Politics

Children often have dreams of glorious success in their near adulthood. Some dream of winning Olympic gold, becoming president, climbing a mountain, or playing for the Yankees or Real Madrid. Elon Musk says his passion as a child was space travel, sci fi and Mars. Now a few decades later, he controls the most influential space agency in the world.  SpaceX has 4 US launch sites, shuttling  personel and equipment to the International Space Station and  6000 Starlink satellites bring internet to remote locations. But his signature mission is to colonize Mars. His plans propose the first manned launches in the early 2030’s and a million people living on Mars by the year 2050. 

But Mars is not a welcoming host. The surface pressure is less than one percent of that on Earth and there is precious little oxygen gas. So without a pressurized suit and oxygen source a human would be dead in minutes of suffocation and embolism, the expansion of bodily fluids into gas. The pressure is low because there is so little  atmosphere – molecules held by the planet’s gravity. No atmosphere because there is no magnetic field flowing from the poles. And no magnetic field because the core of Mars has cooled, unlike Earth’s core of molten nickel. The magnetic field on Earth serves to defray the solar winds, charged particles which emanate in all directions from the sun.  Without this barrier, the solar winds sweep away most molecules which may consider forming an atmosphere on Mars.

Also, the matter of temperature. The surface  of Mars averages minus 63 centegrade (-83F). Wherever night falls on the planet, the temperature goes below -100 centigrade or -140 F. Then there is the cosmic radiation, which causes cancer and neurological damage and which the planet is constantly bathed in, 40 times the intensity of that on Earth.  And finally there are the Martian dust storms, not regional but enveloping most of the planet every 3 years.

3 There is no general consensus, but many scientists believe that a base could be established on Mars with the right protection from all the forbidding elements, albeit at enormous expense.  This would  entail transporting many tons ( Musk: “about a million”)  of equipment and constructing living and working accommodations in a micro environment providing oxygen, pressure, food and water, waste removal, radiation protection. If Spacex doesn’t succeed, it won’t be for not trying. The technologies being developed jar the imagination.

4 But the delicate balance of forces, waves and particles, pressure, and temperature  that make up Earth’s biosphere not only ensures our physical integrity but also helps to maintain our mental wellness. Some people are more depressed on dark, rainy days and more peppy on sunny days. Natural sunlight helps to stimulate serotonin, a neurotransmitter that aids in mood stability; artificial light cannot. Novelty and new experiences help regulate neurotransmitters which foster social bonding, effect calmness, and reduce stress-inducing rumination over regretful experiences. Thus the universal appeal of art, music and dramatic performance. And the institution of vacation, practiced even in primitive societies,  gives relief from the routine.  Over the millions of years, life has developed a symbiosis with earthly conditions in countless ways, many of which we surely don’t yet understand.

5 Inmates in prisons have a much higher rate of mental illness than the general public.  This is due, certainly in part, to the isolation and relative stimulus deprivation of their lives in prison.  The privations of life confined to a Martian habitat, possibly without the hope of returning to Earth, would certainly cause mental challenges and should be a cause for concern for all Mars missions. 

 

6   Five countries have landed vehicles on the surface of Mars with varying degrees of success. The Soviet Union was the first in 1971, but lost contact with the craft minutes after it landed.  The  US had a successful landing in 1975 and since then NASA has landed 9 more times, deploying 4 rovers and a helicopter .  Besides these NASA has put various satellites in orbit around Mars. Britain and ESA landed on Mars in 2003 but lost contact before the landing, which was only confirmed in 2013. China landed on Martian soil in 2021 deploying its own data-gathering rover.  

7 But why go, exactly?   Why go to Mars and expend such vast resources in time, effort, money, and mineral wealth?  One reason is certainly the one that has motivated mankind over the centuries and continents – the challenge.  The challenge to find India by sailing west, to conquer Constantinople,  to swim the English Channel, to break  a world record, to finish a marathon at the age of 50, to discover a cure for brain cancer.   Technological challenges are no less motivated by this human spirit. On initiating the moon mission in 1962,  JFK said, “We choose to go to the moon this decade and  do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”  We feel gratified when we meet a challenge. The disciplined Houston Control room dissolved into joyful, raucous celebration when Apollo 11’s lunar module Eagle landed on July 20,1969.  

8 Second is the prestige factor, which was not far from the surface of Kennedy’s moon mission speech. The Soviet’s had just delivered a one-two punch in Sputnik, the first satellite to orbit the Earth in 1957 and Yuri Gargarin’s  single orbit around the Earth in April 1961. The advantage the Soviets demonstrated had some Americans in near panic. . The space race was indeed  a race for prestige and a flexing of geopolitical muscles. Neil DeGrasse Tyson: “People forget why we went to the moon. We went to the moon to beat the Russians. When we looked over our shoulders and saw nobody there, the Apollo program was cancelled.”  Moon rocks on display in the Smithsonian were impressive, but not cost effective,  and did not radically change our society. 

 9 [[[The 

A dozen years later, however, the Russians did indeed stir the pot a bit. In 1971  they landed a space craft on the surface of Mars, but lost contact with it almost immediately.  Periodic Mars trials followed, but the Mars race was low-keyed compared with the Moon Race, and many people didn’t know it was happening. The first American craft landed successfully on Mars in 1975.  In the next 50 years 8 more successful US missions followed.  In 2003 the European Space Agency landed a craft on Mars but lost contact before it landed, which was only confirmed in 2013. China landed a craft on Martian soil and deployed their own data-gathering rover. 

musk has evolved – interview — much moe wxciting – spacefaring 
just ify his mars plans.   Tyson – vanity mission- 
later – rogue I, WW,  

 

But Elon Musk’s intentions go far beyond landing a human on Mars. 

Most sucessful life long scientists – researchers and  engineers derive there gratification from their work

Insert Neil De Grasse Tyson – skepticism.   vanity project

9With so many hurdles to overcome why does Musk persist? For one thing, he is no ordinary scientist. Most get their gratification over a lifetime by  immersion into their work – into the gratification of receiving a grant for research, for seeing their work published, for seeing their work applied to improve the world. If their research reveals a dead end, they back off and try another path. But Musk has fallen into another realme: The limelight. Celebrity. He has found another source of gratification – a worshipping fandom, as The Richest Man in the World and he has fallen hard. Jumping high in the air on stage with Donald Trump in front of teeming applause. Now on stage with a buzzing chain saw dramatizing what he plans to do with government spending. Now hosting Saturday Night Live. Now on the Tonight Show. Now publicly challenging Mark Zuckerburg to a cage match.  After developing such a craving for celebrity, how could he abandon the source of his fame no matter how unlikely it is to succeed or be of value to mankind.  

