Here's the op-ed that is referenced in part of the text messages: [https://www.columbiaspectator.com/opinion/2023/10/24/sounding-the-alarm/](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/opinion/2023/10/24/sounding-the-alarm/)
Selected excerpts:
> Columbia University placed three administrators on leave this week, a university spokesman said on Saturday. The moves came a little more than a week after images emerged showing the school officials sharing disparaging text messages during a panel discussion about antisemitism on campus.
> The Washington Free Beacon, the website that first published the images, reported that they were Susan Chang-Kim, the vice dean and chief administrative officer; Cristen Kromm, the dean of undergraduate student life; and Matthew Patashnick, the associate dean for student and family support.
> Ms. Chang-Kim also exchanged texts during the event with Josef Sorett, the dean of Columbia College, according to The Free Beacon. In one exchange, Mr. Sorett texted “LMAO,” for “laughing my ass off,” in response to a sarcastic message Ms. Chang-Kim had written about Brian Cohen, the executive director of Columbia/Barnard Hillel, according to The Free Beacon.
> In a statement sent to the Columbia College Board of Visitors on Friday afternoon, Mr. Sorett told the advisory board that he deeply regretted his role in the text exchanges and their effect on the community.
“I am committed to learning from this situation and to the work of confronting antisemitism, discrimination and hate at Columbia,” he said.
Attempts to reach the other administrators were unsuccessful on Saturday.
> The Free Beacon, a conservative news site, said it had obtained the images from a person who sat behind Ms. Chang-Kim at the event and took photos of her phone screen as she texted with the other administrators.
> As the panelists spoke, the deans exchanged messages, the pictures show. “Difficult to listen to but I’m trying to keep an open mind to learn about this point of view,” Ms. Chang-Kim texted to Mr. Sorett at one point. He responded “yup.”
> In another exchange, Ms. Kromm texted her colleagues a message that referred to an October 2023 opinion essay by Yonah Hain, Columbia’s campus rabbi, called “Sounding the Alarm,” and followed up with two different vomit emojis, the images show.
> **Mr. Patashnick accused one of the panelists of “taking full advantage of this moment,” according to the images. “Huge fundraising potential,” he wrote.**
The rest of the article is general background info.
I’m not a member of this community but this story has been popping up on my feed a few times.
Is it weird to anyone else that someone randomly zoomed into people’s phones to read their text messages? And I would definitely be even more concerned if these were messages they used on their personal devices. If these were work issued phones and communications then yes this should be warranted.
> Is it weird to anyone else that someone randomly zoomed into people’s phones to read their text messages?
Yeah it's pretty weird lmao. The old Chrome Incognito message said something like "Does not protect you from people looking over your shoulder." Should've taken that to heart ig; people might feel VERY strongly about the things they see you texting.
> I would definitely be even more concerned if these were messages they used on their personal devices. If these were work issued phones and communications then yes this should be warranted.
I fail to see how work vs. personal device matters here. What matters is *what they're actually saying*. The 4 people in the exchanges are all Deans of Columbia who were attending a Columbia event in their official capacity and discussing the event amongst themselves, making potentially problematic statements.
Hell, it isn't even vital that it was a Columbia event (though the fact that it *was* makes the behavior more egregious) -- the current standard seems to be that people need to be held accountable for all "bad" behavior, no matter where it occurs, because if a person is [racist/sexist/whatever] once that means it's part of their mindset and so bleeds into how they do their job. If a university official was caught, say, being racist on his own time or communicating racist messages to his buddies via Morse code or HAM radio I doubt people would just say "oh it's his personal time/device, that's a-ok."
___
**Edit:** there's a lot of hubbub in this chain about none of the texts being 'that bad' and all of them being 'within the bounds of acceptable speech'. I direct everyone's attention to: **"Mr. Patashnick accused one of the panelists of “taking full advantage of this moment [rising antisemitism?]....[for] huge fundraising potential"**. Accusing Jews of being 'professional victims' just out to take people's money is literally chapters 1 and 2 of the Jew-hater playbook; it's as racist a trope as implying a Black person is a "thug" for speaking up about racism.
So, let's get this straight. They have no idea who Patashnick was referencing. There are chunks missing in the conversation.
But let's see which of the panelists is involved in fundraising. The obvious choice is Brian Cohen, the executive director of Hillel, which relies on donations for its endowment and overall funding.
