I don't have a dog in this fight, but why weren't the questions answered? Having been deposed myself, I know you just have to be honest. Is it so hard, regardless of who is asking?

Somewhat speculating -- and there is no way I'd watch enough of the hearings to be sure one way or another -- but the context may have been set where "Free Palestine, from the river to the sea" was interpreted as a call for genocide against the Jews ... which in a world based on reason would raise questions about what driving Palestinian Arabs out when Israel was formed was, and what the maps often put out by the Israeli government that include all of the Occupied Territories -- "from the river to the sea" -- as "Israel" are.

I think it would be very much in character for Stefanik to try such a stunt. The university people ought to have been clever enough to clarify their position on the "from the river to the sea" statements before saying that of course calls for violence are not protected speech, but they were not.

"Clever enough"? Is that the same as "Being shifty in a less obvious way"? Isn't that the first thing you learn at Harvard in particular?!

I’m now more convinced, especially after reading into the recent Joan Donovan and the $500 million Facebook donation scandal (Info can be found here and here). 

The Donovan's scandal, in my opinion, highlights the disturbing influence of major donors in several areas; setting the educational framework, admitting unqualified students based on their nationality, and twisting policies to the point where the entire elite higher education system appears to be an auction for academic priorities, with the highest bidder winning. 

Being an American -- and trying to be a responsible citizen -- I have been a student of buying influence for quite some time. You have to understand buying influence to understand why America doesn't have universal healthcare, puts up with weekly mass shootings, taxes billionaires at lower rates than their secretaries, regularly kisses Israel's ass, etc.

And with the caveat that I am not an investment expert, and nothing I take should be interpreted to be investment advice, the best investment in the world is buying the American government. The return on investment you can get would make a Nigerian prince blush.

But buying the American government isn't available to everyone.

The elements that I believe have to be in place in order to make the investment are as follows:

1. A committed, moneyed, and somewhat coordinated group of investors.
2. The absence of a similar group of investors trying to buy the government for the opposite reason.
3. A goal for your investment that does not attract focused attention, either for being insignificant to most people or for being complex and easily made to be confusing, particularly if the confusion aligns with some prominent ideology that's already in place.

Obviously the American government isn't the same as a university, but I think the same rules generally apply. The one difference is that universities don't necessarily attract the attention of a broad group of people, so it might be possible to buy influence at a particular university without having all of the above elements firmly in place; George Mason University is basically a case study in this. And there are minor colleges and universities that are essentially completely bought-and-paid for without all of the elements because the institutions themselves do not attract very much attention; Hillsdale College and Liberty and Bob Jones Universities are examples of this.

somor highlights the $1.5 billion given to Harvard's Middle East Studies Program from some unnamed source as something to be concerned about with regard to Harvard's academic integrity, but as we have seen, there is a committed, moneyed, and somewhat coordinated group of investors working to prevent what they consider antisemitic attitudes at Harvard, so I don' think even if it was al Qaeda that gave the money, there would be much movement in Harvard's attitudes.

If somor wants to see actual impact on academic integrity, he might look at Norman Finkelstein's career history.

"Clever enough"? Is that the same as "Being shifty in a less obvious way"? Isn't that the first thing you learn at Harvard in particular?!

As I suspected, Stefanik loaded her question with describing using the term "intifada" as calling for a genocide of Jews in her preface to her question to Claudine Gay. You only have to watch about two minutes of the video -- although Stefanik has such an annoying voice and such an obnoxious delivery that even two minutes is a lot to take -- in order to see this.

And even from the two minutes you can probably get an idea of how the entire affair was manufactured in order to get a misleading talking point; Gay's responses are much more nuanced and thoughtful than the headlines typically given.

Objection, Your Honour! I don't think any of that is relevant! The questions expect a yes/no answer. 

-- but the context may have been set where "Free Palestine, from the river to the sea" was interpreted as a call for genocide against the Jews ... which in a world based on reason would raise questions about what driving Palestinian Arabs out when Israel was formed was, and what the maps often put out by the Israeli government that include all of the Occupied Territories -- "from the river to the sea" -- as "Israel" are.

FYI, the slogan ‘from the river to the sea’ is another word for Judenrein. It was adopted by Hasan al-Bana - the founder of the terrorist group ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ in the early 1940s when he served the German Nazi (see: Muslim Brotherhood). 

She might find it difficult to stay calm in the presence of such obvious smirking by Gay!

Honestly, somor, your head is filled with so much bullshit.

Really, the firmament upon which Israel rationalizes itself is almost pure bullshit.

Name-calling is not my area of expertise. In this matter, you’re undoubtedly serveral times ahead of me. 

Cry baby. 

Give yourself credit, somor: "... the terrorist group ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ ..."

Objection, Your Honour! I don't think any of that is relevant! The questions expect a yes/no answer. 

Let me rephrase the question.

Practicing quantitative finance means killing babies. Are you in favor of killing babies? It's a "yes" or "no" question.

No.

This is beginner stuff!!! This was my bedtime reading once upon a time... https://store.nolo.com/products/nolos-d ... k-dep.html

I'm glad to know that you have disavowed the practice of quantitative finance. I yield back the remainder of my time.

-- but the context may have been set where "Free Palestine, from the river to the sea" was interpreted as a call for genocide against the Jews ... which in a world based on reason would raise questions about what driving Palestinian Arabs out when Israel was formed was, and what the maps often put out by the Israeli government that include all of the Occupied Territories -- "from the river to the sea" -- as "Israel" are.

FYI, the slogan ‘from the river to the sea’ is another word for Judenrein. It was adopted by Hasan al-Bana - the founder of the terrorist group ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ in the early 1940s when he served the German Nazi (see: Muslim Brotherhood). 

Nah, 
3 million Irish worked for the Nazis in WWII; many of them featured in Ulysses.

I’d be grateful if anyone could point out where Stefanik specifically makes mistakes in her role on the congressional committee.

Stefanik, at about 0:34-0:47: "And you understand that use of the term 'intifada' in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict is indeed a call for violent armed resistance against the State of Israel including violence against civilians and the genocide of Jews."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSaJRyN ... seStefanik
You're welcome.