He has justified his Mars plan in ways that often defy reason or at least conventional wisdon, the scientific kind.  atomic explosions to crete n tmosphere.

But Elon Musk’s envisioned plans are far grander. Central to his scheme is to make Mars not just a lab for scientists, but a place fun for the whole family.

IT is often the case that a luminary in one field is underdeveloped in another.  Musk is seemingly a genius in the space sciences but naive in the social sciences  During the ill-fated DOGE debacle, Musk, as chief, oversaw the dismissal of 300,000 federal employees – in some cases two in the same family.  Many had worked decades, believed their jobs were important and integral to government function, and had recieved commendations. For their devotion they recieved a two-lined e mail informing that their employment was ”terminated, effective immediately. ”  It left them with no income, mortgages to pay, doctors bills and no insurance, their children’s education to pay for.  They knew Musk knew nothing about their work.  And to boot he was the richest man in the world. Is it a wonder that animosity grew?

What happened next was classic sociology. And it wouldn’t surprise any social scientist familiar with the French revolution or the Arab spring or any grave case of percieved social injustice:  The vast majority reacts with anger, indignation and alarm. A minority demonstrates in public places,  and a tiny minority react violently – attacking Tesla showrooms and cars. 

A wiser Musk might have reacted with thoughtful re-evaluation:  Maybe we could have given a 3-month notice before termination. Maybe offer a termination package or extended FEHB health insurance coverage.  But Musk only reacted with arrigant indignation:
” I’m not someone who has ever commited violence and yet massive violence was committed against my companies, massive violence was threatened against me. What’s wrong with these people?  Why would they do that? How wrong can they be? They’re on the wrong side of history. I’ve not harmed anyone. Those people will go to prison.”  Then he ominously pointed to the camera on him and said. ”We’re coming for you.”

 

I’m not someone who has ever committed violence and yet massive violence was committed against my companies, massive violence was threatened against me.
Who are these people?   Why would they do that?  How wrong can they be?  They’re on the wrong side of history.  And that’s an evil thing to do….What’s wrong with these people? I’ve not harmed anyone.   Those people will go to prison. 

 

 

 

 

 

“If there is life on Mars, I believe we should do nothing with Mars. Mars then belongs to the Martians, even if the Martians are only microbes.” Carl Sagan, Planetary Scientist, Cornell University.

strikingly said he believed  that “

 

It just hit me! A great way to solve the headache of the US natinal debt. I’m slappin my forehead as to why I didn’t get this before. It’s simple. The US Treasury Dept, Bureau of Fiscal Service says the national debt is 36.7 trillion bucks. (Of which 7 trillion is that for which the gov dipped into the Social Security Administration’s piggybank) And the top 1 percent, which comprises 1.3 million families, is worth 49 trillion bucks.

Here’s what we do. We ask the top 1 percent to give us all their money. They say, sure, we want to help. We take all their money and we pay off the US national debt in its entirety. Then we see what we have left. So, 49 trillion minus 36.7 trillion is uh, carry the 1, ah 12.3 trillion bucks. Then we divide it up and give it back to the top 1 percent that gave us their money. So that would be 12.3 trillion divided by 1.3 million = $9,461,538 and 46 cents for each of the generous families of the 1%.

So each family still has over 9 million bucks, which is a lot. Some of the families would find it hard to scrape by on this but they would remain in the prestigious class of Millionaires and Billionaires, our Social Security fund would be  out of danger, and the value of the US dollar is out of trouble. And best of all we can pour more money into our all-important Department of Defense. Who could ask for more??????

(Some didn’t get the message so here it is: to convey how the astronomical deficits of the US government are reciprocated by the astronomical excesses of the super rich class. And one reason why we are now moving toward becoming a failed society – the unconscionable wealth gap and the disappearing middle class. And further, why  legislation accused of being socialist is necessary to help the lower socio economic classes survive.) 

I think trump’s notion that Canada become the 51st state is marvelous. First it would add to our population. And why should we be stuck forever as number 3 in the world, forever less populous than China and India, which is now number 1? Let’s check Canada’s popuarion. Yikes its, 40.3 million. That means it would be our most populous state, ahead of California, which has 39.3 million. The number of reps in the House of Representatives is permanently fixed at 435 members so states may gain or lose reps according to their change in population. California has 52 congressional districts so Canada would likely have 53. It would entail drawing 53 congressional districts in Canada. So the other 50 states would have to give up 53 of their reps. Maybe some wouldn’t like that but think of the great expansion of the US. Of the 9.86 million sq km of the US,  Texas has an area of 695,000 square km. Alaska has 1.72 million sq km. Let’s check Canada. Yikes, its 9.92 million sq km!! Canada is larger than the US!! Now this would make for quite a gargantuan administrative effort to do all the work to make it a state. Might be too much. Hmm. Hey, I’ve got a better idea. Why don’t we make the US the 11th Canadian province? Quod Erat Demonstrandum!!! (We might also get Canada’s universal health coverage.)

 

constitution mandates 435 representatives divided up

canada therefore would get 52 representatves so the other states would have to give u that many reps

interior dept cut 7500 jobs

I was a bit surprised by CNN’s Jim Sciutto’s seeming ignorance of foreign trade. He was completely justified in his contempt for Trump’s constant whining about how unfair are so many countries that sell more goods to the US than they buy. Sciutto reflected that maybe they (other countries) just produce goods “more efficiently” than in the US. Not at all. That the US produces goods more efficiently is the reason that there aren’t bigger trade deficits and that with some countries – Britain, Australia, Brazil – there is a US surplus.