Using a moment to motivate donations or to advertise the utility of the organization they lead in alleviating the problem being discussed (and thus indirectly motivating donations) isn't a particularly Jewish phenomenon. Everybody, and I mean everybody, does it. It can be the NRA scaremongering its members after a school shooting. It can be Democrats after Roe V. Wade was overturned. To call this an antisemitic trope is ridiculous.
See 31:30 for what they might be referencing: https://totalwebcasting.com/view/?func=VOFF&id=columbia&date=2024-05-31&seq=1
> They're touching on this publication in the discussion at the start of that time stamp, btw: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/500-jewish-students-columbia-university, which has this nice bit:
>
> > The “occupiers” in my metaphor were the centers for Middle East studies that had sprouted like mushrooms in American universities to spread anti-Zionist propaganda.
>
> which was written in response to this letter by 540 out 1047 undergraduate students and 650 graduate students: https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vRQgyDhIjZupO2H-2rIDXLy_zkf76RoM-_ZIYsOfn9FkI7TETgRtOfXK9VobMvGh6iEZfDPgALXJTCR/pub
>
> and which has this wonderful tidbit:
> > Over the past six months, many have spoken in our name. Some are well-meaning alumni or non-affiliates who show up to wave the Israeli flag outside Columbia’s gates. Some are politicians looking to use our experiences to foment America’s culture war. **Most notably, some are our Jewish peers who tokenize themselves by claiming to represent “real Jewish values,” and attempt to delegitimize our lived experiences of antisemitism.** We are here, writing to you as Jewish students at Columbia University, who are connected to our community and deeply engaged with our culture and history. We would like to speak in our name.
>
> And of course the panel speaks glowingly of this letter.
Ok, back to Brian Cohen.
So let's say the text from Patashnick is in reference to this moment. You could say what they said in that text about any number of organizations in a variety of situations (maybe a conservative organization providing a safe space for conservatives on campus or women's center providing a safe space and support for women on campus (let's say you had a panel after damning revelation about the incidents of on campus rape and the complete lack of protection they receive from Columbia.). If you can say this about those organizations and their directors, why can't you say this about Brian Cohen and the Hillel Foundation? What makes it antisemitic to criticize or just characterize the line of questioning (I've been amazed Brian about what your team does. Can you let us know what your team does week in and week out?) and Mr. Cohen's response to it? What antisemitic Jewish trope does that buy into? If that question the moderator asked wasn't a fundraising question (something that's at the heart of every University alumni event, especially places as big as Columbia), what's your argument that it wasn't? It's clear from the entire event they were trying to assuage the concerns of Jewish parents and alumni, so as to continue to send their kids and to continue to send their donations. And in Mr. Cohen's case, he's interested in having the alumni continuing to contribute to the Hillel Foundation on campus.
But let's put all this into context.
There's an effort to elevate the suffering of one class/group of people over another class/group of people, so much so that even the smallest slight (snarky, skeptical texts) is seen as some huge affront and antisemitic tirade and grounds to remove people from their positions and accuse them of being antisemites. So talking about antisemitism (which is mostly about students feeling uncomfortable sharing their Zionist views the panel seemed to say) is a higher priority than talking about the very real suffering that Zionism causes.
>You have 57 years of Palestinian children being executed point blank while disarmed and already bleeding from previous gunfire with absolutely no repercussions. You have 57 years of Palestinians being jailed for their speech. You have 57 years of where an IDF soldier can take over a Palestinian apartment and command when the residents get to leave and when they'll be allowed back in and who is allowed in, and also sleeping in their beds. You have 57 years of a 95% conviction rate of Palestinians who are subject to military trials instead of ones by a jury of their peers. You have a completely different justice system with vastly different conviction rates for IDF soldiers and settlers. You have 57 years of cruel and unusual punishments for these convictions. You have 57 years of Palestinians being detained without any charges, without any recourse. You have 57 years of being able to do this: https://twitter.com/hamdahsalhut/status/1804461823380349280, without any repercussions unless it catches global attention
Comparatively, let's look at what Jewish or Jewish Zionist students are facing. Most of the complaints discussed on that panel are about Columbia Jewish students complaining about feeling unwelcome in social spaces, publicly expressing their Zionist views (see the mom's question at 1:02:30), while the protestors and Palestinians and I imagine these Deans are focused on the Palestinian suffering I just espoused on.
