Yes or No?

Since this blog has started generating a miniscule income, I suppose I ought to start generating some content again rather than let it become just another clickbait hole on the internet …although why people have started visiting when I’ve been far too busy to post anything must remain an economic mystery. 

I haven’t stopped caring about things but the News these days is so depressing one does not want to say anything much.  Possibly the most depressing News item in recent days has been Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, repeatedly asking the presidents of M.I.T., Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania if calling for the genocide of Jews violated the code of conduct at their schools and only agreeing to accept Yes or No answers.  

Those she interrogates are, of course, being questioned under oath, therefore they have to tell the truth by repeating their policies as they are now – not as people might like them to be.  

Ms Stefanik does not discuss how the policies might be changed or altered to accommodate any issues she has isolated.  She seems to simply be indulging in the obvious fallacy of bifurcation which works like this...

Either the Professors say that “calling for the genocide of Jews” is expressly classed as a violation of their Institutions’ Policies in all circumstances which would be a lie on oath (perjury) and immoral …

…or they state that “calling for the genocide of Jews” is NOT expressly classed as a violation of their institutions’ bullying policies in all circumstances - replies which the interviewer has decided represent “Unacceptable Answers Across the Board”.  

Therefore, her interviewees are in a no-win situation as there is no attempt here at dialogue or compromise.  Only binary answers are allowed. 

When told that the answers depend upon the context, Ms Stefanik responds that there is no context in which “calling for the genocide of Jews” is not bullying and harassment.  

I have to say that she may have a point here as it is very difficult indeed to think of a context in which this was not bullying and harassment but that doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t consider the possibility that one exists.  I just haven’t thought of it yet...  Perhaps the problem may in fact be that the extant bullying policies are designed for individuals not groups and need to be amended to take into account the phenomenon of group not just individual bullying tactics...

However, Ms Stefanik immediately jumps to the opinion that the solution to this sticky situation is for all the Professors to resign immediately and collectively.  Whereas a more sensible solution might seem to be to review the policies of the Colleges and simply amend them where they appear to be deficient.  It may be that the Professors are indeed naive as to the nature of antisemitism but that doesn't automatically make them all bad people with nefarious motives…

My suspicion that Elise Stefanik may have an ulterior motive for her combative style is fed slightly by her tweeting after one of the Professors resigned “one down, two to go”... why insist that the Professors must resign?  Perhaps it is because she used to sit on the Harvard Institute of Politics Senior Advisory Committee but was sacked in 2021 for objecting to Pennsylvania's electoral votes after the storming of the U.S. Capitol.

According to the Politico website (see here) “Elise has made public assertions about voter fraud in November’s presidential election that have no basis in evidence, and she has made public statements about court actions related to the election that are incorrect,” Harvard Kennedy School Dean Douglas Elmendorf wrote in a letter. “Moreover, these assertions and statements do not reflect policy disagreements but bear on the foundations of the electoral process through which this country’s leaders are chosen.”  

Now you could argue that is Whataboutery but I have to wonder if her false dichotomy or inability to consider that perhaps there might be context dependent issues is part of a binary thinking model that is ultimately unhelpful.  At one point she even tells one of her interviewees "The answer is "Yes"".  Well, if you already know the answer why are you asking?  As Horace Rumpole used to say, the cardinal rule of cross examination is never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer... but this seems taking that mantra a bit far...

The walls are closing in on ex-President Trump with his fraud case due to conclude in January, his next Libel case due to come up in February and his first criminal trial slated to start 4th of March 2024 but even if he finally receives his comeuppance… he is just the man at the summit of the Maga cult.  Many Elise Stefanikes sit below…