There are two reasons for our overall trade deficit. First, a strong dollar. What does this mean? Having moved to Poland from the US, it is easy for me to understand, and most people don’t. But I think that a newsman should if he were going to comment about it on national TV. Let’s assume the dollar is stronger than the Polish currency, which it is. You take a dollar, go to the store and you can buy 3 chocolate cookies – or 3 widgets.
You take a dollar and  hop on a plane to Poland where you exchange the dollar for the Polish currency. You go in a store and find you can buy 5 chocolate cookies, or 5 widgets for the dollar’s equivalent in Polish zloties. Hey, this is good!  The dollar is stronger than the Polish currency. (This is the reason some retired Polish-Americas move back to Poland – their retirement buys more.) Therefore Polish im/exporters, naturally looking for the greatest profit, find that buying from the US isn’t the best deal.  More profitable to sell to them.

The second reason for the overall trade deficit is the American consumer. The top half of the US population represents the richest, most consuming, most spending, society in the world. The US per capita income is $89,100. That of China is $13,800. Much of our high standard of living comes from foreign goods. If I buy a new pair of Mexican socks, my standard of living goes up. I’m happier with new, colorful socks. By Trump’s idea, the US just got cheated out of 20 dollars by Mexico.  He crowed that under Bidem, the US “lost” 5 billion dollars a day, (because Americans bought 5 bil more of foreugn goods that they sold).  MAGA people gasped and shook their head at such prodigality. Of course it was just more Trump disinformation.

In summary, no, the overall trade deficit is not due to Americam inefficiency. Just as more Americans in the top half of the ecomony
cook less and order more food delivered, the US is producing less of some consumer goods to some extent, and importing more. And the strong dollar makes selling to the US more attractive than purchasing.

TRUMP SWEPT AWAY A LONG-BELABORED NUCLEAR PEACE TREATY WITH IRAN AND NOW THIS WEEK SUPPORTED AND AIDED ISRAELS BOMBING OF IRAN FOR ENRICHING URANIUM TO LEVELS APPROACHING WEAPONS GRADE. THE REASON MANY IN IRAN WANTS NUCLEAR WEAPONS IS BECAUSE ISRAEL HAS A HUGE NUMBER OF THEM- AT LEAST 100. AND TO GIVE ISRAEL A DAMN GOOD REASON FOR NOT ATTACKING THEM. OF COURSE THE CURRENT BOMBINGS MAKE THEM WANT NUKE BOMBS MUCH MORE AND CONTINUES THE CYCLE OF FEAR, HATE, WAR……………… Brief history of nuclear peace treaty with Iran: In 2003 Britain, France and Germany initiate diplomacy with Iran regarding Iran’s increased concern with enrichment.Talks between Iran and the US start in Obama administration, which wisely expands the diplomatic group to include China, France, Britain, Germany, Russia, the European Union. along with Iran and the US……. After many long arduous meetings, a preliminary agreement was signed in 2013. This was not just an exchange of bargaining chips but a dialectic on the philosophy and economy of peace. On July 14, 2015, the final accord was signed by the seven countries.
The chief negotiator for Iran was Mohamed Zarif, who went to high school in San Francisco, took BA and MA at SF state U, then to
School of International Relations, U of Denver. The concord increased the influence the moderates

THE TERMS– Iran agreed to —-limit U-enrichment to 3.67% -far below the 90%needed for weapons grade

—- reduce their number of installed centrifuges by two-thirds……..

—Allow IAEA inspections of nuclear stock

International allowances to for Iran…… —Lift nuclear related sanctions imposed by the US, EU and the UN —Allow Iran access to international banking system and oil markets —-and unfreeze Iranian bank accounts in the US.

There was criticism that Iran couldn’t be trusted, but as long as all parties were talking, it was the best situation. The worst factions, Hamas and the Revolutionary Guard, saw diminished influence. There was no war for the
dozen years the US was involved in the treaty council.

The accord came into effect January 16, 2016… working effectively until May, 2018 when Trump pulled out of the deal and imposed sanctions again.
Trump pulled out, to the astonishment of the other members, so he could upstage Obama, claiming he could make a better deal. Headlining his demagoguery was his cry that the treaty called for PAYING IRAN 8 BILLION DOLLARS. WHY SHOULD WE PAY THEM 8 BILLION DOLLARS? Because it was their money in US banks, frozen since the Iran hostage crisis…and it was a reasonable concession to aid in the final agreement. Trump tried to bully another deal he could call the Trump deal, but without the diplomatic understanding and experience he failed – proving fact that it was trump himself that ”didn’t know what the f he was doing.”

What happened to the relations among the parties of the Iran nuclear peace treaty after Trump pulled out in 2018?

When  President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal — in May 2018, the decision had major ripple effects on relations among all parties involved. Here’s how the relationships evolved post-withdrawal

1. United States

• Reimposed Sanctions: The Trump administration reinstated harsh economic sanctions on Iran, targeting its oil exports, banking sector, and other critical industries.
• “Maximum Pressure” Campaign: This strategy aimed to force Iran back to the negotiating table for a “better deal” but only deepened hostilities. Trump thought he could bully them back to the negotiating table and claim his deal was better than Obama’s, showing his lack of understanding of Mideast diplomacy – proving it was trump who didn’t know what the f he was doing and it led directly to the exchange of fire of June 25 of this year which saw hundreds of deaths.

2. Iran

• Gradual Breach of JCPOA Limits: In response to the U.S. withdrawal and sanctions, Iran started violating the deal’s terms step by step:
  • Increased uranium enrichment beyond allowed limits.
  • Expanded centrifuge use.
  • Reduced cooperation with IAEA inspectors.
• Strained Relations with Europe: Iran criticized European countries for failing to protect it from U.S. sanctions, as promised.
  -Also increased influence of extremist factions

3. European Signatories (UK, France, Germany – the E3)

• Tried to Save the Deal: The E3 tried to keep the deal alive by urging Iran to remain compliant and creating INSTEX (a special trade mechanism) to bypass U.S. sanctions — but it had limited success.
• Caught in the Middle: The E3 faced increasing pressure from both the U.S. and Iran. Their failure to deliver economic relief led Iran to question their credibility. (and again, increase influence of extremists)

4. Russia and China

• Supported Iran: Russia and China remained supportive of Iran’s position and criticized U.S. withdrawal.
• Increased Cooperation: China and Russia expanded economic and military ties with Iran, especially as Iran turned eastward under sanctions. Greatly increased Chinese exports to Iran.