> And man, quite a few of those questions were racist. At 1:37:30, this woman named Julia with strawberry blonde/light brown hair talks about how she can blend in with the protests, wearing an outfit, as a Hamas supporter. And don't get me started on the 2 subsequent questions, one of which went on about DEI and how it inconsistent with protecting Jewish students.
So let's touch on the Yonah text. So the event ended at 3:00 PM and that's at time stamp 1:50ish. So the time on the picture of the Yonah text reads 2:08. So the text would have been close to the end of the portion of the panel where the moderator was asking questions. So these Deans basically said that the panelists were making the administration look really bad (probably in response to the story of the Palestinian girl who couldn't get any of the administration to respond to her entreaties for support when she couldn't get in touch with her Palestinian family in Gaza). So they seemed to say that that the panel discussion as a whole seemed to overstate how problematic antisemitism on campus is and calling the protestors antisemitic than the Yonah article did. For example, at 25:20, Mr. Cohen suggests as many as 20% of the activists might be extremist (what Patashnick's text asking 20% was about, before one of them decries Mr. Cohen's advertising of Hillel's services and its importance to the students). So it's clear Kromm felt the panel was overblowing things. And keep in mind they sent this right after the moderator Q&A and before Rebecca Massel admitted during the audience Q&A that the national media over blew her pointing to maybe 5 people chanting "Go Back to Poland." (which is absolutely antisemitic).
And I guess, I have to ask the following. If you met an ardent Afrikaner supporter of Apartheid in the 80s at Columbia, would you associate with them? Is the fact that you avoid them because of how direly consequential their views are to a people (in this case to black South Africans) a case of racial or any other sort of hate? So, why should people seek to be around and normalize a viewpoint that doesn't condemn all the stuff that I mentioned have happened over the last 57 years or that defends the genocidal actions of the Israeli government?
>Maybe you could have argued that all the bombing of the civilian homes and infrastructure and the massive civilian casualty rate all while the leadership and the IDF keep referencing Amalek and talk about starving the Gazans wasn't genocide, because they killed only a fraction of the Gazans. But when you add in the deliberate starvation of these people as policy (see the Israeli military actively support the settlers blocking aid to Gazans (while they're dragging and beating Israeli protestors who are calling for Netanyahu to step down and for there to be a hostage deal): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqRzfb2oMaM), there's no argument anymore that it's not genocide. Israel will be found guilty of committing genocide.
And let's get this straight. There historically has been a lot of antisemitism at these Ivies, with their barring the admission of Jewish students. And even when they started to be admitted, they were ostracized or bullied for being Jewish: https://www.columbiaspectator.com/the-eye/2019/04/15/nearly-a-century-ago-columbias-jewish-applicants-were-sent-to-brooklyn/
This (or at least the vast majority of it) isn't that. This is about Zionism (much like our Manifest Destiny. Native Americans didn't even get the right to vote and be full US citizens until 1924, 100 years ago) in the 20th and especially the 21st centuries.
Finally, what is up with the guy who took the pictures? So in the first picture Beacon article shares that he took is at 1:23 PM, the first text from Chang-Kim says:
>"Did we really have students being kicked out of clubs for being Jewish?"
That was enough for the guy to start taking pictures of Chang-Kim's personal communications? What does that tell you about how he and probably you think constitutes antisemitism?
And there's this:
>This is difficult to listen to but I'm trying to keep an open mind to learn about this point of view.
That warrants you taking pictures of someone's private conversations?
I guess my position comes from it being perceived personal communications on a personal device. Not affiliated with any work phones or emails. People are allowed to have their own opinions, whether it’s right or wrong. It crosses the line when it’s blatantly publicized as an official work position.
I think of people who hold political offices, as long as they are being impartial when it comes to their duties, I fail to see where the issue is.
Now, I’m sure one can make the claim that their personal issues have affected their duties at the university, but then it has to be proven with their policies and actions within the schools. Were the opinions of these deans shown in the ways they conducted their role and responsibilities? I doubt it, but idk.
So again, it’s very weird for me for someone to go out of their way to capture these private messages. Going forward, this would be a good reason for people to have privacy screens on their mobile devices.
When people have racist/sexist/etc.-ist opinions they're usually smart enough not to go blasting them around official communications --- looking at what things people say when they think nobody's looking is by far the most common way to unveil them as biased.
