? Lol
During phone banking and getting out young voters to register, I often give an impromptu class on the art of withering. I find it odd that people are so careful in responses to MAGAt absurdities and pitiful bravado. So many Repub politicians ready to break if you just twist and snap one branch or muss one hair on their heads. The facade crumbles. They have zero nourishment because they feed on fear. And I mean that.
So let’s get with it. Scary but don’t be afraid for one dang second.
Couldn’t agree more. They are not innocent babes. They know that republicans have their flame throwers on blast. Same is true for journalists who interview these cretins. Normal opposition, they ain’t…
generally speaking, anything Mike Tomasky says needs to be heard. and I sure hope he can be the one to restore "The New Republic" to its former glory.
what I've never figured out is how ANYONE EVER thought Andrew Sullivan was an appropriate editor for ANYTHING, let alone one with a very old radical legacy.
if education in this country is bad for a long, complicated list of reasons, I can make an attempt at a joke by saying something like "well, being 'higher,' 'higher education" is bad to a 'higher degree' or something. but it's not funny.
the one thing you mention, Tom, is how ill-prepared they were, and they were. the problem is, we all know it is most assuredly NOT because any of the three avoided massive amounts of "preparation."
I have to admit that, for entirely personal reasons, I LOVE stories about these expensive "consultants" being shown up to be not just "normal fuckups" like the rest of us but SUPER INFINITE MAJESTICAL FUCKUPS, on the level of, say, their crazy-ass FEES.
oh they had a LOT of THAT preparation and the Alumni Associations (or however these insane fees are funded at the institutional level to cause the least amount of institutional pain) are gonna be hurting for awhile. but if they'd gotten bupkis for their money, they'd be in better shape than they're gonna be for awhile.
it wasn't just the pathetic weakness of the presidents' responses, but how obviously lock-step they were...like folks who either 1) needed a lot more rehearsing or 2)had unconsciously decided to use some little Brechtian tricks for foregrounding the performative aspects of their roles. either way, it's not looking good. and the solution (Tom's, for the example closest at hand) is SO MUCH SIMPLER, with the fact that it's true being like some kind of added BONUS.
falling back on the "I'm about defending the indefensible because I'm definitely somebody else's indefensible" has always struck me as being about as close as things get to a win/win strategy in most parts of life
I'm Jewish (obviously) and I kinda like Israel (whether Israel liked me is another story). and Hamas did horrible things and retaliation was appropriate. but this really does strike me as too much.
I was hoping that, based on the backlash against what feels like overkill, the Israelis would use the humanitarian pauses to consider an actual cease-fire. which is to say that I was hoping that Netanyahu wouldn't behave like Netanyahu.
There are so many excellent comments I need not add any. Apparently a "legal firm" "prepared" the 3 university presidents. In hindsight, they would have benefitted from a meeting with Mr. Tomasky and others with deep understanding of the long, tortured history of Palestine. Ufortunately that firm was not up to the task OR maybe something else was going on behind the scenes. Stefanik represents a danger to democracy but so do people too long insulated and assured they would be above reproach. McCarthyism returns dressed in red baseball caps. People who do not understand that the congress passed a resolution equating uttering the term "Zionism" was an anti-semitic utterance. IMHO nothing could be further from the truth but there it is. The government of Israel has acted with impunity toward Palestinians and done everything to end any action that might have created a Palestinian state. I'm not saying that would have been the best option given the long and complicated history of peoples in this part of the world, but that was the intention 70+ years ago. And we should know more and understand more about the why behind all these failures. Today at last the NYT has a long article about how Bibi and Likud have over long years supported Hamas. Bibi has been so busy protecting his backside with his far right government that he did not respect his own security services concerns. October 7 did not have to happen. That it has happened, that the very same brutality practiced by russia, wagner group, isis,etc cannot and should not be missed. Terror is the point. What the government of israel proves now is that they can match the brutality of hamas. And the US, instead of withholding their UN vote, vote no. Why the UN is made powerless day after day, year after year. More than sad.
Have to agree that these Presidents were ill-prepared. Congressional interrogations are not like the old days where the person testifying was treated with the respect and the courtesy due their position. Tough questions for sure, but then the intent was to learn and draw conclusions about the positions before the committee. A college president walking into the den of MAGA could not have been more effete than the clips I saw. Every answer provided should have been preceded by a 5-second stare at the interrogator, as in What in the world are you asking such a question? And, Are you a moron? Maybe 7 seconds. Followed by an answer that has passion and values, probably to a question they had prepared to substitute into the record. Embarrassing as an act of political suicide.