5. Overall Impact on Relations

• Fractured Unity: The unity among JCPOA signatories eroded, with trust in U.S. commitment to international agreements seriously damaged.
• Nuclear Risk Increased: Iran’s growing non-compliance raised fears about renewed nuclear weapons potential and regional instability.
• Biden-era Efforts: The Biden administration began indirect talks in 2021 to return to the JCPOA, but by 2022 those talks had largely stalled.
  
  The chief negotiator for Iran was Mohamed Zarif, who went to highschool in San Francisco, took BA and MA at SF state U, then to
  School of International Relations, U of Denver. After the trump pullout, he saw decreased influence. He, like all sane, non-extremist
• iranians have no desire to exterminate Iran.

 

JD Vance: WE BORROW MONEY FROM CHINESE PEASANTS TO BUY THINGS CHINESE PEASANTS MANUFACTURE. THIS IS NOT A GOOD RECIPE FOR ECONOMIC PROSPERITY.

Also, it’s not true.

Two components. First, why insult an entire country as a whole by calling them peasants? A spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry said “It is both astonishing and lamentable that this vice president made such ignorant and disrespectful remarks.” A PR genius Vance is not.

Secondly, so how is it that the US is indebted to China? Do Treasury officers go to rice paddies and tap the farmers on the shoulder? How about a few bucks till payday, pal? No. Do treasury officers go to Chinese officials hat in hand looking for a loan? Nope. Maybe we owe for all the merch we buy from China. Are we deadbeats that won’t pay up? No, importers pay cash on the barrelhead before the consumer buys it. OK, so how do we borrow money from China?

SUPPORT AMERICA. BUY US SAVINGS BONDS
I remember the ads in elementary school. My aunt bought me a $25 US savings. But i lost interest when I found out it didn’t mature for 10 years. But many others still hold a keen interest. That is because US bonds are universally trusted. Saudi Arabia has about $800 billion (8/10ths of a trillion) in US investments and about 20% of it consists of US Treasury bonds. However Chinese investment in the US is almost entirely in US Treasury bonds. It is the perfect bank for huge sums. Their purchasing of US bonds stabilizes the Chinese juan, is the perfect bank for their foreign currency and ensures against loss from bankruptcies or other failing investment instruments. The bonds are low risk, low return. So in return the US Treasury gets a loan with the cheapest possible interest.

The first trump administration did not change the policy of selling bonds to China, nor has the second. And why should they? The first trump administration increased the national debt by 8 trillion dollars. And the second Trump administration is sure as hell going to add more debt. And if we are going to borrow more, why not get the cheapest interest – So his statement of borrowing from Chinese peasants, which we do not – they buy our Treasury bonds, and that it is not a recipe for economic prosperity, makes no sense whatsoever. It is a recipe for the cheapest loans if we have to go further into debt. So why did he say it? Dunno. Most likely he was given a script to follow, which somehow was thought to be receptive to MAGA ears.

The US treasury bonds China holds represents about 2,4% of the US total debt. By contrast, the part of the US debt owed to the governments own Social Security Administration (internal debt) is 7 trillion, or about 20% of the total 36 trillion of debt. To address JD Vance’s puzzling statement about Chinese peasants – no, we don’t solicit loans from any peasants anywhere. The Chinese treasury buys US bonds w/o solicitation from US.

 

 

 

trump -” We gave the panama Canal to Panama, not to China”

You can’t give away what you don’t own, and the US never owned the Canal zone even for a day.

In the earliest days of the 20th century, the US negotiated with Columbia to build a canal in their territory of Panama. The terms were agreed upon but the Columbian senate in August, 1903 voted unanimously against it, fearing the loss of too much influence to the US.  A group in Panama was formed (with the aid of a certain North American country) to lead a revolution for independence for the province of Panama.  Voila.  After a brief skirmish with Columbian troops aided by US gunboat diplomacy, independence was declared. The US promptly recognized and struck a deal with the new leaders.

The deal was a 99 year lease to the US, rent being $250,000 paid annually to Panama, fixed rate, and the US collected a couple million in tolls. But in 1964 Panamanian leaders were calling for a renegotiation of the treaty as after 60 years the same rent payment of $250,000 was shrinking in value as the collection of tolls had risen to over $100 million dollars, or 400 times the amount of rent the US was paying. They achieved some traction by taking the matter to the UN. The Johnson administration and Panamanian officials came to an agreement in 1968 but it failed to be ratified in Panama. Negotiations continued during the Nixon administration, and in 1977, under Carter, congress ratified the Torrijos-Carter Treaty which called for the gradual end of US control of the canal zone finalizing in 1999, cutting 4 years off the 99 year lease. And the US rent to Panama would increase to 10 million a year until it was handed over. (by the time of the handover, the US was collecting over 200 million in tolls.)

In summary, no, Jimmy Carter did not give the Panama canal away to anyone. During his time in office, the congress did finalize the renegotiation of the Hay-Bunau-Varrila Treaty of 1903, agreeing on total control to be returned to Panama in 1999. This, in fact happened.

 

  John Reed Stark – former head of internet enforcement at the Security and Exchange Commission:       “Crypto is a scourge. It’s not something that you want in your society.  It has no utility, it’s pure speculation. There’s no balance sheet to crypto. There’s no financial statements. There’s no SEC filings. No public disclosure mandate. There’s no audit inspection examination, no net capital requirements, no licensure of the individuals involved, and there’s no transparency into it… BUT THE OTHER PART that people don’t talk about enough are the dire externalities that are enabled by crypto.  Every single crime you can conceive of is easier to do now because of crypto, espescially ransomware, human sex trafficking, sanction evasion, money laundering. North Korea is financing their nuclear weapons program using them.”

Ray’s note- And the most obvious of the crimes that it enables is tax evasion. And who will be using crypto to avoid taxes? The richer or the poorer? duh.

Just because anyone can buy a lottery ticket doesn’t mean it is not tantamount to a tax on the poorer. And just because anyone can buy crypto does not mean it will not increase the wealth gap. And now with their PAC Fairshake contributing many millions to candidates, the crypto-kings may become as big an influencer in congress as the NRA.  This is one more factor contributing to the increasing wealth gap that constitutes a dire threat to our democracy.

 

The nation was apprised of the purported inappropriate attitudes of college presidents through brief and misleading primetime soundbites from the meeting of the House Committee on Education and the Workplace. Here’s the backstory.