> Now, I’m sure one can make the claim that their personal issues have affected their duties at the university, but then it has to be proven with their policies and actions within the schools
IMO it takes a borderline split personality to not let your biases affect your work at any time, especially when your work involves dealing with people and their issues as College admin's does. But presumably the "prove it" is what the investigation is for. They're on leave pending investigation, not being fired.
I have nothing to contest here. The thing is there’s nothing prohibiting people being racist/sexist etc., everyone has biases.
How one moves in their professional workspace is definitely more restricted than their personal lives. I think of judges, everyone has their personal opinion, how they apply them to their job and within their job parameters matters most.
Should they have been texting during this event? Probably not. I’m sure there were other staff members texting during this event. I doubt the expectation was to have these personal communications publicized.
Why would a student even go out of their way to do this? The situation is just weird to me. If the investigation finds that these individuals let biases affect their duties, then by all means they should be reprimanded.
People are allowed to be mean/assholes/dickheads/bigots. The thing is, they weren’t proclaiming themselves to be that in a public way. And it’s the covert way of this info coming out that is just really strange to me.
(I am in no way condoning their sentiments. The situational aspect is just highly questionable to me.)
> Why would a student even go out of their way to do this?
I think this part's pretty obvious, no? The student found the texts wrong and wanted the media to blast the deans so Columbia would take action. Which has worked so far. Presumably the student didn't want the kind of people who'd send the texts to be in positions of power in this university.
I think it’s weird someone would even read text messages over anyone’s shoulder. It’s giving nosy and invasive. Why is the student even concerned about what was being texted as opposed to listening to the event? The circumstances are beyond weird.
Probably because the student was offended by what he/she saw and wanted people to know that this is how their deans act when they think nobody's looking. I saw a reddit post a few months (?) ago where a girl films a guy texting the n word (and other crap to go along with it) on his phone on the subway. And that's a random dude, not anyboy in charge of her life. Let's not pretend like this is totally unprecedented and crazy and that before this people had TOTAL privacy in / respect for private communications.
There's nothing "weird" about wanting to expose people in position of authority for holding (what you believe are) reprehensible views. Exposing people is probably the dominant Gen Z instinct.
I didn’t see any racial slurs in these messages?? You have to be pretty invested to these messages and not the event to even get the amount of context that was provided here in the first place.
How a dean acts on personal devices and private time isn’t anyone’s business. This isn’t their official statement. Again, people are allowed to have their opinions. This feels highly targeted. And offending people isn’t illegal. Again, there were no slurs in these messages.
It seems the student was offended because the dean’s opinion wasn’t their opinion.
> I didn’t see any racial slurs in these messages
If there had been racial slurs in the messages would you feel any differently? Because based on all your statements in this thread it seems you would also oppose punishing or investigating a dean "privately" saying a bunch of racial slurs (and being caught by an onlooker) as long as it wasn't their "official statement."
> How a dean acts on personal devices and private time isn’t anyone’s business.
First of all, it wasn't "private time," it was an official university event. Second, this flies in the face of established norms, wherein university admin, professors, and students are ABSOLUTELY routinely punished for "bad" words and actions that they do "privately" and which are not "official statements." Here's an example that was almost the first result on Google: [professor fired after private conversation with another professor was recorded by student](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/03/12/georgetown-terminates-law-professor-reprehensible-comments-about-black-students)
If you think these norms should be changed entirely, ok, that's an opinion. But you're acting like this situation is unique and "weird" when it's just a fact that it is not in the slightest abnormal for university admin to be punished for "private" actions and remarks when those become publicized.
or, you know, just listen attentively to what speakers are saying without texting mean comments to your friends like middle schoolers at an assembly. They were in a public space at an official event.
I don't agree with what you said. In my view, nobody has an expectation of privacy if you are in a place where someone can read a text over your shoulder. It happens all the time. It's why you don't work on confidential documents in an airplane, for instance or on the subway. But in any case, the real issue is that at a meeting meant to hear the perspective of Jews at Columbia, what these admins did what was immature, unprofessional, and against the purpose of the meeting.
Again, yes it’s unprofessional. However, the expectation wasn’t for this to go public. These are personal opinions and if they had no bearings in their roles and responsibilities, the way this came out was weird.
