As distasteful as I find her actions - and as disturbing as many of the comments on the previous post are - I really hope that she was not told that the College “could not guarantee her safety” and that she should take some time off. Although troubling, her actions were not violent, and the idea that anyone in the Williams College community would consider physically assaulting or intimidating her is horrifying.

I found Julia’s comments in the original WSO thread about the Holocaust Posters instructive. She and a handful of others made it clear that they were sick of being reminded about the Holocaust and Jewish people whining about it. Or, as Julia asked, “How am i supposed to remember something that I wasn’t alive for?”

I feel a bit like Mr. Rodgers: Now children, can you spell ‘empathy’? IMO, the best and the brightest young adults should have the ability to view events from another perspective, for example to empathize with the importance of the Holocaust to many Jewish people, even though it may not impact them, as non-Jews, in quite same way. I am confident that most Williams students do develop that ability, as it really goes right to the core of a strong liberal arts education.

It would have been nice for litte Miss Self-Centered to have just said in her manifesto that she didn’t realize the pain her Hitler posters might cause to others and she’s sorry about that. I’ll confess to a less than close reading of her manifesto, but I did not detect even a shred of emphathy.

BTW, I seriously doubt that anyone at Williams College told her they could not guarantee her safety. Think about the potential sources of information about those meetings (the Deans or Julia Cordrary?). I do think they probably made it clear to her that they would not stand in the way of campus speech. In fact, Morty Schapiro (to his credit, IMO) invited a harsh critical response to her actions.

The most interesting part of the whole story will be the response of the Williams community. Morty’s worst nightmare, given his consistent interest in bringing the campus community together through diversity efforts and housing policis, would be a swell of support for papering the campus with Hitler posters.

Pathetic all around. Cannot guarantee her safety? 90% of Williams could not fight their way out of a wet paper bag with the end wide open. The college is grossly over reacting. The think the bomb situation is much more disturbing since it puts lives in jeopardy. Worst thing that could happen from the flyers is a paper cut. Paper cuts do suck though.

Come on. A little critical thinking here. You have a private meeting between a Dean and Julia. You have an allegation that the College would not “guarantee her safety”. Do you think the source for the report of that allegation was:

a) a Dean of Williams College
b) Julia “Hitler Girl” Julia

Having read the two letters to the campus community from Morty Schapiro/Dean Roseman and the manifesto from Julia, which of the two potential sources for information about their private meetings is more likely to engage in the hyberole of victimization?

Parsing and evaluating sources is a key skill in critical thinking.

For the record, I think the College’s response to Ms. Julia’s papering the campus with Hitler posters has been rather restrained. I do not see any “gross over-reaction”.

Either wrong percentage or wrong group. 99% of the campus - 90% of the self-styled tough guys on campus.

What a nice approach: make anyone interesting disappear while claiming to have no ability to protect them.

Those who are left are droids.

What a fitting punishment for using free speech.

I think part of this problem is that our educational system has fundamentally failed in educating people about the difference between good and consistent negative rights, on one hand, and false and contradictory positive “rights” on the other.

There is no right TO free speech. Period. That’s it. You don’t have the right to say whatever you want. If there were a right TO free speech, then we’d have a gamut of unconstitutional laws from sexual harassment, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, slander and libel, just to say a few.

What we do have, is a protection under the 1st Amendment and incorporated against the states and their subdivisions by the 14th, that the GOVERNMENT, whether state, local, or federal, cannot censor or punish us for making speech that does not incite imminent lawless action.

There is no “free speech” right against private parties, just as there is no right to spray graffiti on your neighbor’s house.

Williams CAN punish anybody for saying anything or doing anything, absent an affirmative legal protection to the contrary. Whether or not they SHOULD or not is an entirely different question. But Williams hasn’t punished anybody, or expressed any intention of punishing anybody. Taking down offensive graffiti when prospective students and their parents are visiting campus is hardly a punishment or “censorship”. I think the only suggestions that the college can’t protect Julia come from Miss “Bong Hitz 4 Hitler” herself. (See Frederick v. Morse).

Thank you Lowell for finally pointing out the obvious to the ignorant: the Constitution protects us from the Government, not each other.

Yeah, that’s why they sent security to arrest her and then said she did nothing wrong.

That’s #6 on the list.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html

except security has no power to arrest at williams.

Manatee (aka Gestapo, aka 69.123.216.109) — Security went to find her. Since you are clearly ignorant of Williams College, I’ll explain this to you. Security at Williams (unlike at other colleges, like Tufts, where the campus security is actually Police) is not Police. They cannot arrest anybody.

