Emory University put Umaymah Mohammad through ‘one of the most dehumanizing’ experiences of her life as a new front opens in the silencing of pro-Palestinian voices
Many students, specifically PhD students, also work for the university. I didn’t say “work under”, I said “work with”, as in, work at the same faculty, i.e. they are coworkers.
She called him out publicly for volunteering for a foreign military currently enacting a genocide. It’s a big stretch to call that “outing” or “public harassment”.
And nowhere does the headline claim something different.
No where in the article does it say they work at the same faculty. You simply do not know this to be true.
She called him out publicly for volunteering for a foreign military currently enacting a genocide. It’s a big stretch to call that “outing” or “public harassment”.
And nowhere does the headline claim something different.
Except the headline does not say this.
Any reasonable person reading the headline would think the university is forcing her to work with the IDF and suspended her for refusing.
But like you just made my point for me, she was suspended for the calling out part.
I don’t agree she should have been suspended, but the headline is 100 percent false.
You are twisting words beyond recognition here, and for what? The guy was an IDF soldier. How is that not “working along IDF soldiers”? It’s not saying “working for the IDF”, which seems to be your criterion.
Next you’re going to complain that it says soldiers, plural, I assume? That would at least be a valid criticism in your quest to… archive what, exactly?
It’s already a stretch to say volunteering medical services for the IDF makes you a soldier, and yes it’s a lie to say she was forced to “work” with soldiers.
But, let’s give you the benefit and say is just semantics and the first part is accurate (it’s not)
The title is STILL blatantly false because the school did NOT suspend her for refusing to work with this professor. The (arguably unjustified) suspension is unrelated.
Your argument is to blatantly lie. The professor of medicine volunteered as a medic in the IDF.
At the same time, Mohammad told her Democracy Now! interviewer: “One of the professors of medicine we have at Emory recently went to serve as a volunteer medic” in the IDF. That professor, she continued, “participated in aiding and abetting a genocide, in aiding and abetting the destruction of the healthcare system in Gaza and the murder of over 400 healthcare workers, and is now back at Emory so-called ‘teaching’ medical students and residents how to take care of patients”.
We can read the article. You aren’t fooling anyone.
A medic is a non combatant, but as I mentioned in the post you are replying to, I am willing to concede this professor as an IDF soldier.
I’m glad you can read, so please quote the article the following
these other IDF soldiers that the woman was forced to work with
the details of how the university forced her to work with these soldiers. Was she forces to deploy with them? Did she have to do research with them? Was she threatened somehow?
how she got suspended for refusing the above
Can’t find these points in the article? Funny, me neither.
Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi who organized trains to the deaths camps. People with desk jobs are non-combatants but that doesn’t absolve them from actively contributing to a genocide.
these other IDF soldiers that the woman was forced to work with
At least two professors at US universities have faced consequences in recent months after publicly expressing concern about former IDF soldiers on campus. The Columbia University law professor Katherine Franke said she was forced out of the school in January after bringing up the issue of Israeli students “right out of their military service … [who have] been known to harass Palestinian and other students on our campus”. She had also been speaking on Democracy Now!
Dr Rupa Marya, a professor of medicine and a physician, was banned from campus at the University of California, San Francisco, for posting on X about the presence of former IDF soldiers at medical schools specifically: “Med students at UCSF are concerned that a first year student from Israel is in their class. They’re asking if he participated in the genocide of Palestinians in the IDF before matriculating.”
the details of how the university forced her to work with these soldiers. Was she forces to deploy with them?
No.
Did she have to do research with them?
The school continued to employee the professor to her medical school. Medical students work with professors and other students. Her objection is to be put in a situation where she could have to work with him or anyone else who was part of the IDF to meet requirements to get her degree.
In response to her interview, which was protected speech under school policy, the medical school backed up the professor and not her. So yes, she could end up working with IDF soldiers at her medical school, conducting research even, if she wants to finish her degree.
Mohammad’s remarks on the program drew complaints from the professor – who she did not name – and a dean, who has since left Emory. The professor told the medical school he didn’t feel safe, as Mohammad’s interview could expose him and his family to harassment. He asked medical school administrators to investigate her for violating the school’s code of conduct.
Later that month, the open expression committee released a report of its own: according to its independent investigation, the content of Mohammad’s interview was protected by Emory’s policy on free expression. In fact, the committee said, the school of medicine had violated Emory’s policy on open expression by conducting the investigation in the way it did.
Nemenman wrote in the report that, by ignoring the committee, the school of medicine “violated not just the Policy, but, ironically, also the ‘principles of professionalism and mutual respect’, which they had aimed to enforce with this Conduct Code investigation”.