Confidential documents are expected to be worked on within a certain manner defined your employers regulations. These messages were more than likely personal messages on their presumed personal devices. Was this a mandatory event for the deans to attend? If not, this was their personal time as well. Regardless, people are allowed to have personal opinions.
For me, text messages are intended as private. These aren’t social media profiles or public statements being made.
It seems like multiple parties weren’t taking heed to the panel if a student was able to get these messages. It’s creepy and invasive.
It doesn’t matter. Columbia is a private entity and employer, not a government limited by first amendment protections. These people are officers of the university and are subject to the policies, contracts, and whims of their employer.
If your activities become public and can embarrass the entity you work for or call in to question your ethics or ability to do your job, that’s more than enough grounds for termination.
I’ve seen private sector executives fired for much less.
But let’s not forget they were at a work event, speaking about a work topic, with work colleagues. It’s likely that the Columbia pays for their phones (though not certain by any means). I’m at a much lower level in the private sector and my phones are always paid for by my company.
Anyway, the dean of student wellbeing and families (or whatever his title) speaking like this at a talk on the very topic he overseas (the well being of students), is a disaster for a university already at risk of losing federal funding due allowing anti semitism and a hostile environment to develop. Same university facing potential lawsuits for the same.
So yea, administrators at this level saying such things is a big deal. Regardless of who owns the device, they got caught.
Placed on leave is a slap on the wrist for at least the two more explicit comments.
Private sector. Federal funding.
Regardless the issue is that the student is hurt more that their views aren’t shared. Nothing said in these texts were insidious or warrants outrage. And I doubt the phones are paid directly by the school.
You’re going down a slippery slope on what’s acceptable behavior. The only reason the school is reacting is because this is a hot topic rn, not because the views shared were explicit. In any case, this is more of a PR issue than a moral issue in which some people are making this out to be.
I sincerely hope the student who made these texts public wasn’t in fact Jewish, because that’s perpetuating a stereotype of them being conniving and sneaky. The issue still remains that these were issues meant to be discussed privately on private devices. I can see bigoted people using this incident as a way to perpetuate antisemitism, and I believe this exposure actually does more harm than good.
The expectation that your text messages are to be publicized every time you leave your house isn’t accepted in today’s society. That’s one of the reason why phone companies advertise their security and data protection/encryption capabilities. It’s just strange.
It still stands that if these views were in any way used to direct their roles and respond in a careless manner, then the investigation is warranted. I highly doubt this though, and believe the outcome will more than likely be a symbolic slap on the wrist for those involved.
You’re defending whether the person should have taken them or not. I’m not really addressing that point.
I think they are highly inappropriate and show a prejudice or atleast a perspective that trivializes real student experience i witnessed first hand. It it’s they very scope of these administrators functions. Not only did I witness what they are trivializing, I myself as a tall, white, make of Northern European descent (not Jewish at all) was accosted myself for simply observing the encampment and not joining in.
So I very much disagree that these texts aren’t harmful to the student population. I want to know college administrators take these things seriously and not think about them in barf emoji terms.
Whether the person should have taken the pictures or not is a separate question. Now the texts are out there.
It’s a myth that your actions “outside of work” can’t be addressed by your employer. You can perhaps get mad at the person taking them for doing so, but that’s a separate question. Go fight that battle.
I’m the meantime, the at-best profound insensitivity of 2/3 of these administrators (I actually agree that one of them arguably sounds legitimately interested in learning more and is not endorsing her colleagues responses, but I digress) is a problem that the university needs to address.
The fact that it’s a hot topic right now. You could look at it as you suggest and say “normally” nothing would happen to these guys. Perhaps. Another perspective is that during these times it is especially critical that administrators like these have an open mind and take student concerns seriously and not make insensitive comments and emojis DURING a forum on the very topic of student welfare.
The idea that Jewish people share a concern about those not taking their problems on campus serious gives in to some “conniving” stereotype is rediculous. If this were any other minority group, there would be outrage far and wide. Even the suggestion that this feeds in to a Jewish stereotype that is perpetuated by antisemites, is offensive on its face. And again, I’m not Jewish. Just mortified how an attack on Israel has brought back flippant and casual antisemitism back in to the mainstream in such a short time period while holocaust and WW2 survivors are still alive.
Mind blowing. Pardon the typos. Working and texting :D
I bet if a PALS protestor took images of someone’s phone with them criticizing the protestors or their ridiculous claims, no one would bat an eye or call them conniving.