This is the third time I have started this article. For some reason I was unable to bring all the elements together to make a concise and coherent story. Then it hit me. THAT was my theme: There was nothing concise nor coherent about this congressional hearing. In fact it was painfully tortuous and off the point most of the time. So I will bring my point by listing some of the most noxious statements from the meeting.

The most glaring of all were the numerous factual errors of the committee members. Time after time disinformation was disgorged to predicate
an opinion or a pompous declaration.
 
NUMBER ONE Rep Joe Wilson of South Carolina insisted that Hamas’ terror was reaching the US, citing that a pro-Hamas professor murdered a peaceful protester in California. Here is Wilson’s story:
A JOE WILSON: Thank you, Chairwoman Virginia Foxx. And Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, I believe appropriately began this hearing about how serious this hearing is. That the Iran puppets of Hamas have victimized the world including here in the United States. And shocking, as we include people who have been affected, it should be Paul Kessler of California, who was murdered by a professor, a professor supporting Hamas as he was demonstrating peacefully on behalf of the people of Israel. And so we have victims right in our own country of murder in California…
My hypothetical question: Congressman Wilson, do you believe the country needs a well-informed public so it can make well-informed choices at the polls? Do you believe that the avalanche of disinformation, including that about the 2020 election, has hindered the ability of the public to be well-informed? Here is the real truth in the Paul Kessler story:

Undisputed documented facts: The ”murderer” of Paul Kessler, Loay Alnaji, 50, is a professor of computer science at the local Morehead College. He attended what was advertised as a peaceful demonstration in support of Palestinians. Paul Kessler came as a pro-Israeli counterprotester to confront the demonstration.  Kessler, 69, after some scuffle, stumbled or was pushed backward and fell, striking the back of his head, and was observably injured. Loay Alnaji called 911, and waited until the police came. Police said Alnaji was completely cooperative. Alnaji later said he did not support Hamas. When Kessler died, Alnaji was arrested on ”suspicion of involuntary (accidental) homicide” and released on bail. Coroners reports said Kessler’s injuries were consistent with a blow to the back of the head from falling.

Hypothetical question to congressman Wilson: Do you think that when the transcript of this meeting is published, your disinformation will cause an increase in hatred and prejudice between pro-Palistinian and pro-Israeli people? 

NUMBER TWO Another case of a committee member pouring the gasoline of disinformation on the conflict was Texas Rep Nathaniel Moran. Claiming wrongly that the BDS movement seeks to destroy Israel, he vilified president Gay because they are still on Harvard’s campus.
NATHANIEL MORAN: In 2022, after the editors of The Harvard Crimson endorsed the antisemitic BDS movement, which seeks the destruction of Israel, a group of 49 faculty penned a letter defending the Crimson editors. Did you ever speak out against BDS during that time? 
CLAUDINE GAY: The university, and I am clear in our positions about BDS, we do not support that position. It’s counter to academic freedom and at odds with the openness that is part of our strength as an institution.
NATHANIEL MORAN: Well, when you say — you said it earlier, and you reaffirmed to me the statement, there’s no place at Harvard for anti-Semitism. Well, those words really ring meaningless, if those folks remain at Harvard that promote antisemitism. Would you agree?
CLAUDINE GAY: We do not sanction individuals for their political views or their speech. When that speech crosses into conduct. that violates our behavior based policies — bullying, harassment and intimidation — we take action.

Moran is wrong. BDS movement DOES NOT seek the destruction of Israel, either in their political views or their speech, and the Harvard Crimson would never have endorsed it if it had. The BDS movement – Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement seeks the enforcement of international law, legally , encouraging boycotting, divesting and sanctioning- and an end to the illegal occupation of the West Bank. They insist they are not anti-semitic and in fact work together with Jewish Voice for Peace, a Jewish group which supports ending the occupation of the West Bank… Again a Republican congressman who, caring little about the accuracy of his statements, causes more division among Israelis and Palestinians -and admonishes the Harvard president for not speaking out against a group that was wrongly characterized as advocating the destruction of Israel.

NUMBER THREE Chairman Virginia Foxx convened the meeting with a shockingly incoherent and rambling screed and concluded with some strange generalizations. Reminiscent of Florida public school district banning of popular library books, Foxx declared that a prime cause of racism at Harvard was the teaching of certain courses.
Foxx:  “It’s clear that rabid anti-Semitism in the university are two ideas that cannot be cleaved from one another. [ I have no idea what she means here unless she means “have not been” instead of “cannot be”] A prime example of this ideology at work is at Harvard, where classes are taught, such as [here she nominates courses at Harvard which just by their teaching exacerbates racism on campus] DP 385, race and racism in the making of the United States as a global power. The Harvard Global Health Institute hosts seminars such as, quote, ‘Scientific Racism and Anti Racism History and recent perspectives.’ Even the Harvard Divinity School has a page devoted to, quote, ‘social and racial justice.’ Harvard also, not coincidentally, but causally, was ground zero for anti-Semitism following October 7th.” 
So her thesis is that because such courses and “pages”were taught at Harvard, somehow they were racism instigating, and they were ‘causal’ in Harvard’s becoming ”ground zero” for racism after Oct 7. Of course, all the courses mentioned had the goal of studying racism as a perjorative feature of culture in the historical context. ’Scientific racism’ was the non-scientific claim that some races were physically and mentally inferior and thus not entitled to equal treatment under the law.  Thus the course showed the evidence that the claim was untrue.

NUMBER FOUR Next Foxx divulges a bit from her own personal intuition. The concept underpinning the rift between the Israeli/Jewish campus conflict, she says, was the issue of whether Israel had the right to exist. (!!) Simple as that. So, unbelievably, she goes down the line asking the presidents if they believed that Israel had the right to exist!!! Noteworthy here is that the Palestinian State Authority, which was admitted to the UN in 2012 as an observer state, far from the terrorist Hamas, agreed to the right of Israel to exist in 1993 with the signing of the Oslo accord. I have found no groups that stand for the destruction of Israel on any US college campus – only some loud mouthed individuals that often contaminate the venue of 2-sided demonstrations.

