The question was actually quite simple: whether calling for genocide against Jews on campus was considered bullying or harassment according to the rules of the University of Pennsylvania. As president of the university, Elizabeth Magill was supposed to answer this question last week before a congressional committee that was examining whether the pro-Palestinian demonstrations at many universities were not also openly anti-Semitic. Magill evaded the question several times, which led to angry reactions from those around the university. She therefore announced her resignation on Saturday.
Together with Magill, two other university presidents were questioned before the committee, Claudine Gay from Harvard and Sally Kornbluth from MIT. Both were asked the same question by MP Elise Stefanik. Stefanik demanded a yes or no answer. However, the professors did not want to answer the question so briefly. It was also clear to all three that they felt pressured by the hostile atmosphere in the committee.
Rep. Stefanik made a name for herself in Congress when she vigorously defended former President Donald Trump during his first impeachment trial. At that time she stood out because of her aggressive style of questioning witnesses. The professors were able to see that she maintained this style. It was sometimes clear to see that they had little regard for being questioned as if they were not sitting in a hearing but in front of a tribunal.
In the USA, universities rely heavily on money from wealthy donors
After dodging the question several times, Magill finally said it depends on the context. Stefanik shouted: “That’s your statement? Calling for genocide against the Jews is a question of context?” A storm of indignation quickly erupted on social media. Tenor: The “woken” elite universities have lost all moral compass. The professors would all have to resign.
Harvard President Claudine Gay has since explained herself several times, acknowledging that she should have answered the question before the committee more clearly. She last explained this on Friday in the Harvard university newspaper. She is apparently not considering resigning, and there are no corresponding demands from those around the university. The same applies to Sally Kornbluth, who no one accuses of anti-Semitism because she herself is Jewish.
The pressure on Magill, however, was greater from the start. In the USA, universities rely heavily on money from wealthy donors. After Magill’s statement, hedge fund manager Ross Stevens announced that he would withdraw a $100 million donation as long as Magill remained at the helm of the university. Other prominent donors also said they would withdraw their support, including Ronald Lauder, who became a billionaire as the head of a cosmetics company.
Magill responded on Saturday with a two-sentence statement
The University of Pennsylvania Board of Trustees has been in ongoing contact with her following Magill’s appearance last Tuesday. Although she was not officially voted out by the committee, it was clearly signaled to her that further cooperation would be difficult to imagine.
Magill responded Saturday with a two-sentence statement that did not elaborate on the controversy. She wrote, “It has been my privilege to serve this special institution as president. It has been an honor to work with our faculty, students, staff, alumni and community members in the university’s mission.” Magill will continue to manage the business until the position is filled.
There was criticism of the resignation and its circumstances from the American Association of University Professors. The university said in a statement that it was problematic that external donors and lobby groups were able to destabilize the university in this way. In the future, it must be clear again that the defense of academic freedom and the fight against anti-Semitism are not mutually exclusive.