Was she threatened somehow?
Caught between these two conflicting interpretations, Mohammad faced her hearing on 12 November. The professor and the dean who had accused her, together with a faculty adviser of the professor, “testified for my expulsion”, she said. “They wanted me to never be able to practice medicine … [and] one was spitting across the table, his face red, yelling a lot,” she recalled. They demanded she provide evidence to support her claims about the professor. At one point, the adviser screamed: “Who are you to decide what’s a genocide?”
Mohammad said she felt outmatched and that attempts to argue her case fell on deaf ears. She described the hearing as “one of the most dehumanizing two hours of my life”.
As Mohammad’s PhD adviser, the sociology professor Karida L Brown, was allowed to accompany her in the hearing. Brown, whose research centers on race and racism, echoed Mohammad’s description. It was “like a Jim Crow court”, she said. “It never felt fair, from the beginning,” she said, citing the school of medicine’s refusal to engage the open expression committee or consider its report.
how she got suspended for refusing the above
Seven days after the hearing, Mohammad was informed that she had been suspended from the medical school for one academic year, and would be on probation from the time she returned until she graduated. Her appeal of the suspension was denied.
Your argument started off with an accusation that people didn’t read the article, but it seems that your argument wasn’t informed by a reading of the article.
Look, I’m not trying to attack you despite the fact that you want to keep insulting my reading ability.
I am saying, the title of this article is misleading at best, if not outright lying.
Your own reply is backing me up on this.
these other IDF soldiers that the woman was forced to work with
We are talking about this specific woman at this specific university who was suspended. Your quoted reply talks about other universities. There is no proof in this article that anyone other than the professor worked with the IDF, that she would hypothetically be forced to work with.
the details of how the university forced her to work with these soldiers. Was she forces to deploy with them?
No.
Did she have to do research with them?
The school continued to employee the professor to her medical school. Medical students work with professors and other students. Her objection is to be put in a situation where she could have to work with him or anyone else who was part of the IDF to meet requirements to get her degree.
So in short she was never forced to work with any IDF soldiers. She may at some hypothetical point run into such a situation.
Was she threatened somehow?
You are purposely misreading my question. Was she threatened to work with the IDF soldier or face consequences? She was not.
Was she threatened at some point during the period the article talks about? Probably.
how she got suspended for refusing the above
So no, she was not suspended for refusing to work with an IDF soldier because she never was in that situation.
I want to stop for a second and also point out, I am not attacking or even judging anyone for not reading the article. We can all agree people do not read every link in every thread. This is a very long article to boot.
But for those that do not want to read the entire thing and only looked at the headline, they would assume based on the way the headline is written that the university forced her to work with IDF in some capacity, she refused, and they suspended her. This is how any objective person would interpret the headline.
You can say well technically the professor counts as a soldier, there are soldiers on other campuses, the title didn’t say she got suspended for refusing, only that she got suspended, etc etc… but these are all not how most people would interpret it and you know it.
You are upset about Isreal as many people, including a vocal portion of Lemmy are and that is fine. But that doesn’t mean you can’t criticize poorly written clickbait titles meant to enrage instead of inform. This is The Guardian, a supposedly upstanding news source. What does it say about them or the contents of this story when the first 2 sentences you read are so misleading?
You can say well technically the professor counts as a soldier, there are soldiers on other campuses, the title didn’t say she got suspended for refusing, only that she got suspended, etc etc… but these are all not how most people would interpret it and you know it.
There are probably IDF soldiers at the school besides that one professor. Her objection was not limited to only the one professor, that is the one example she had. She objected to working with IDF soldiers and got suspended because of that objection.
So in short she was never forced to work with any IDF soldiers. She may at some hypothetical point run into such a situation.
She never worked with IDF soldiers, no one is claiming she did. She is objecting to having to work with IDF soldiers.
Read the title again.
A Palestinian American medical student objected to working alongside IDF soldiers. The university suspended her
No one is trying to mislead anyone. Not me, not this article, not the Guardian.
I’ve been trying to point this out subtly, but I think I need to be explicit.
You aren’t understanding the title or the article because you aren’t reading it properly. This has nothing to do with the topics being discussed. This is an issue with reading comprehension. Read the through the whole thing again, from start to finish.
This isn’t a comment on you as a person. You have made a mistake. It is impacting your ability to discuss the topic and the quality of your argument. There’s really no way to proceed in this discussion in good faith until you do.
Sorry if that comes off as harsh, but it’s the truth. Hope that helps.
Many students, specifically PhD students, also work for the university. I didn’t say “work under”, I said “work with”, as in, work at the same faculty, i.e. they are coworkers.
