#WTH Terrible beasts, excellent college presidents, and ...

...some thoughts on truth

Excellent…

Let’s start with something good. Many have had occasion to excoriate the leadership of America’s most august educational institutions. (This week’s podcast guest called those schools “the Fancies,” which pretty much sums things up.) But not all college leaders are antisemitism apologists (MIT), DEI grifters (Harvard), or shameless liars (Penn). Some actually know how to lead, what to say, and how to send a message that guides students and professors (and the bajillions of “administrators” colleges now boast). This is, after all, their job.

There are probably other such leaders that I do not hear from (thank God, I can only afford one college at a time), but this week, Vanderbilt Chancellor Daniel Diermeier made me proud to be part of the Vandy community. His letter to students (read it all here) is pitch perfect:

In light of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East and the recent turmoil in higher education, I want us to begin the semester with a clear understanding of where Vanderbilt stands on several matters. 

First, let there be no question that Vanderbilt unequivocally considers calls for violence or genocide against any member of the Vanderbilt community to be evil, repugnant and violative of university policy. As I stated in my message to you in the fall, the university strongly condemns antisemitism, Islamophobia, xenophobia and other forms of hate. 

Second, in response to the war in Gaza, there have been calls on campuses across the country for institutions of higher education to join the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. Unless required by law, Vanderbilt will not boycott or divest from companies for doing business in or with any specific nations, including Israel. 

But enough good news.

Beastly…

It is wise to steer carefully around the dehumanization of one’s adversaries. Not all Palestinians are Hamas. Not all Democrats are the squad. Not all Republicans are Donald Trump. Making an effort to see another point of view makes us better polemicists, and recognizing that even the most objectionable perspectives are often rooted in real ideas and legitimate viewpoints is just a better way to live life and conduct debates. But… (you saw that coming), some people are just shit.

It has struck most of us immersed in the Israel-Hamas war ongoing that too many Hamas supporters are not simply proponents of a Palestinian state, or concerned about the fate of the Palestinian people. Too many of them are actual supporters of what Hamas did on October 7, unreconstructed apologists for terrorism. Sure, ignorance is at the root of many of these Hamas-lovers’ strong emotions. But so what?

Worse yet, too many of these Hamas aficionados seem to believe that they too should engage in the “brave revolutionary tactics” of their heroes in Gaza. They should beat up Jews, tear down pro-Israel signs, terrorize restauranteurs, and vandalize Jewish cemeteries. Now these proponents of “justice” have turned to general vandalism as well. Here’s the latest:

LOS ANGELES (TND) — Pro-Palestine protestors vandalized the Los Angeles National Cemetery, where nearly 90,000 veterans are buried, over the weekend.

The demonstrators spray-painted “Free Gaza” and “intifada” on the graveyard’s sign during a protest near the Wilshire Federal Building, according to videos shared online.

Ninety thousand U.S. veterans are buried here.

Is this worse than the desecration of a synagogue? No. Worse than the desecration of Jewish graves? No. But somehow, it represents the apotheosis of what the pro-Hamas crowd represents. Not simply Jews, nor Israelis, but anyone who has served their nation with pride is in their sights. So yes, I’m down with dehumanizing this mob, because their motivations are neither human, nor indeed linked in any way to the cause they putatively support. They are destroyers, and deserve no quarter.

The Truth Question

In one of our recent substacks, I mused about the problem of different truths. It wasn’t a disquisition on Meghan Markle and the mindless concept of “my truth” (though the execrable Claudine Gay reminded us of the essential weaseliness of that expression in her own letter of resignation), but more a question about how different sides can agree on any shared reality. If October 7 didn’t happen and the Palestinians are really living in a Disney-like Valhalla in Gaza (both prevalent narratives in social media), how do we begin to discuss what to do about war in the Middle East?

I’ve thought a lot about this, because at a certain point I began to worry that so many people have been muted, blocked, or deleted in my world that I am actually only hearing people I agreeing with. So how do you broaden your aperture without sullying your intellectual timeline with truth-deniers? Here’s my two cents, though I’d be grateful to hear from others about other ways forward. I have started to make hard decisions about whom I trust. Not Al Jazeera. Yes, with some grains of salt, The Washington Post. Not the hacks at bought and paid for “research” institutions. Yes to good people with real bona fides on the Middle East. You see where I’m going.

In recent years, I’ve widened my circle to people I don’t personally know around the world. I like their perspective and appreciate the information they share. But I’m culling now, because I can’t judge their credibility. Sometimes it’s painful, sometimes it’s a relief. But I want to be able to count on the information I absorb and believe it is truth.

Thoughts?