So tired of “my side” engaging in political suicide.” Especially against the mad millions and their master con.
"Every answer provided should have been preceded by a 5-second stare at the interrogator, as in What in the world are you asking such a question? And, Are you a moron? " YES.
At the risk of repetition, below is the Comment I posted at Robert Hubbell's newsletter, in response to his take on the testimony by the three university presidents, which reserved criticism for the university presidents, failing to note how they were sandbagged (and, yes, woefully unprepared, as Mr. Tomasky points out), with not a word of critique for Rep. Stefanik.
It is not evident in the extensive reporting on the subject of questioning by Elise Stefanik during the hearing Mr. Hubbell refers to in this post, that those writing about this event watched the video of Ms. Stefanik's questioning. I have provided medical-legal testimony hundreds of times and it requires extensive experience to respond appropriately when questioning is carried out in the tone and manner as exhibited by Ms. Stefanik. She utilizes the technique of rapid-fire delivery in an imperious tone which is intimidating to those with little experience being interrogated as a hostile witness would be. She also uses the technique of asking a long complicated question and demanding that it be answered yes or no. She also used the method of adding the word, "Correct?" at the end of a statement, thereby channeling the witness into endorsing how the interrogating party wishes to phrase things, rather than speak their own words. She also would interrupt the witness, which is intimidating and, frankly, disrespectful and bullying. In my view, Ms. Stefanik's questioning was not designed to explore or illuminate. It was designed to intimidate and sandbag the witness, and, reading the commentary about it, that proved successful.
This was Ms. Stefanik's first question to Dr. Gay that included the word "intifada": "You are president of Harvard, so I assume you are familiar with the term 'intifada', correct?" It is evident from the response that the witness was not familiar with the term. She said, "I have heard that term, yes."
Having heard a word and being "familiar" with it are two different things. Beyond that, being familiar with a word does not mean that a person is intimately aware of the precise definition of it. Therefore, Dr. Gay did not express familiarity - she only said she had heard it, which allows that she might not be familiar with the meaning of it.
Ms. Stefanik than asserted, "And you understand that the use of the term 'intifada' in the context of the Israeli-Arab conflict is indeed a call for violent, armed resistance against the state of Israel including violence against civilians and the genocide of Jews. Are you aware of that?"
First, that characterization of the use of the word intifada is not accurate, since the word refers to a wide variety of actions resisting military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza following the 1967 war, and considered illegal under international law since that time, and the right of occupied populations to resist that occupation is recognized as legitimate. The first intifada, which began in 1987, was predominantly peaceful, for example (the first suicide bombing, for example, did not place until 1993), and the violence that did occur in the first 13-months of the first intifada brought about the deaths of 12 Israelis and 332 Palestinians.
Therefore, Dr. Gay's answer should have been that Ms. Stefanik's characterization of "intifada' as synonymous with a call for genocide of Jews was inaccurate.
Instead, Dr. Gay replied, "That type of personal speech is personally abhorrent to me." That answer is tangential and does not endorse that Ms. Stefanik's characterization of the meaning of the word "intifada" was correct.
Ms. Stefanik then said, "And there have been multiple marches at Harvard with students chanting. 'There is only one solution, intifada revolution', and 'globalize the intifada', is that correct?" Dr. Gay replied, "I have heard that thoughtless, reckless and hateful language on our campus, yes."
Here, Ms. Stefanik has effectively sandbagged Dr. Gay into appearing to endorse the incorrect characterization of what those phrases mean.
For example, I take the "intifada revolution" to mean resistance of an illegal military occupation, which can refer to a wide variety of actions, including marching and chanting, as the students were doing, and that such actions should be carried out around the globe in solidarity with the aims of the Palestinians of the occupied territories to end that occupation. No doubt some would take the meaning further and advocate for violence, but those options do not define the term intifada as explicitly calling for genocide, which is what Ms. Stefanik is claiming it means.
Ms. Stefanik then proceeded in her method of corralling Dr. Gay, she said, "So, based upon your testimony, you understand that this call for intifada is to commit genocide against the Jewish people in Israel and globally, is that correct?"
