Ivy league presidents asked for ‘context’ when questioned on whether genocide against Jews is unacceptable, both Elizabeth Magill and Claudine Gay apologized the next day for their testimony.
Turns out the university presidents who refused to condemn genocide against Jews were all coached by the same law firm.
How’d that work out for them?
Elizabeth Magill, the University of Pennsylvania’s president, resigned four days after her House testimony, and the heads of Harvard and MIT are under strong pressure to quit as well.
They all were prepped by the blue-chip law firm of WilmerHale, whose lawyers sat up front at the hearing, reports the New York Times. Should the firm even be paid for taking a crisis situation and providing advice that amounted to pouring gasoline on a raging fire?
What did the university chiefs think would happen if they went before the House committee and refused to answer the most basic of questions: Does your school approve of the mass murder of Jews? This has become such a huge story that they were under a harsh spotlight.
Instead we got lawyerly evasions, slippery semantics and word salad with dressing. And this can’t be all blamed on the attorneys, since university presidents are presumably smart people. Yet they ignited a firestorm.
The testimony was such a disaster that both Magill and Harvard President Claudine Gay apologized the next day. So if they’re admitting that what they said was wrong, how can anyone else be expected to defend them?
Both Magill and Gay used that weasel word «context.» It all depends on the context whether we can say genocide against the Jews is unacceptable or not. Yet everyone knows they would never have dared say that about blacks or Muslims or Palestinians or any other racial or ethnic group.
Some are attempting to blame Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik for her dogged questioning of Magill, Gay and MIT chief Sally Kornbluth. But the truth is any competent lawmaker would have asked the same questions.