She called him out publicly for volunteering for a foreign military currently enacting a genocide. It’s a big stretch to call that “outing” or “public harassment”.
And nowhere does the headline claim something different.
What a strange hill to die on.
No where in the article does it say they work at the same faculty. You simply do not know this to be true.
Except the headline does not say this.
Any reasonable person reading the headline would think the university is forcing her to work with the IDF and suspended her for refusing.
But like you just made my point for me, she was suspended for the calling out part.
I don’t agree she should have been suspended, but the headline is 100 percent false.
You are twisting words beyond recognition here, and for what? The guy was an IDF soldier. How is that not “working along IDF soldiers”? It’s not saying “working for the IDF”, which seems to be your criterion.
Next you’re going to complain that it says soldiers, plural, I assume? That would at least be a valid criticism in your quest to… archive what, exactly?
My comment is that the title is blatantly false.
It’s already a stretch to say volunteering medical services for the IDF makes you a soldier, and yes it’s a lie to say she was forced to “work” with soldiers.
But, let’s give you the benefit and say is just semantics and the first part is accurate (it’s not)
The title is STILL blatantly false because the school did NOT suspend her for refusing to work with this professor. The (arguably unjustified) suspension is unrelated.
Your argument is to blatantly lie. The professor of medicine volunteered as a medic in the IDF.
We can read the article. You aren’t fooling anyone.
A medic is a non combatant, but as I mentioned in the post you are replying to, I am willing to concede this professor as an IDF soldier.
I’m glad you can read, so please quote the article the following
Can’t find these points in the article? Funny, me neither.
Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi who organized trains to the deaths camps. People with desk jobs are non-combatants but that doesn’t absolve them from actively contributing to a genocide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcdufLc3QSA
No.
The school continued to employee the professor to her medical school. Medical students work with professors and other students. Her objection is to be put in a situation where she could have to work with him or anyone else who was part of the IDF to meet requirements to get her degree.
In response to her interview, which was protected speech under school policy, the medical school backed up the professor and not her. So yes, she could end up working with IDF soldiers at her medical school, conducting research even, if she wants to finish her degree.
Your argument started off with an accusation that people didn’t read the article, but it seems that your argument wasn’t informed by a reading of the article.
Look, I’m not trying to attack you despite the fact that you want to keep insulting my reading ability.
I am saying, the title of this article is misleading at best, if not outright lying.
Your own reply is backing me up on this.
We are talking about this specific woman at this specific university who was suspended. Your quoted reply talks about other universities. There is no proof in this article that anyone other than the professor worked with the IDF, that she would hypothetically be forced to work with.
So in short she was never forced to work with any IDF soldiers. She may at some hypothetical point run into such a situation.
You are purposely misreading my question. Was she threatened to work with the IDF soldier or face consequences? She was not.
Was she threatened at some point during the period the article talks about? Probably.
So no, she was not suspended for refusing to work with an IDF soldier because she never was in that situation.
I want to stop for a second and also point out, I am not attacking or even judging anyone for not reading the article. We can all agree people do not read every link in every thread. This is a very long article to boot.
But for those that do not want to read the entire thing and only looked at the headline, they would assume based on the way the headline is written that the university forced her to work with IDF in some capacity, she refused, and they suspended her. This is how any objective person would interpret the headline.
You can say well technically the professor counts as a soldier, there are soldiers on other campuses, the title didn’t say she got suspended for refusing, only that she got suspended, etc etc… but these are all not how most people would interpret it and you know it.
You are upset about Isreal as many people, including a vocal portion of Lemmy are and that is fine. But that doesn’t mean you can’t criticize poorly written clickbait titles meant to enrage instead of inform. This is The Guardian, a supposedly upstanding news source. What does it say about them or the contents of this story when the first 2 sentences you read are so misleading?
There are probably IDF soldiers at the school besides that one professor. Her objection was not limited to only the one professor, that is the one example she had. She objected to working with IDF soldiers and got suspended because of that objection.
She never worked with IDF soldiers, no one is claiming she did. She is objecting to having to work with IDF soldiers.
Read the title again.
No one is trying to mislead anyone. Not me, not this article, not the Guardian.
I’ve been trying to point this out subtly, but I think I need to be explicit.
You aren’t understanding the title or the article because you aren’t reading it properly. This has nothing to do with the topics being discussed. This is an issue with reading comprehension. Read the through the whole thing again, from start to finish.
This isn’t a comment on you as a person. You have made a mistake. It is impacting your ability to discuss the topic and the quality of your argument. There’s really no way to proceed in this discussion in good faith until you do.
Sorry if that comes off as harsh, but it’s the truth. Hope that helps.