That misstates Dr. Gay's testimony, which a review of the above summary makes clear. Dr. Gay then reverted to her boilerplate response about her personal abhorrence at this "hateful" speech.
In her next question, Ms. Stefanik then expanded her claim that the term intifada and phrases that include it call for "the elimination of Israel." That makes her characterization of the term even more inaccurate. This is yet another method used in questioning by prosecutors facing a hostile witness.
She then again mischaracterized Dr. Gay's testimony, claiming that Dr. Gay had testified that this was Dr. Gay's understanding of the word 'intifada."
Similar close analysis of the remainder of Ms. Stefanik's additional 3-minutes of questioning of Dr. Gay reveals similar methods and mischaracterization. Unfortunately, the sound bites and headlines fail to reflect an appreciation for the complexity here.
Frankly, this carelessness led Mr. Hubbell to endorse the narrative that the responses of these three university presidents qualified as anti-semitic endorsement of genocide against the Jewish people.
That is a gross mischaracterization, as the additional 3-hours of testimony, including the opening statements by each of the witnesses, made clear.
With regard to the question about whether Harvard would rescind admission offers or take other disciplinary students against students using the phrase "from the river to the sea" or the word "intifada advocating for the murder of Jews", here again, Rep. Stefanik further expands her assertion to name a different phrase, which is a sandbagging rhetorical device, for which this witness was not prepared.
Mr. Hubbell claims that "As the question was starkly framed by Rep. Stefanik, that answer was self-evident." I disagree, and the above explication of the question-and-answer by Ms. Stefanik demonstrates why I hold this view.
It is important to note that Ms. Stefanik's support of Israel is unqualified. In March of this year, when President Biden expressed concern about the state of democracy in Israel, in light of the effort to overhaul the judicial system to make it subordinate to the legislative branch, which Netanyahu directed as P.M. (efforts that brought about the most long-standing and massive protests Israel has ever seen), Ms. Stefanik said the next day 3/30/2023 that President Biden's remarks were "hostile" and "shameful." In fact, President Biden's concern on this issue is in line with the majority of the residents of Israel.
In the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, it is crucial that words and phrases, and questions and the answers to them, be very carefully analyzed to avoid miscommunication that can then be exploited for political purposes.
Excellent post.
In other words - a Republican-run hearing. Their point is not to elicit information from witnesses - the whole point IS to sandbag, intimidate & mischaracterize - getting those soundbites out there. It doesnt matter who the witness is or what their expertise is - those are the points each Repub. is looking for - nothing else.
Yep, that's the deal. I just thought it might be instructive to describe the methodology. Anyone going in front of these congressional panels should be prepared to turn the tables by pointing to the hypocrisy of those doing the questioning, and be prepared to evade being channeled into endorsing wording that is not one's own. You are so right that the soundbites are the game, and they are very, very good at it. You have to be ready with soundbites of your own.
I was verbally assaulted like this once by a "Christian" state representative when I was giving testimony, but it also felt like a physical assault, like the breath was sucked out of me. Yes, anyone going up against these tyrants needs to be thoroughly prepped with facts and responses, but also conditioned to withstand pure evil.
You are so correct, and I can fully understand how you felt. It was not until I had gone through at least 20 depositions or more, before I had settled into the realization that the power dynamic favors the deponent, IF they know that, and have a few tools for how to respond when questioning becomes aggressive and manipulative. For example, if a question is at all lengthy, the witness/deponent can simply reply, "I don't understand the question", or "I disagree with the pretext of your question." One can also call out the method of making a long statement and then demanding, "Correct" at the end to create a "question." For example, "Representative Stefanik, I have my own way of explaining what I want to say, and with topics as important and complex as what we are discussing here today, I am not willing to endorse your wording as 100% what I would say, especially when it is a long statement to which the word "correct" is added at the end, which makes a statement grammatically transform into what is only technically a question." OMG, if Dr. Gay had said that, I would have laughed out loud. Stefanik would likely have embarrassed herself, since she is a bully, and we all know that happens when people successfully stand up to bullies. Another tool that the university presidents failed to use if is to provide a very long answer, which chews up time, and if the congressperson tries to cut you off, you patiently explain that their question deserves a complete answer. I saw Dick Cheney totally disarm a quality journalist as if it were child's play, using such techniques. It's not just a matter of knowledge, as the hearing with these university presidents revealed.