What they do is enforce the rules and dictates of the administration. They are, quite literally, SECURITY, just like a security guard at a private building. Security guards cannot arrest anybody like police can, but they (or any private property owner or that owner’s agent) can detain a trespasser or a violator of rules under the right circumstances.

While you probably can’t comprehend the public/private distinction, it’s still a point worth noting. I’m just blown away by how ignorant you are both about Williams and very basic concepts of the American legal system.

“the idea that anyone in the Williams College community would consider physically assaulting or intimidating her is horrifying.”

I think that, in reference to the statement about the College being unable to guarantee Ms. Julia’s personal safety (if it was in fact made), it was with respect to people from outside the campus. The postering has garnered worldwide attention (perhaps to the satisfaction of the 30-year-old boyfriend especially) from all kinds of “nasty” (to borrow a word used in another thread here) and, personally, frightening individuals. I think Ms. Julia may be receiving much more than she bargained for from her poorly-conceived and -executed stunt.

ephmom:

I would be shocked if any official at Williams College made that statement.

I would not be surprised if they advised her that she may be in for a rough ride in terms of campus opinion and that they do not intend to shield her from response to her desire for “dialogue”. I applaud the College for that. She is, after all, the one who chose to distribute Hitler posters and it defies credility that she did so with any naivete about the response Hitler posters might bring.

Morty should be justifiably furious about her letter to the Dean seeking clarification of her intent in papering the campus with Hitler posters. Between critical thinking skills far below the standards set by Williams College students and the utter lack of empathy, it had to be quite disappointing to Morty.

Speaking of shocking, Ephmom, better take a seat because I think Morty has done a good job with this whole brouhaha.

Now, he can only hope that somebody close to Julia manages to talk some sense into her — namely that continuing as the chief spokesman of “Bong Hits for Hitler” (love that!) is probably not the smartest thing she’s ever done. Alas, so far there’s precious little indication that the young lady is terribly receptive to pragmatic advice.

Thanks, HWC.

I do have to credit Joseph Frederick, formerly of Juneau, Alaska for coming to at least national legal attention for his off-campus “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner case that was argued before the Supreme Court on 3/19.

With that in my memory, and the confluence of Hitler and the Cannabis leaf, it was easy to do a slight alteration. And Dave — I gotta say, I think it’s catchier than “Mary Jane Hitler”.

“Speaking of shocking, Ephmom”

hwc: I’m more shocked that you haven’t drawn more comparisons to the college in Pennsylvania — but pleasantly so.

This would never have happened at Swarthmore

If a member of Campus Security “finds” a person, and if that person then ignores the member, it is presumed that the member would be obliged to leave the scene promptly, provided that an individual or property is not in imminent jeopardy.

“This would never have happened at Swarthmore”

Now you’re baiting — or being sarcastic/ironic. So what is it?

I can’t find any comparisons. Of course, every school has students who pull brain dead stunts. The frat boys once threw one of those offensive theme parties — something to do with tequila, Dos Equis, and Mexican border immigration. But, after a chat with the Dean, they had the good sense to quickly publish a letter apologizing for offending Latino/a students. They weren’t dumb enough to continue with a bogus free speech claim in support of their offensive actions. There’s not much any college can do in a case where the student remains steadfastly brain dead. I can’t blame Morty for Julia’s continued stance. I think Morty has responded appropriately.

Nine years ago, an unidentified person stuffed many student mailboxes with a nationally published Holocaust Denial pamphlet. That generated considerable heat in the school newspaper for a month, but it was a different situation in that nobody was defending the pamplets. Most of the discussion seemed to have been centered around whether the paper should have printed a letter to the editor from the publisher of the pamphlet Bradley Smith responding to the college President’s very harsh condemnation of the pamphlet’s “morally reprehensible line of argument” and “agenda of anti-semitism”. The paper had turned down advertisements and letters from this character for years (he was waging a national PR campaign centered on college newspapers denying him “free speech”), but felt that they owed him one time response since the college had officially (not only the President, but letters to the editor from two academic departments) ripped his pamphlet to shreds.

