SIPA Alum here, from back in the 20th century. I'm sympathetic to Stephen's comment below. The writer is out making information about the Trustees readily available, that tolooks like an invitation to harass these individuals for their alleged transgressions. So Colloquious is fine inviting harassment of others but hides behind anonymity. I don't see much integrity there. I also concur with Stephen that his hateful rhetoric about Israel. This gives me strong reason to believe he knows little about the situation there aside from the propaganda he's been brainwashed with. (Tragically this may include courses he's taken at Columbia that promote simplistic one sided versions of history. That students pay high tuitions and spend important years of their education to learn garbage makes it doubly tragic.) Does Colloquious have any idea how many people have been tortured in prisons or killed in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran, and Gaza (where Hamas is the perpetrator)? This is not to mention the unfolding tragedy in Sudan among others conflicts. Why is Israel singled out? Why is Iran, that has funded instability, tragedy and death throughout the region, not mentioned? Not to mention that Iran has stolen wealth that should have been used for the betterment of the Iranian people, just as Hamas has stolen funds that should have been for the betterment of the people in Gaza. Hamas built what could have been the world's largest bomb shelter under residential and civilian infrastructure, yet no civilians were allowed in. I would say about Colloquious what I'd say for most of the student and non-student activists on the Columbia campus, the self-righteous self importance is only exceeded by the enormity of the ignorance
I’ve been a fan of Sundial, but I think they dropped the ball on this one. Not because they published the article—free speech includes the publication, within the bounds of the law, of even abhorrent views, and falsehoods and misrepresentations, in this case, in relation to Israel. They erred, I believe, in allowing the author—whoever he or she was—to be anonymous. It is unfortunate that the author does not have the courage of his or her expressed convictions. As for Sundial’s determination that the author meets its test for anonymity—that the author “could be seriously harmed by attaching [sic.] their [i.e.,his or her] name to a piece”—there is a cruel irony here. In the current environment at Columbia, the expression of anti-Israel views and lies is far more likely to be rewarded; it’s the expression if pro-Israel views that is likely to expose the speaker to harm.
Thank you for the respectful comment—we always appreciate your engagement with our articles! Yes, I would agree with you if this were just a matter of being courageous. But there is a tangible threat to the student, considering their past experiences, which include receiving death threats and, as evidenced in the article, facing arbitrary disciplinary procedures from the OIE for merely expressing their right to free expression. Thus, we granted them anonymity not to offer them a shield to cower away but because of serious safety concerns.
I have two questions for you, Colloquious. First of all, who appointed you the self-righteous grand moral judge of Columbia University? And second, since you hate it here so much, why don't you just go to school somewhere else?
Love how it's the people supporting a genocidal army that conducts raids with their soldiers' faces wrapped in balaklavas who complain about the "anonymity" of a Columbia student. While cheering for an army that only publishes pictures of the backs of their service members' heads, they demand that whistleblowers give their full names in their denouncements. That's because they're anxious to doxx, smear, castigate, blacklist, and essentially Canary Mission the f*ck out of anyone who dares criticize the power structure they mercilessly wield against their enemies in defense of genocide.
SIPA Alum here, from back in the 20th century. I'm sympathetic to Stephen's comment below. The writer is out making information about the Trustees readily available, that tolooks like an invitation to harass these individuals for their alleged transgressions. So Colloquious is fine inviting harassment of others but hides behind anonymity. I don't see much integrity there. I also concur with Stephen that his hateful rhetoric about Israel. This gives me strong reason to believe he knows little about the situation there aside from the propaganda he's been brainwashed with. (Tragically this may include courses he's taken at Columbia that promote simplistic one sided versions of history. That students pay high tuitions and spend important years of their education to learn garbage makes it doubly tragic.) Does Colloquious have any idea how many people have been tortured in prisons or killed in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran, and Gaza (where Hamas is the perpetrator)? This is not to mention the unfolding tragedy in Sudan among others conflicts. Why is Israel singled out? Why is Iran, that has funded instability, tragedy and death throughout the region, not mentioned? Not to mention that Iran has stolen wealth that should have been used for the betterment of the Iranian people, just as Hamas has stolen funds that should have been for the betterment of the people in Gaza. Hamas built what could have been the world's largest bomb shelter under residential and civilian infrastructure, yet no civilians were allowed in. I would say about Colloquious what I'd say for most of the student and non-student activists on the Columbia campus, the self-righteous self importance is only exceeded by the enormity of the ignorance
I’ve been a fan of Sundial, but I think they dropped the ball on this one. Not because they published the article—free speech includes the publication, within the bounds of the law, of even abhorrent views, and falsehoods and misrepresentations, in this case, in relation to Israel. They erred, I believe, in allowing the author—whoever he or she was—to be anonymous. It is unfortunate that the author does not have the courage of his or her expressed convictions. As for Sundial’s determination that the author meets its test for anonymity—that the author “could be seriously harmed by attaching [sic.] their [i.e.,his or her] name to a piece”—there is a cruel irony here. In the current environment at Columbia, the expression of anti-Israel views and lies is far more likely to be rewarded; it’s the expression if pro-Israel views that is likely to expose the speaker to harm.
Hi Stephen,
Thank you for the respectful comment—we always appreciate your engagement with our articles! Yes, I would agree with you if this were just a matter of being courageous. But there is a tangible threat to the student, considering their past experiences, which include receiving death threats and, as evidenced in the article, facing arbitrary disciplinary procedures from the OIE for merely expressing their right to free expression. Thus, we granted them anonymity not to offer them a shield to cower away but because of serious safety concerns.
Not to worry, Imaan. I’m still a big fan of Sundial, even if I may disagree with its editorial policies —rarely. Keep up your great work.
I have two questions for you, Colloquious. First of all, who appointed you the self-righteous grand moral judge of Columbia University? And second, since you hate it here so much, why don't you just go to school somewhere else?
Love how it's the people supporting a genocidal army that conducts raids with their soldiers' faces wrapped in balaklavas who complain about the "anonymity" of a Columbia student. While cheering for an army that only publishes pictures of the backs of their service members' heads, they demand that whistleblowers give their full names in their denouncements. That's because they're anxious to doxx, smear, castigate, blacklist, and essentially Canary Mission the f*ck out of anyone who dares criticize the power structure they mercilessly wield against their enemies in defense of genocide.