I wonder who made up “Sticks and Stones” being that words are so powerful they can feel like an actual assault.
So true - I really love watching the people who DO manage to turn the tables on them.
Gary, I read your comment on Robert Hubbell’s post today and really appreciated your insight.
I’m so less knowledgeable, well…about a lot of stuff ! Also, thanks for the spacing on the paragraphs. Easier on the 👀
You are very kind to say so, Kathy. And I also find reading the long posts with no breaks rather trying.
Thank you.
Thank you for your in depth and accurate analysis. I appreciate that you took the time to lay it all down.
My annoyance and disappointment motivate me, and thank you for the kind sppreciation.
"annoyance and disappointment" - the punishment of the competent.
An eloquent and intelligent appraisal; thanks for taking the time to write this, and to break it into digestible pieces.
Such a nice compliment, thanks, Janice.
I send out a sort of "newsletter" to members of my climate change advocacy group (CCL) and other folks I have met up with over the last few years. This is an example of the kind of thing this may include (taken from most recent one):
In the 10/2023 issue of the journal Biological Conservation is a massive study of wildlife rehabilitation efforts (674,320 records, spanning 1975-2019) that demonstrated how human activities are impacting animals in the wild, as the interface with humans increases due to habitat encroachment and other factors.
Climate change is another way that human activity is threatening wildlife. Specifically in relation to climate change, the article points out that extreme weather events, to which climate change is contributing, were followed by increased numbers of animals arriving at rehab centers over the subsequent week.
This varied by location and type of event. Hurricanes and floods in southern Florida were particularly problematic. This effect was greater in more recent years, which the authors considered as possibly due to the increasing intensity and frequency of extreme weather events over time (NAS, 2016; Ummenhofer and Meehl, 2017). Per other studies, multiple other extreme events adversely affect wildlife health, mortality, and reproduction. These include cyclones, droughts, high rainfall, floods, cold waves, heat waves, and marine heat waves (Cohen et al., 2020; Maxwell et al., 2019; Piatt et al., 2020; Pruvot et al., 2019). Heat, as one example, may have immediate effect on one species (e.g., mass die-off of bats, or marine birds), but affect other species in more gradual fashion. The authors recommend that disaster management plans take the effects on wildlife into account, particularly for rare and endangered species, and increased funding for wildlife rehab centers following such events.
TAKEAWAY: This represents yet another complication and cost, both financial and in animal suffering and population declines, of extreme weather events, which are already recognized as greatly taxing governmental and private resources.
************
One of the other sections of that newsletter provided an explicit comparison of the weapons available to and used by Hamas fighters versus those of the Israeli Defense Forces, and how this quite phenomenal power imbalance is reflected in the tactics utilized by these opponents (guerrilla attacks versus massive bombing). So, you can see my net is a wide one.
If this is the kind of thing you might find of interest, send me an email at bertrandbartok@gmail.com, and I will include you. If you find you deleting it without reading it at all, just ask to be removed - no worries. Just a thought. Gary
TC. I was wondering last night, why did Tuberville release his hold on military promotions now and what strategy is behind the 11 exceptions of highest ranking leadership positions just before we go into holiday recess and the start up of the 2024 election cycle? Then, I got to remembering Trump's promise to clean house, get even, and make day 1 of his presidency a day to remember. I don't know a lot about all of the 11 highest ranking nominations/promotions on hold, but why those to remain on hold probably through primaries and up to November voting? Would these position become the core for Trump politicizing the leadership of the military? His praetorian guard, so to speak, or his Generals and Admiral to be in place and ready to carry out his take over or actual coup? If those and a few other highest level officers of our military be up for promotion, where would the best nominees come from? Project 2025 being readied under the careful hands of Tuberville and Johnson? The only thing worse than overestimating the intelligence of our opponents is to underestimate the cunning and strategic skills that have made them such a threat. Your thoughts?
Well, unfortunately there are a large cohort of senior military who live up to the caricature of the Military Wingnut Dumbass, along the Curt LeMay prototype, so yeah, given the 11 are all the senior operational theater/major command commanders, Tuberville could be holding them open for the election. Not a good sign. But with only 11 the Democrats could break things with individual votes, if they're smart enough to realize it's Important (always a question whether they do).
I believe Schumer has decided to do this.
