Universities outing themselves as fascist puppets, destroying their own credibility
Yeah, going forward “graduated from Colombia” will carry with it an implication entirely beyond its previous academic reputation. The university is very publicly broadcasting that their focus is not on academics or student growth, but on pleasing external entities. Current students probably didn’t know and it might not have previously mattered much, but anyone enrolling from now on does and doesn’t need to be given the benefit of the doubt.
Their student paper is currently producing stars though.
Yeah if I attended any of these universities id be pricing out transferring my credits 3 months ago.
Generally speaking once you are past the second year of undergrad you have no choice but to finish out without taking a loss. Virtually all US colleges and universities require you to spend two years with them in order to graduate there, so they will only grant you transfer credits for the first two years worth of coursework (even if you are one class away from graduating at your current school). Plus, higher level courses are less likely to have exact course matches than intro courses across the board, although that is more of an issue in the humanities than in the sciences
I’m pretty sure they earned and paid for that.
If they’ll throw you under the bus for calling out genocide they’ll do it for being a member of an LGBTQ+ club, writing a thesis on American Fascism, or having premarital sex. This is a CYA situation and the only ass they care about is theres.
Can alumni class-action their university for devaluing their degree?
Breach of contract. Sue their asses.
Can anyone tell me who’s actually right that GD conflict, at this point I think we’d be better off nuking the area and going on with life. Its been decades, time for actual resolution.
It’s really one of the most uncomplicated conflicts in human history, I think. Israel took the Palestinian’s land by force, and has killed thousands upon thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians over the past 77 years. It’s really as simple as the Holocaust to figure out who’s in the wrong here. Sure, the Palestinian’s fight back with little effect, but so did the Jews in WWII, and no one thinks the Holocaust was complex.
My local model gave me this, I’m gonna go with this.
"The statement you’ve shared expresses a strong viewpoint on a highly complex and deeply contentious issue. While it’s rooted in real events—such as the displacement of Palestinians and the loss of civilian life—the way it’s framed is not fully accurate or nuanced when examined from a factual and historical perspective. Here’s a breakdown:
What’s true:
- Displacement and Land Loss:
In 1948, the creation of the state of Israel was followed by war and the displacement of approximately 700,000 Palestinians—this is known as the Nakba (“catastrophe” in Arabic).
Since then, Palestinians have lost significant territory, and many still live as refugees or under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza.
- Civilian Deaths:
Thousands of Palestinian civilians have indeed been killed over decades, especially in Israeli military operations in Gaza and the West Bank.
Civilian casualties are a well-documented and tragic part of the conflict.
What’s oversimplified or inaccurate:
- “Uncomplicated conflict”:
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is widely regarded by historians, diplomats, and political scientists as one of the most complex geopolitical conflicts in modern history, involving:
Colonial history (British Mandate)
Competing nationalisms
Religion
Refugee crises
International law
Military occupation and terrorism
Internal divisions within both Israeli and Palestinian societies
- Moral Equivalence to the Holocaust:
Comparing the conflict to the Holocaust, where 6 million Jews were systematically murdered in a state-run genocide, is historically and morally problematic.
The Holocaust was a uniquely industrialized genocide driven by Nazi ideology. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while tragic and violent, is not a genocide by definition, though some may argue aspects of it have genocidal characteristics.
The comparison risks minimizing the Holocaust and oversimplifying the current conflict.
- Palestinians “fighting back” like Jews in WWII:
Jews under Nazi rule had almost no means of organized resistance, facing a totalitarian regime bent on extermination.
Palestinians, particularly groups like Hamas, do engage in armed resistance and terrorism, including rocket attacks and suicide bombings, which target civilians and are widely condemned internationally.
This is not morally or tactically equivalent to the Jewish resistance in WWII.
Conclusion:
Your statement reflects a valid emotional and moral reaction to real suffering and injustice. However, from a factual and historical standpoint, it oversimplifies a deeply complex situation and makes inappropriate historical analogies.
If you’re interested, I can offer a more balanced summary of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the key historical events."
Well, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a morally good colony. Kinda gotta be a dick to be a colony.
Doesnt even kind of answer my question.
Israel is a colony. Do I need to explain why showing up to a place, claiming it as your own and violently repressing natives to make it so is bad? Sorry I don’t mean to be snarky, I just wanted to be simple