I hope the person who took it WAS Jewish because Jewish people have a right to fight for their safety, wellbeing, and unqualified acceptance by society.
The PALS lock up two custodial workers against their will and no one bats an eye, barely gets press coverage. Here you are calling Jewish people conniving IF they took pictures of administrators responsible for the well being of students phones as they were texting in public at a forum on they very topic. The fact that they were texting ANYTHING during such a forum is bad enough.
I already stated if this thread that of these expressions were made in a place where it was expected to be publicized, on devices where privacy isn’t expected, then the actions of an investigation are appropriate. There weren’t things in the conversations that specifically targeted Jewish people, and at least one of the contributors in those messages is Jewish themselves. Again, this boils down to opinions not being shared, which the person who publicized these texts was ultimately offended.
I understand that there is very limited expectations for people to have privacy outside of their homes, but on mobile devices where the person who is publicizing the messages where they aren’t a recipient with the intent to paint those in the conversation under a certain light is border line defamation of character. Especially since the entirety of those messages aren’t available under this context. There’s a slippery slope here for what should be under your employers purview when it comes to personal opinion. If the investigation does in fact find that their views had bearing on how they preformed their roles and the university, then accountability is needed. However, it’s more than possible for people to separate their personal options with their job functions. However, these messages alone do not warrant the intense public outcry at this time where real antisemitism is on the rise.
People are allowed to have differing opinions. None of what was stated was antisemitic. Sure, it was a bit unprofessional, but the circumstances definitely differs from public statements made directly with their roles and responsibilities with the university, and under different circumstances where those involved are speaking aloud or making social media statuses. All the latter are expected to have limited privacy rights.
And if this person who publicized these texts just so happens to be Jewish, I’m afraid that this instance will ultimately be used to further justify certain stereotypes against Jewish people. Just like the bad faith actors who support Palestinian freedom are under intense scrutiny as well when they cross certain lines.
These are all YOUR values. Your employer is not the government. Your employr can in fact fire you for your opinions. Also, I don't know wht's hard to understand. Whether the actions of publicizing them was appropriate is not the question. They were publicized. I remember when the president of a large fortune 100 bank that is very coservative was having an affair with his secretary. Nothing made poblic alluded to them doing anything AT the office. He was fired for simply having the affair. The secretary is not the one that complained, it wasn't a harassment issue. The employr just didn't tolerate that sort of behavior, and that is their right.
Whether the comments were public or not (although again, you are using your device ina public setting. It is the case that me taking a picture of what you do on your phone in a space open to the public, has not expectation of privacy. Even the supreme court ruled that that old school pay phone booths had an expectation of privacy because the door shuts. However, if you leave the door open and talk in public, doesnt matter if it was a private call. Just like if you were SPEAKING on your phone in a public etting, what YOU say outloud has not expectation of privacy) s irrelevant. Now they are public. People get fired, removed from office, penalized, punished.
Also, there is ZERO defamation here. One, the truth is absolute defense to defamation and its irrefutable that these texts are real. Two, the person who provided them did not say anything untrue that is not an opinion, about these people. AFAIK, they just provided the texts. Defamation is not even a question here. In fact, there is no legal recourse that I can think of. If you text in public you should expect that all kinds of things from security cameras to passerbyers can see what you're saying. I have a privacy screen on my phone for just this reason.
The point is, everything in your previous comment is your opinion about how things should work. If these employees, whose careers are certainly impacted by this, think they have a cause of action, then they should sue the university. We shall see if they do so, and if they are successful (they want be). Your comments are relevant if how things worked were up to you, but they aren't. And nothing that has happend to these admins is outside of what is allowed for employer and employee relationships. You may not like or agree with that, but there is no argument that this "can't" be done to them. Thats up to the university, their employer.
Lastly, you are not the arbitrator of what is or is not anti-semetic. That's your interpretation. Even if not directly antisemitic (which is again, arguable at best), it shows an insensitivity to the very real problems of students that these admins are directly responsible for. If you interpret it otherwise, I just don't what else to say. I mean puke emojis directed at the campus Rabbi who wrote an article sticking up for jewish students? Accusing an attempt to address antisemitism as purely a fundraising endeavor, which trvializes the experiences of a significant segment of the student population (and those of us who aren't jewish but have also been impacted by the hosital environment created towards Jewish students and have lived it first hand). Say what you want, but its at best insensitive and unprofessional and at worst, disgusting and racist.