I agree that the delay in approving the four-star generals is so those positions can be given to different high-ranking military men who would lick Trump's shoes on Day One and thereafter, and that they would follow his orders under the Insurrection Act. We cannot let that happen.
Right.
You can have mine too. Exactly what it looks like to me. Chump is driving the narrative with the rep reps as surrogates until he can sit on the throne himself. Be very afraid.
I have believed all along that abortion was contentious enough cover that people would not think of that. All the discussion has been about paid travel for female personel and the lives on hold for military families. Holding up the highest slots are very much in keeping with the expressed day one plans.
he makes a good point. At the very LEAST the initial response should have been "why do you think genocide is part of intifada in general? Are you in agreement with Hamas, a group of about 30K people out of billions in the world as to the definition? Or are you just making up a definition in aid of making a "gotcha."
Stefanik also referred to this as the Israeli ARAB war. Last I heard there were a whole lot of Arabs who deplore it, and in the case of Qatar are actively working to resolve it.
I used to make the same mistake of conflating Palestinians with Arabs (or Muslims, for that matter). then I found myself working with a woman who was a very angry Palestinian and an absurdly devout Catholic. I mean the kind of Catholic who thought that prick Ratzinger needed to be loved BECAUSE he'd been elected Pope.
worst of all, she wouldn't go out with me...
If you dwell too much on convincing the faculty that you're not just a money-raiser, that you're down with tolerance absolutely, you may not have words for normies, much less for the glibly intolerant.
good point. These people are different from the kind of university presidents I remember from "back in the day."
VERY well put!! And yes - they certainly should have been better prepared. It would seem that none of them have made the effort to actually WATCH what goes on in these Republican-run hearings. I dont watch them much at all. BUT having seen the video clips of the ones where the witnesses actually took these attackers on? They're all over Utube. Someone made sure THEY were prepared & ready!
I read they were all represented by the same attorneys.
Well, they werent well represented at all, I guess.
The university presidents mostly have a cushy job except for the PR aspects. Most of them are picked because they’re the least offensive choice for a go between for the school and legislators, the media, and the general public. Bland and vanilla are the flavors of the day here…hard to get passion and drama from a dead fish because the wrong words or context will get them in hot water so fast, so they have to be that way to save their jobs.
Most are picked because they are good at fundraising. Few universities look for other attributes.
Yes!
fundraising is PRECISELY the reason they're "elected." fundraising and looking like they're "serious enough" (whatever THAT might have meant...obviously, in THIS case, there's some significant "falling short."
And they have to keep straight faces when they agree with tuition rates.
Yes again!
I figure THIS single aspect is especially important in this era of unaffordable college, although I'm unaware of ANY college presidents who have spoken up about this scandalous situation. in fact, I wonder how long a president would last who decided to attack obscene tuition charges. I know a kid who's on a mostly full scholarship at the University of Rochester. he wrote a paper that every person in his family thought was brilliant. I asked for a copy and thought that since the kid was a freshman who hadn't yet taken a real composition class, I might have been able to grant it a C (or even C plus) if it had been significantly revised so that it, at very least, fulfilled the assignment. but to keep the peace, I said that the situation didn't include me. it was a smart move...the teacher gave the paper a B+. I found a listing of national tuition rates, and The University of Rochester has one of the very highest in the country...$65,000/year. obscene at a quarter of the price. and that's not even mentioning all the famously scintillating Rochester nightlife.
now one thing has gotta be true: either the teacher is incompetent (and MANY college teachers are incompetent as TEACHERS because most of them have never had to demonstrate any kind of competence in the classroom) OR they're calculating that if they want to keep the peace (not to mention the job itself), they'd better give out good grades. that tenure shit don't grow on trees. and now, I'm wondering what percentage of the faculty is adjunct...
It's choice #2 - a C grade is hardly ever given and if it was, the kid would be contesting it in front of some committee, with his attorney, and the school would be persecuting the teacher. American higher education is so corrupt now it's unbelievable. 20 years ago, while I was in a "fallow" period screenwriting-wise, I was asked and accepted to teach screenwriting at the Pasadena arts high school - a "selective" school. The first day, I asked how many had read 10 books in the previous year they didn't have to for school. No response. I kept knocking it down one, and FINALLY got two kids to raise their hands for reading TWO BOOKS they didn't have to. I gave them a lecture on how you cannot write if you do not read, and then I asked them to write a five sentence paragraph about themselves. Most of them were unreadable, and when they were returned with "F" on them - and the three high grades were two Ds and a C, there was a revolt. "I've never gotten a grade below B, and only 3 of those!" from one kid. Two of them started crying. At the end of the class, I went to the office and told them I was quitting, that they were harming the kids by letting them thing bullshit work was good. I pointed out that Real World doesn't give fucking participation trophies.
you sound like me, Tom. but that's hardly accidental.
your story is very consistent with stories I keep hearing from friends who ended up teaching in college, which was my original plan. I'm glad I didn't go that route.