Foxx: It seems — as I’ve said and — and Ms. Magill. I appreciate the fact that you feel concerned about the — my feeling about the fundamental culture on the campuses that’s foundational to this issue, denial of the right of Israel to exist.[!!!] So I want to ask each one of you, President Gay, do you believe that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish nation?
CLAUDINE GAY: I agree that the State of Israel has the right to exist.
VIRGINIA FOXX: Ms. Magill same question.
LIZ MAGILL: I agree, Chairwoman Foxx, the State of Israel has the right to exist VIRGINIA FOXX: Dr. Kornbluth? 
SALLY KORNBLUTH: Absolutely, Israel has the right to exist.
The three presidents must have felt they were in a fourth grade class. Relevant is the fact that all the presidents, in their opening statements, expressed their personal abhorrence with the October 7th attack and explained the programs they have developed to combat anti-semitism at their campuses. Was chairman Foxx asleep at the time? 

NUMBER FIVE
Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina has it all figured out. He states that the source of racism is most certainly that there are not enough conservatives hired by universities and too many liberals. This, he says is the cause of racism. He asks each of the presidents how many conservatives have been hired and when they say that they don’t keep that kind of data, he springs – aha! None.

WILSON: …With that in mind and I say this respectfully to each of the university professors here today, without any explanation, I would like the answer, and it should be a percentage of conservatives, and that is you each rightfully promote diversity and inclusion of race and gender with percentages available that is available at your universities.What is the percentage of conservative professors at your institutions? I only want to know the percent of conservatives. What is the number, Dr. — President Gay?
CLAUDINE GAY: Thank you, Congressman. So, I can’t provide you that statistic because it’s not data that we collect. But I will say that we — we try to draw our talent to Harvard from —
JOE WILSON: Ok. I — we’ve got to race ahead, please. I want more. I just want to know. What is the percentage of conservative professors at Harvard?
CLAUDINE GAY: I do not have that statistic. We don’t collect that data.
JOE WILSON: Well, that concerns me. And President Magill, what are the percentage of conservative professors allowed to teach at your institution?
LIZ MAGILL: Representative, I strongly believe in a wide variety of perspectives. We do not track that information, so I can’t give that to you.
JOE WILSON: Ok. No, none. I got the message. And President Kornbluth, what is the percentage of conservative professors in — at MIT? 
SALLY KORNBLUTH: We do not document people’s political views, but conservatives are welcome to teach on our campus.
JOE WILSON: And I think this is so sadly and shamefully revealing that there is no diversity and inclusion of intellectual thought. And the result of that is antisemitism.[!] And you can study with government money all you want to, Doctor, but it’s due to illiberalism that has taken over the country. And you might look into that when you get your next government grant.
Had the presidents been aware that such unususal questions were going to be dropped on them, the best response would have been: ‘What is a conservative, Mr Wilson and how do you measure it? Some people consider themselves, for example, conservative in fiscal matters and liberal in social matters. Many people would say they are somewhere in the middle. Some people would say they change often. And how would you propose we change our hiring practices? What questions would you ask in order to hire more conservatives? If it can be shown that professors and staff are not discriminated against in hiring according to political/social proclivities, perhaps you would support an affirmative action program to hire more conservatives, if it can be agreed upon what exactly they are. Perhaps in the insular world of Congress conservative means Republican and liberal means Democratic, but there are many more configurations in the real world.’ But Wilson concludes that because the schools don’t collect information on how many “conservatives” are teaching at their schools, this is “shamefully revealing there is no diversity and inclusion of intellectual thought” !!!!!! ” And the result of that is anti-semitism” !!!!!!

NUMBER SIX: This brings us to what turned out to be the star of the show, Elise
Stefanik. Her discourse was in keeping with the new politics of shouting and accusations, but did little to make progress toward the actualization of goals.

. Her most egregious mistake is her equating “Intifada” with the calling for the genocide of jews. Her second is her lack of definition of “calling for the genocide of jews”. Where is it said? To whom? Did the wording constitute calling for genocide This is where context comes in. Lastly is her lack of definition of what code she is suggesting that is being transgressed. Sometimes she mentions ”code of conduct or rules?”, once she say ”Rules regarding bullying and harrassment” 

ELISE STEFANIK: Dr. Kornbluth, does — at MIT, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate MITs code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment, yes or no?SALLY KORNBLUTH: If targeted at individuals, not making public statements.
ELISE STEFANIK: Yes or no, calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying and harassment? Of course context is essential when judging if someone is ‘calling for genocide.” Points of contention might be the phrasing : ” I think they should get rid of the jews” Is this calling for genocide? Or context of mood ” Yes, I said it but I was just in an angry mood and I didn’t really mean it. 
SALLY KORNBLUTH: I have not heard calling for the genocide for Jews on our campus.
ELISE STEFANIK: But you’ve heard chants for intifada? There it is. genocide and intifada are equated. And Stefaniik equates calling for intifada with calling for genocide 
SALLY KORNBLUTH: I’ve heard chants, which can be anti-Semitic depending on the context when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people. Here it seems plausible to assume that Kornbluth herself doesn’t exactly know the meaning of intifada.
ELISE STEFANIK: So, those would not be according to the — MITs code of conduct or rules?
SALLY KORNBLUTH: That would be investigated as — as harassment, if pervasive and severe.
ELISE STEFANIK: Ms. Magill, at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s rules or code of conduct, yes or no?
LIZ MAGILL: If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment, yes.
ELISE STEFANIK: I am asking specifically. Calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?
LIZ MAGILL: If it is directed and severe or pervasive, it is harassment.
ELISE STEFANIK: So, the answer is yes?
LIZ MAGILL: It is a context dependent decision, Congresswoman.
ELISE STEFANIK: It’s a context dependent decision? That’s your testimony today? Calling for the genocide of Jews is, depending upon the context, that is not bullying or harassment? This is the easiest question to answer yes, Ms. Magill. So, is your testimony LIZ MAGILL: If it — if it —
ELISE STEFANIK: That you will not answer yes?
LIZ MAGILL: If it is — if the —
ELISE STEFANIK: Yes or no?
LIZ MAGILL: If the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment, yes.
ELISE STEFANIK: Conduct meaning committing the act of genocide? No, conduct meaning directing the speech to Jews, and in an offensive way, just as she had responded in the previous question. The speech is not harassment? No speech is intrinsically harrassment, ae if no one hears it.This is unacceptable, Ms. Magill. I’m going to give you one more opportunity for the world to see your answer. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s code of conduct when it comes to bullying and harassment, yes or no?
LIZ MAGILL: It can be harassment.
ELISE STEFANIK: The answer is yes. And Dr. Gay, at Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment, yes or no?CLAUDINE GAY: It can be. Depending on the context.
ELISE STEFANIK: What’s the context?
CLAUDINE GAY: Targeted as an individual, targeted as — at an individual, severe, pervasive.
ELISE STEFANIK: It’s targeted at Jewish students, Jewish individuals. This is quite amazing. Now Stefanik is adding conditions to her hypothetical. Do you understand your testimony is dehumanizing them? Do you understand that dehumanization is part of anti-Semitism? I will ask you one more time. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment, yes or no?
CLAUDINE GAY: Anti-Semiidation. That is actionable conduct, and we do take action.
ELISE STEFANIK: So, the answer is yes, that calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard code of conduct, correct?
CLAUDINE GAY: Again, it depends on the context.
ELISE STEFANIK: It does not depend on the context. The answer is yes. And this is why you should resign. These are unacceptable answers across the board.
If Claudine Gay had answered in the following way, she would have been able to apprise Stefanik of nuance, context, and judgement in cases involving students:
Claudine Gay: Miss Stefanik, let’s suppose you were dean of student affairs at Harvard. A female student comes into your office, upset, and says, “My roomate said last night that they should get rid of all the Jews” You give pause and say, “Are you Jewish?”… Now Miss Stefanik. Is this against the rules of conduct at Harvard, did she violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment? And what should be the punishment?
Elise Stefanik: Well, was the complainant Jewish?
Claudine Gay: Yes or no Miss Stefanik, Did this woman violate the Harvard code of conduct? Did she violate, as you asked previously, Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment?