The most interesting “free speech” issue lately was last fall’s annual sidewalk chalking by the Queer students groups. As usual, such chalkings went over the top in terms of graphic offensiveness and STUDENTS hosed away some of the chalkings, while other students organized a “straight” chalking the next day, followed by the annual “computer geek” chalkings. The administration condemned the offensiveness of the original chalkings, but stated the policy of the college is that the college will not erase chalkings as a matter of free speech, unless they attack or threaten. If students are offended and erase them or respond with their own, so be it, that’s free speech too…basically encouraging the students to have at it with their opinions pro and con and sort it out themselves. That is essentially the position Morty has taken here, from what I can tell.

The chalking debate waged for several weeks in the school paper, capped by large student meeting with two professors volunteering to act as trained facilitators — they divided the meeting into six distinct positions and alloted time for all six groups to make their cases. There was never a question of the school limiting free speech, but rather whether the community itself should draw a line, which is a more complex issue. The Williams College Council might find the newspaper account of that meeting helpful as they ponder where to go from here. However, it’s not directly analogous because I don’t see how Julia even has an intellectual valid position to defend. The free speech claim is a total strawman she’s hiding behind.

That the College could not “guarantee my safety” was never expressed by the administrators I talked to. However, this idea was discussed between myself and several individuals who thought I shouldn’t release my name. I too thought it a very unlikely outcome, but seeing as I don’t know what disciplinary measures are going to be taken against me it did factor into my waiting for something less vague from the administraion.
Security also made at least one attempt to search my room, however this first attempt was bungled. I don’t know if they came back for a second try.
I’ve been as direct and forthcoming as I could possibly be. Something that hasn’t actually helped me. The letter of intent was written immediatly after the events of Friday night, and it is largely my emotional response to being angry and scared. My lack of an apology has been viewed as a total lack of remorse. The message was not intended as a threat, and I’m very sorry that my friends are put in a position of scrutiny as a result of my actions.

“This would never have happened at Swarthmore”

I can’t say that. It only takes one knucklehead who thinks Bong Hits for Hitler(tm) is a swell idea. There was a black student who used his weekly newspaper column to write some pretty offensively racist things. The campus community responded to his writing by not awarding the annual prize for African American journalism on campus (for the first time ever) last year when he was a senior.

I think the reaction from the college to Hitler posters would be pretty much along the lines of Morty’s letter, perhaps a tad more forceful in characterizing such posters as prima facia anti-semitism. I think the reaction from the students would be swift and harsh condemnation, which is what I expect the reaction to be on the Williams campus.

my brother was involved inthe holocaust denial incident. unlike this case, the student who sent those pamphlets actually supported them. in that sense, it was a much worse situation than this one.

Julia–so I assume this means you continue to have no remorse for the signs in any way. I’d really appreciate–and would expect that many others would similarly appreciate–a collected written response from you that expresses some empathy or remorse or learning from this experience. that is, if there is any.

JC:

As a Williams alum who sees you as a young adult desperately in need of good advice, I strongly recommend that you ditch the ‘tude and recognize the hurt that responding to a Holocaust Remembrance with Hitler posters is certain to trigger. Apologize to the campus community. Go meet with the WJSA and apologize to them in person.

As Bob Dylan once wrote, you are going “Ninety Miles an Hour down a Dead End Street”. I feel badly for you. With a little reflection, you can do the right thing and learn a valuable lesson in empathy for others.

Now you’re baiting — or being sarcastic/ironic. So what is it?

It’s a JOKE

“It’s a JOKE”

Limitations of the Internet: unable to see your face or hear your words.

I can’t believe that pompous, self-centered Antigone bitch. What did she think she was doing? Creon sure gave her a talking over! She’d better follow his advice or she’s going to be in for…

What can people learn from all this? Given how overblown this has become, especially after one Jewish student added the story to fark.com for international exposure of a minor campus event, when dealing with immature whiners it is prudent to employ anonymity to avoid the anger of both the mob and authority backed into a corner by the demands of the mob.

“authority backed into a corner by the demands of the mob.”

Especially when that authority — the college’s “administration” — is equated to “terrorists” (http://www.anonhost.org/williams/) by the boyfriend (and, since he seems to be feeding the Williams student, JC by extension as well).

Since the boyfriend is nowhere near contrite, I wouldn’t expect anything resembling an apology, either to the administration or community in general, to be forthcoming from the student.

What can people learn from all this? Given how overblown this has become, especially after one Jewish student added the story to fark.com for international exposure of a minor campus event, when dealing with immature whiners it is prudent to employ anonymity to avoid the anger of both the mob and authority backed into a corner by the demands of the mob.

What on earth makes you assume that the student who posted the story to Fark was Jewish?