I was reading the student evaluations of my old friend's kid, the legal historian who was hired with tenure by his alma mater, the University of Michigan Law School. they were universally excellent, but there were comments about the course's demands that seemed to come from spoiled snowflakes.
I managed to pull a five-credit D in Elementary Calculus (with tutoring by one of the leading lights of the Math Dept....sometimes, it's good to have friends in high places) and I was fucking ecstatic. I was a star English student, but at the end of the semester for which I was drunk every day, I got Ds in pretty much everything.
and as much as I hate to admit this, if I'd been in a school with a $64,000.00/yr. pricetag, I would have done some official bitching and moaning.
there's gotta be a better way.
actually, there ARE, but they'd make too many rich people too upset.
Thank you, TC. Mr. Tomasky is passionately correct. I often think of a verbal encounter with someone like Ms. Stefanik or Ms. Greene. Withering would begin with my glance to them and continue to full out desiccation of their holier than thou, misguided, stupid (a choice), MAGAt views of We the People by simply infusing my passion for democracy and my love of neighbor into my retort.
This is not the time to be mealy mouthed and complacent and assuming. Sharpen the tongue and get your passion for our country into the forge and fire it up!
Salud, TC. Do you have some holiday decorations out? Perhaps a catnip elf for the kitties to chase? Lol
🗽💜
I would be scared of being withered by you Christine.
During phone banking and getting out young voters to register, I often give an impromptu class on the art of withering. I find it odd that people are so careful in responses to MAGAt absurdities and pitiful bravado. So many Repub politicians ready to break if you just twist and snap one branch or muss one hair on their heads. The facade crumbles. They have zero nourishment because they feed on fear. And I mean that.
So let’s get with it. Scary but don’t be afraid for one dang second.
Salud and Love!
🗽
Couldn’t agree more. They are not innocent babes. They know that republicans have their flame throwers on blast. Same is true for journalists who interview these cretins. Normal opposition, they ain’t…
With the landlord's permission I'd like to add a guest post to the guest post. To wit, Popehat:https://popehat.substack.com/p/stop-demanding-dumb-answers-to-hard?utm_source=substack&publication_id=86716&post_id=139588994&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&utm_campaign=email-share&triggerShare=true&isFreemail=true&r=3yf3q
Thanks for putting that up - I have it somewhere in the email files. It's very solid.
generally speaking, anything Mike Tomasky says needs to be heard. and I sure hope he can be the one to restore "The New Republic" to its former glory.
what I've never figured out is how ANYONE EVER thought Andrew Sullivan was an appropriate editor for ANYTHING, let alone one with a very old radical legacy.
if education in this country is bad for a long, complicated list of reasons, I can make an attempt at a joke by saying something like "well, being 'higher,' 'higher education" is bad to a 'higher degree' or something. but it's not funny.
the one thing you mention, Tom, is how ill-prepared they were, and they were. the problem is, we all know it is most assuredly NOT because any of the three avoided massive amounts of "preparation."
I have to admit that, for entirely personal reasons, I LOVE stories about these expensive "consultants" being shown up to be not just "normal fuckups" like the rest of us but SUPER INFINITE MAJESTICAL FUCKUPS, on the level of, say, their crazy-ass FEES.
oh they had a LOT of THAT preparation and the Alumni Associations (or however these insane fees are funded at the institutional level to cause the least amount of institutional pain) are gonna be hurting for awhile. but if they'd gotten bupkis for their money, they'd be in better shape than they're gonna be for awhile.
it wasn't just the pathetic weakness of the presidents' responses, but how obviously lock-step they were...like folks who either 1) needed a lot more rehearsing or 2)had unconsciously decided to use some little Brechtian tricks for foregrounding the performative aspects of their roles. either way, it's not looking good. and the solution (Tom's, for the example closest at hand) is SO MUCH SIMPLER, with the fact that it's true being like some kind of added BONUS.
falling back on the "I'm about defending the indefensible because I'm definitely somebody else's indefensible" has always struck me as being about as close as things get to a win/win strategy in most parts of life
too bad it's as infrequently used as it is...
