Academia

https://stanforddaily.com/2024/11/10/selfishness-of-stanford-graduate-students/

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/5498324

In July 6 vote, the NEA’s 7,000-member Representative Assembly cut all ties with the ADL.

The body approved a measure that the NEA “will not use, endorse, or publicize materials from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), such as its curricular materials or statistics.” The reasoning: “Despite its reputation as a civil rights organization, the ADL is not the social justice educational partner it claims to be.”

Union members speaking on the floor rejected the ADL’s abuse of the term “antisemitism” to punish critics of Israel, its use of hyperinflated statistics on hate crimes to gin up fears about Jewish safety, and its characterization of calls for Palestinian rights as “hate speech.”

“Allowing the ADL to determine what constitutes antisemitism would be like allowing the fossil fuel industry to determine what constitutes climate change,” said NEA delegate Stephen Siegel from the assembly floor

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/5418835

A peer-reviewed article—on Indigenous dance in Palestine and Native North America as resistance to genocide—was formally accepted then rejected by the editors of The Journal of Somaesthetics, citing fear of criticizing Israel’s genocide.

It is unclear why—after a year of nonstop affirmation and written acceptance from both editors—the decision was suddenly reversed. Finally, it is also unclear why making a political statement (or being perceived as making one), or putting a journal, its editors, and/or its board members “in a difficult position” are legitimate grounds for reversing a formal acceptance for publication in an academic journal. My subsequent attempts to clarify and resolve the situation have all gone nowhere.

From these exchanges, I logically inferred, as did several colleagues in Philosophy and Dance Studies (via email correspondence), that the real reason for the journal’s sudden reversal was my essay’s naming and condemnation of the genocide in Palestine, and the journal leadership’s attempt to protect itself from feared retaliation. In support of this interpretation, my essay also introduced a likely conflict of interest for Richard Shusterman, the founder of somaesthetics, cofounder of its journal, and currently first-listed member of its Editorial Board. Since Shusterman received a bachelor’s and master’s degree from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and was a lecturer in Israel at Ben-Gurion University, Bezalel Academy of Art, and the Hebrew University, for his journal to publish an essay critical of Israel’s genocide of Palestine, in today’s climate, would presumably have involved personal, professional, and political risks for him.

Full Article

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/46743217

A June 6 report by the Guardian newspaper revealed that the University of Michigan (U-M) has been using undercover contract investigators to surveil pro-Palestinian protesters and campus groups for nearly a year.

cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/5033822

He made the request in a Truth Social post May 25, days after a federal judge blocked the Trump administration's effort to bar the university from enrolling anyone in the United States on a student visa.

"We want to know who those foreign students are, a reasonable request since we give Harvard BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, but Harvard isn’t exactly forthcoming," Trump wrote. "We want those names and countries."

Archived

[...]

This March, Stanford’s President, Dr. Jonathan Levin, received a letter from the Select Committee on the CCP detailing the security risks China poses to STEM research. For years, concerns about Chinese espionage have quietly persisted at Stanford. Throughout our investigation, professors, students, and researchers readily recounted their experiences of Chinese spying, yet they declined to speak publicly. One student who experienced espionage firsthand was too fearful to recount their story, even via encrypted messaging. “The risk is too high,” they explained. Transnational repression, $64 million in Chinese funding, and allegations of racial profiling have contributed to a pervasive culture of silence at Stanford and beyond.

[...]

After interviewing multiple anonymous Stanford faculty, students, and China experts, we can confirm that the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] is orchestrating a widespread intelligence-gathering campaign at Stanford. In short, “there are Chinese spies at Stanford.”

[...]

Speaking at a China Town Hall event, the former U.S. National Security Council’s Director for China, Matthew Turpin, characterized the threat of Chinese espionage at Stanford:

"The Chinese state incentivizes students to violate conflicts of commitment and interest, ensuring they bring back technology otherwise restricted by export controls.”

[...]

A China expert, familiar with Stanford, who wished to remain anonymous, confirmed that of the approximately 1,129 Chinese International students on campus, a select number are actively reporting to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law mandates that all Chinese citizens support and cooperate with state intelligence work regardless of location.

[...]

One Chinese national at Stanford spoke to us on this very issue under conditions of anonymity:

“Many Chinese [nationals] have handlers; they [CCP] want to know everything that's going on at Stanford. This is a very normal thing. They just relay the information they have.”

[...]

Another Stanford student shared an incident involving their professor's encounter with suspected Chinese espionage. According to the student, the professor recounted needing to schedule a meeting with a Chinese student. When the student declined, citing a mysterious reason, the Professor asked why. The student replied, “You know why.” The professor continued to inquire, only to receive the cryptic response, “I cannot tell you that.” Finally, the professor revealed that the student admitted to meeting a CCP handler.

This issue has been under discussion at Stanford since 2019, as highlighted by a Stanford Daily article that featured interviews with anonymous Chinese nationals. One Chinese student remarked, “Whether peer monitoring exists at Stanford is moot; it’s the possibility that keeps people cautious about what they say. If it exists, I’m not going to be surprised.”

[...]