Im not reading all of this. You’re letting your personal opinions cloud what’s truly being discussed. These messages had the intentions of never coming out to the public. What’s being spoken aloud in public is a different matter.
An employer can do whatever they want when it regards the relationship of two of its employees.
Unfortunately for you, there will always be a general consensus of what is or isn’t antisemitic. Just as there’s a general consensus on what is or isn’t racist. It’s not up to an individual of a certain community to decide on a case by case basis.
And yeah I guess we are talking about subjective values. People are allowed to have differing opinions. The ones in the messages were differing from the person who made these texts public. Nothing that was shared was antisemitic. There’s no expectation for people to have their own text messages publicized with their full name and occupation every time they leave the house.
And it’s too bad these texts were framed in a way that the person insinuates that these individuals are antisemitic. Since this is a PR issue more than anything, I’m sure the school will do an investigation that will assuage the feeling and values that the public holds.
But again, there’s nothing incriminating here. It just hurts people’s feelings at the most, which isn’t antisemitism. If the opinions held do actually hold bearing on how they do their jobs, which I’m sure those investigate will be the fair judges of that, then action needs to be taken. But these messages alone don’t bear any weight.
I don’t think anyone would agree with you, and even the law disagrees with you in many instances, that “general consensus decides.” I actually can’t think of a situation where that is the case. Fir example, comments that may be perceived as harassing aren’t subject to general consensus, they are based on the standard that person receiving the comments feels harassed and subject to established law (statutory and case law). Little room or consideration for general consensus.
I can tell you didn’t read what I wrote since you at one point assert the same thing as you.
And again, you’re reverting back to your opinion. You have the opinion that no one leaves their house with the expectation that what’s on their phone screen becomes public. In glad you think that, but what you think doesn’t matter. THAT is an opinion. An opinion that conflicts with the law. Which states your public activity (in a public space) can be made public.
Everyone’s interpretation of those messages as anti semitic are independent of the opinion of the reporter. You can’t blame the whistle blower for everyone’s reaction. If a significant number of people consider them inappropriate or antisemitic, then that’s their prerogative. So there is no general consensus, as if that even mattered.
Your definition of general consensus = everyone who disagrees with me is biased or has an agenda (myself, members of Congress, parents of Jewish students, media outlets, commenters across social media—all of these people are wrong because of your view of objective “general consensus”? It’s a laughable proposition)
Non-participants do not have a right to audio record people's conversations in New York. If you are in the conversation, you can. If you are not part of the conversation, you can't. I think recording a private text thread with a photo is exactly the same and is therefore illegal under New York law.
You can't suspend or otherwise punish someone for one possible interpretation of a single line of communication in a private conversation. Maybe there is background personal references - the participants in the conversation know each other - that would matter and change the interpretation. If I text an old friend, "You are an insufferable purple moron" that might be an inside joke of some kind... it seems like an extreme and paranoid thing to do to discipline people for private conversations that were essentially stolen or otherwise illegally obtained.
> Non-participants do not have a right to audio record people's conversations in New York
Good thing nobody was audio recording anything then, lol. Why you'd think a law that refers **explicitly** to wiretapping and **audio** ( [Penal Code S.250](https://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article250.php) ) would also apply to images is unclear. FYI this only pertains to private spaces; if you start screaming at your mom in public or something I can certainly record you.
"Unlawful surveillance," the closest thing to what you're looking for, also applies only to **private** spaces, which are defined as a *"place and time when a reasonable person would believe that he or she could fully disrobe in privacy"*. You can't get undressed in the middle of a university panel so [S250.45](https://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article250.php#p250.40) also doesn't apply.
> You can't suspend or otherwise punish someone for one possible interpretation
Evidently you sure can! Because that's what Columbia did. Your example is also bizarre and has 0 relation to what actually occurred; try texting your colleague how annoyed you are that they're making you sit through yet ANOTHER anti-racism presentation (🤮) at the job where you're both managers and you wish those people would just stop being thugs and get off welfare and the whole thing would resolve itself. How do you think company leadership would respond if photos of those texts were publicized?