Here's my 2 cents.
I think for real clarity on the
situation, all members in the
House and Senate should have a 10/7 viewing day of
all the video, captured cell
phone recordings and any
other visual features of
exactly what happened to
1,200 Jews the day Hamas
breached the wall.
I think our MSM who haven't
already seen the butchery,
should also be present for
this viewing.
Reuters showed a photo of
reporters viewing this carnage the Israeli's showed
them. Grown men horrified
at what they were seeing.
Women with hands covering
their faces.
Stefanic, MTG, Boebert, throw in college deans.
Front row seats!
No more need for discussion
about infatida and genocide.
BRUTAL TRUTH! The ovens
weren't enough. 😪
I'm Jewish (obviously) and I kinda like Israel (whether Israel liked me is another story). and Hamas did horrible things and retaliation was appropriate. but this really does strike me as too much.
I was hoping that, based on the backlash against what feels like overkill, the Israelis would use the humanitarian pauses to consider an actual cease-fire. which is to say that I was hoping that Netanyahu wouldn't behave like Netanyahu.
as I keep saying, he's TFF with a PhD.
I agree, David.
My post was about "hate" against a class of people
in "our country" and the
open call for the extermination of them.
The seeming blindness
of educators, people who
are supposed to help govern
our country and set an example, and far too many
opinions from click bate
MSM who have not seen
any of the evidence that
was shown to those reporters
in Israel within days of 10/7.
The Gaza strip is 25 miles
long and 6 miles wide.
Where, in Holy God's name
can 2.5 million people possibly find safety from
is happening to them not
only from Israel, but from
within, from Hamas?
1 slaughter DOES NOT give
sanction for another of far
greater destruction. But neither gives anyone HERE,
the right to be calling or
instigating for the an
extermination of ANY class
HERE in our country.
gotcha, Victoria. and you're right, of course.
I don't know if I'm right or not,
David. Intellectually, I know the Mid East has rarely, if ever, been at peace. One
faction at war with another. Intellectually, I've learned
through history, hate for
one another; different religion; color of skin; politics;
sexual identity can lead to
terrible wounds, both physical and psychological.
It can lead to near extermination of an entire
race of people in our lifetimes,to say nothing of history's past eons. I guess
I had hoped we had learned,
as a world, from the horrors
of 2 World Wars, Vietnam,
2 Gulf Wars, Afghanistan;
the horror of Nagasaki and
Hiroshima especially, Ukraine.
And now Israel/Gaza. I don't
think we've learned anything
about how not to hate.
alas, Victoria...about THIS, you really ARE absolutely right.
😪
Leeja Miller's take on the Ivy's...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4L3hEqIMQzs
There are so many excellent comments I need not add any. Apparently a "legal firm" "prepared" the 3 university presidents. In hindsight, they would have benefitted from a meeting with Mr. Tomasky and others with deep understanding of the long, tortured history of Palestine. Ufortunately that firm was not up to the task OR maybe something else was going on behind the scenes. Stefanik represents a danger to democracy but so do people too long insulated and assured they would be above reproach. McCarthyism returns dressed in red baseball caps. People who do not understand that the congress passed a resolution equating uttering the term "Zionism" was an anti-semitic utterance. IMHO nothing could be further from the truth but there it is. The government of Israel has acted with impunity toward Palestinians and done everything to end any action that might have created a Palestinian state. I'm not saying that would have been the best option given the long and complicated history of peoples in this part of the world, but that was the intention 70+ years ago. And we should know more and understand more about the why behind all these failures. Today at last the NYT has a long article about how Bibi and Likud have over long years supported Hamas. Bibi has been so busy protecting his backside with his far right government that he did not respect his own security services concerns. October 7 did not have to happen. That it has happened, that the very same brutality practiced by russia, wagner group, isis,etc cannot and should not be missed. Terror is the point. What the government of israel proves now is that they can match the brutality of hamas. And the US, instead of withholding their UN vote, vote no. Why the UN is made powerless day after day, year after year. More than sad.
Just saw president McGill has resigned her position at Penn State after coming under fire
in Congress.