the reason they had that impression is because of their assumptions about Israel-Palestine etc etc, and certainly not because of anything I said

Now you’re being a twit. Everyone here who has written a comment here to you, understood you in the same way, & yet the reason isn’t because of yr lack of clarity, but because of our own prejudices. Do get off of it.

I’m done w. this thread. That means you’re done. You’ve repeated yrself & we who see it differrently are not saying anything new either. Move on to a diff. thread.

Alex, the main problem with your argument is that you assume that “free speech” exists in a vacuum, a levelled world without distinctions. Having a universal standard of free speech does NOT mean that everything is the same and there are no category differences. Context is crucial, as Shirin tried to get you to see.

Regarding academic freedom, a university professor has a fundamental right to speak his/her mind on an international issue of the day and be protected in so doing. Protected speech is the heart of academic freedom, meaning that a professor does not have to worry about professional retribution/repurcussions for staking a position on an issue, or participating in the open exchange of ideas. Gordon’s behavior was within the normative purview of what a professor does, can do, and is allowed to do.

A university president, on the other hand, is supposed to shore up and protect the academic freedom of his/her professors underneath her. That is a fundamental component of the job, certainly in the modern, industrialized world, and I would say more broadly as well. (This is common knowledge stuff, Alex, it’s a given, and if you’re going to contest that point you’re simply too ignorant to bother dealing with). By implicitly affirming and echoing the accusations of “treason” against Neve Gordon, and suggesting he should leave his post and even the country, Carmi is transgressing and undermining Gordon’s fundamental academic freedom. She’s exerting her superior power as top honcho of the institution to punish him professionally because of what he wrote (again, fully within his rights). Carmi is not merely disagreeing with his position (which would be ok), she is attacking and undermining his professional position in the university, a serious breach of academic freedom. So, the cases of “speech” are not equivalent. Again, having universal standards of free speech does not translate into everything being the same, that’s your fundamental fallacy, Alex.

If Carmi stepped down from her position and role as president of Ben Gurion, she could rant and rave about Gordon and exercise her “free speech” all she wants and nobody would give a flying rip. It’s about context. If the President of the United States said “America sucks and I hate Americans”, he would be rightly condemned for doing so and surely be impeached, even though he would be exercising his/her “free speech rights”. Memorize this word, CONTEXT.

OK.

She hasn’t merely been disagreeing with him. She went well beyond merely disagreeing with him.

The president of Tel Aviv University was merely disagreeing with graduate student on Global BDS when he opposed his views while upholding his right to express them. He did not subject the student to intimidation or threats or name-calling, or inciteful rhetoric, nor did he threaten his academic standing in any way. He exercised his right to disagree appropriately while respecting the priniciples of academic freedom, and the student’s rights under those principles. The same can most certainly NOT be said for Carmi. Can’t you see the difference?

You left quite a few people here with the impression that you defended Carmi’s position. In fact, I don’t recall a single person indicating they had NOT gotten that impression. I believe you when you say you do not support Carmi’s position, and I understand why you might feel frustrated that people did not understand that, but you clearly did not communicate that effectively or at least someone would have understood it that way.