What far fewer people heard on Dec 13 was in the 3 presidents’ opening statements.  This was Liz McGill’s opening statement in part:
November 1st, just over a month ago, I announced Penn’s action plan to combat antisemitism. This builds on our anti-hate efforts to date, and it is anchored firmly in the United States National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. The plan centers on three, key areas and has many elements. Those areas are safety and security, engagement, and education. As part of this plan, I have convened and charged a task force to identify concrete, actionable recommendations, directing them to provide me with their recommendations, both in real time and then a final report in a couple of months.

 

Summary
To summarize there seems to be 3 sources or reasons for the hostilities on the campuses, in the country, and in the congressional hearing.
I.  Careless and inaccurate statements that constitute disinformation or propaganda. This in turn creates distrust, fear, and hatred and helps to continue the cycle of violence. 
  A Paul Kessler was not murdered by a Hamas-supporting professor at a demonstration in California, as Rep Joe Wilson declares.
  B The BDE movement does not support the destruction of Israel as Rep Nathanial Moran states but supports peaceful means of resistence to the occupation of the West Bank. Jewish Voice for Peace, Jewish residents of Israel partners with them for the Boycott of settlements in the West Bank. They are hated by the Netenyahoo regime. (No wonder. The blacks who boycotted the Montgomery bus system in 1955 for being relegated to the rear of the buses were hated also – they disrupted the city budget, but broke no laws.) And recently the gov passed a law that says anyone who condones the boycotts are not to be allowed in Israel, moving the Netanyahoo govt a bit away from democracy.
  C When “intifada” is chanted in demonstrations it is not a call for the destruction of Israel. If Rep Kevin Kiley had understood this he would not have demanded of the presidents: “Would you want someone who has called for the eradication of the Jewish people to be part of the Harvard community?” and Rep Elis Stepannik would not have equated the “calls for intifada” with ” the calling for the genocide of jews. (See

II. A very common mistake of people fighting for a cause is this: Consider the affects of your behavior on your cause. Do your actions really help to move your cause forward, to help achieve noble and just goals? Or do your actions serve only to create the self-gratification which comes with aggression?
  A The most egregious offense of this principle was done Oct 10, in the wake of the Hamas attack, when 31 campus groups at Harvard signed a letter saying they “hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for the unfolding violence.“ What? 3 days after 1500 Israeli men women and children were hunted down and slaughtered in their back yards?
   After mass violence, the corona of human emotions of sadness, fear, hate must be respected. These emotions often subordinate rational thinking. 
At the funeral of a teacher, a student who comments that s/he was a terrible teacher is not going to get much confirmation. Upon the attack of 9/11/01 no cause could have been helped by maurauding around NYC proclaiming the the US policies were responsible. Emotion ruled. Did the signatories really believe that the Jewish community would respond, ”Oh, I guess you are right. It’s the Israelis fault that Hamas murdered my cousins while they were eating in their back yard.”  Regardless of who was right or wrong, the timing of the letter was unconscionable. It only elicited an avalanche of bad feeling from the Jewish community as well as others who took offense at the insensitivity.
   Mercifully, 5 student groups have retracted their support for the letter, coming close to an apology. The Harvard Islamic Society stated, “Our initial signature was never intended as an endorsement of violence”
B Signs were seen posted at various places on all three of these campuses. At Harvard one sign read. ’Jews are Nazis’. Whether the creators had some point in mind regarding how some Palestinians are being treated in the West Bank, these placards only increased the political and social stresses between the factions.

III Groups or individuals that do not care if their actions advance any cause, but whose goal is gratification under the guise of a popular struggle. A videotape surfaced several months after 9/11 of Osama bin Laden and his cohorts smirking and congratulating themselves on the attack. This was their olympics. It mattered not at all if it brought hatred from millions of muslims as well as non-muslims, and affected no advancement of any noble cause.This was like winning the superbowl. Yahya Sinewar and Mohammed Deif, apparent architechs of the Oct 7 attack, cared little that one of the murdered was a Jewish Israeli that took his daughter to an integrated school with Christian, Jewish, and Muslim students.

Aftermath: . Opinions were formed by the public about the efficacy of the 3 presidents based on soundbites from the Stefanik interogation seen on the evening news programs. Included in those influenced by the soundbites , with only a superficial understanding , were doners such as businessman Ross Stevens, who said he would rescind his $100 million gift to the college, ”absent a change in leadership” at Penn and several other doners.

Then came the resignation of McGill, insisted on by the Board of trustees.

Then came a letter composed by the Faculty Senate complaining about the undue influence of donors and the Board of Directors:
“Unelected billionaires without scholarly qualifications are now seeking to control academic decisions that must remain within the purview of faculty in order for research and teaching to have legitimacy and autonomy from private and partisan interests,”
It was signed by 900 educators – professors and staff – at the university.

End (for now)  
  

c

Wilson… murder in California. With that in mind and I say this respectfully to each of the university professors here today, without any explanation, I would like the answer, and it should be a percentage of conservatives, and that is you each rightfully promote diversity and inclusion of race and gender with percentages available that is available at your universities.What is the percentage of conservative professors at your institutions? I only want to know the percent of conservatives. What is the number, Dr. — President Gay?
CLAUDINE GAY: Thank you, Congressman. So, I can’t provide you that statistic because it’s not data that we collect. But I will say that we — we try to draw our talent to Harvard from —
JOE WILSON: Ok. I — we’ve got to race ahead, please. I want more. I just want to know. What is the percentage of conservative professors at Harvard?
CLAUDINE GAY: I do not have that statistic. We don’t collect that data.
JOE WILSON: Well, that concerns me. And President Magill, what are the percentage of conservative professors allowed to teach at your institution?
LIZ MAGILL: Representative, I strongly believe in a wide variety of perspectives. We do not track that information, so I can’t give that to you.
JOE WILSON: Ok. No, none. I got the message. And President Kornbluth, what is the percentage of conservative professors in — at MIT? 
SALLY KORNBLUTH: We do not document people’s political views, but conservatives are welcome to teach on our campus.
JOE WILSON: And I think this is so sadly and shamefully revealing that there is no diversity and inclusion of intellectual thought. And the result of that is antisemitism. And you can study with government money all you want to, Doctor, but it’s due to illiberalism that has taken over the country. And you might look into that when you get your next government grant.

NUMBER THREE

“Again the triumph of demagoguery. Elise Stefanik brought out her calculated weapon, the question: Does calling for the genocide of jews constitute harrassment or violate the by-laws of the institution? What was not questioned was what exactly means “calling for the genocide” If Alice, in her dorm room, says to her friend Betty, ”I think all the (Jews/Palestinians/Blacks/Rohingas) should be eliminated” And Carrie overhears and/or reports the conversation to the Dean, is this ‘harassment’ or against by-laws? This is nuance that the presidents, as academicians were trying to address, navigating between free speech and hate speech, expressing thoughts privately and public harassment, but were struggling to express it as Stefanic sought to increase her populist appeal by giving them the third degree. And emotional populist demagoguery beats measured rational thinking any day. At least currently in the US politics. “

MIT’s Sally Kornbluth did the best at defusing Stefanik’s accusations.
Stefanik: Does calling for…Yes or no.
Kornbluff: At targeted individuals. Not making public statements.
Stefanik: Yes or no? Calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying or
……………. harassment?
Kornbluff: I have not heard the calling for genocide of Jews on our campus.
Stefanik: But you’ve heard chants for antifada? Now, it seems, Stefanik is equating ”chants for antifada” to ”calls for the genocide of jews”
Kornbluth: I’ve heard chants which can be anti-semetic. depending on context, when ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,calling for the elimination of the Jewish people
Stefanic: So those would not be according to the MIT code of conduct or rules?
Kornbluff: Those would be investigated when pervasive or severe. (Kornbluff is, herself, Jewish.)

So Stefanik fails to nail a gotcha with MIT, and immediately goes to Liz McGill of Penn.
Stefanic: Does calling for… Yes or no?
McGill: If the speech turns into conduct, yes, it can be harassment.
Here McGill’s use of the word ‘conduct’ without qualifying it with more detail was a mistake.  She should have developed the idea further. She probably means raising the profile from words spoken in private meant to remain private to publicly asserting and intrusively repeating the views. Stefanic jumps on it.

KEVIN KILEY: If — would you say that a person who is an avowed neo-Nazi is someone that you would want to be part of the Harvard community?

CLAUDINE GAY: Those are not consistent with Harvard’s values, but at the same time we allow a wide berth for free expression on a variety of views.
7&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

KEVIN KILEY: The question was, would you want such a person, who was an avowed neo-Nazi, to be part of the Harvard community, yes or no?

CLAUDINE GAY: Those are not consistent with Harvard values.
KEVIN KILEY: So you would not want such a person to be part of the community?CLAUDINE GAY: Those are not consistent with Harvard values.
KEVIN KILEY: Would you want someone who has called for the eradication of the Jewish people to be part of the Harvard community?

Here Stefanik question
explanation of why becareful
EEEEENNNNNNDDDDDDDD OOOOOFFFFFF BBBBBLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOGGGGGGG

Magil 5 minutes opening

x, Ranking Member Scott, and distinguished members of this committee, for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Elizabeth Magill, and I am the president of the University of Pennsylvania. Let me begin by saying that I and the University of Pennsylvania are horrified by and condemn Hamas’s abhorrent and brutal terror attack on Israel on October 7th. There is no justification, none, for those heinous attacks.

The loss of life and suffering that are occurring in Israel and Gaza during the ensuing war are heartbreaking. This pain, sorrow, and fear extends to our campus and to our city of Philadelphia. This hearing this morning takes place just two days after the Philadelphia community witnessed, in horror, the hateful words and actions of protesters who marched through the city and then near our campus.

These protesters directly targeted a center city business that is Jewish and Israeli owned, a troubling and shameful act of antisemitism. Philadelphia Police and Penn Public Safety were present, and thankfully, no one was injured. But these events have understandably left many in our community upset and afraid.

Anti-Semitism, an old, viral and pernicious evil, has been steadily rising in our society and these world events have dramatically accelerated that surge. Few places have proven immune, including Philadelphia and campuses like ours. This is unacceptable. We are combating this hate on our campus with both immediate and comprehensive action.

I have condemned antisemitism publicly, regularly, and in the strongest possible terms. And today, let me reiterate my and Penn’s unyielding commitment to combating it. We immediately investigate any hateful act, cooperating with both law enforcement and the FBI, where we have identified individuals who have committed these acts in violation of either policy or law.

We initiate disciplinary proceedings and engage law enforcement. We have acted decisively to ensure safety throughout and near our campus, expanding the presence of public safety officers at our religious life centers and all across campus. On November 1st, just over a month ago, I announced Penn’s action plan to combat antisemitism.