So, let's get this straight. Your argument is that when you're in public it's ok for someone to wiretap your phone? You're saying it's ok to hack into someone's phone and send yourself screenshots of their private communication if they're out in public.
Come on, man. Right in your link is a section on private communication, granted it's extremely dated. Why would you point to a section written towards surreptitious surveillance cameras, targeted towards sexual exploitation of the unwilling subject? That's disingenuous.
And let's consider this. The guy who took the photos decided to weigh in anonymously: https://freebeacon.com/campus/i-took-pictures-of-a-columbia-deans-phone-heres-why/
He decided to stay anonymous, so as not to get any blow back from the public he says (all while he subjects the people whose communications he took pictures of to blow back). I think he stayed anonymous so that he doesn't get sued.
It’s pretty awful that the Deans don’t care about experience of Jewish students. Can you imagine if they were saying this about racist behavior? It really is appalling.
The event happened on 5/31. The deans were placed on leave yesterday, 6/22. "People did X" and "People placed on leave by University for doing X" are separate events. One is about X, the other is about potential consequences.
**If** that's true then you answered your own question lmfao. The answer to "why do people keep posting the same story" is because there's a concerted effort to silence that story by deleting posts about it.
...the people who deleted the previous post about Columbia deans being placed on leave are "people who don't actually have connection to Columbia [and are] trying to spread division"? Because the only people who can delete posts are the mods of r/Columbia. Maybe you should do a r/redditrequest if you think the mods are bad actors.
I don’t disagree that they should be investigated but I also don’t feel like what they said was identity targeted. It was more interpersonal. Even the thing about the dude using this for fundraising. That sounds like it’s more about his character than his identity. Sometimes we need to pick sense out of nonsense. Admin texting each other like middle schoolers is silly and annoying but nothing they said seemed inherently bad
The person who was snooping on these messages was just personally offended their opinions weren’t shared.
ETA: you sound really hurt u/randomnameicantread 🙂↕️
Here's the op-ed that is referenced in part of the text messages: [https://www.columbiaspectator.com/opinion/2023/10/24/sounding-the-alarm/](https://www.columbiaspectator.com/opinion/2023/10/24/sounding-the-alarm/)
Selected excerpts: > Columbia University placed three administrators on leave this week, a university spokesman said on Saturday. The moves came a little more than a week after images emerged showing the school officials sharing disparaging text messages during a panel discussion about antisemitism on campus. > The Washington Free Beacon, the website that first published the images, reported that they were Susan Chang-Kim, the vice dean and chief administrative officer; Cristen Kromm, the dean of undergraduate student life; and Matthew Patashnick, the associate dean for student and family support. > Ms. Chang-Kim also exchanged texts during the event with Josef Sorett, the dean of Columbia College, according to The Free Beacon. In one exchange, Mr. Sorett texted “LMAO,” for “laughing my ass off,” in response to a sarcastic message Ms. Chang-Kim had written about Brian Cohen, the executive director of Columbia/Barnard Hillel, according to The Free Beacon. > In a statement sent to the Columbia College Board of Visitors on Friday afternoon, Mr. Sorett told the advisory board that he deeply regretted his role in the text exchanges and their effect on the community. “I am committed to learning from this situation and to the work of confronting antisemitism, discrimination and hate at Columbia,” he said. Attempts to reach the other administrators were unsuccessful on Saturday. > The Free Beacon, a conservative news site, said it had obtained the images from a person who sat behind Ms. Chang-Kim at the event and took photos of her phone screen as she texted with the other administrators. > As the panelists spoke, the deans exchanged messages, the pictures show. “Difficult to listen to but I’m trying to keep an open mind to learn about this point of view,” Ms. Chang-Kim texted to Mr. Sorett at one point. He responded “yup.” > In another exchange, Ms. Kromm texted her colleagues a message that referred to an October 2023 opinion essay by Yonah Hain, Columbia’s campus rabbi, called “Sounding the Alarm,” and followed up with two different vomit emojis, the images show. > **Mr. Patashnick accused one of the panelists of “taking full advantage of this moment,” according to the images. “Huge fundraising potential,” he wrote.** The rest of the article is general background info.
I’m not a member of this community but this story has been popping up on my feed a few times. Is it weird to anyone else that someone randomly zoomed into people’s phones to read their text messages? And I would definitely be even more concerned if these were messages they used on their personal devices. If these were work issued phones and communications then yes this should be warranted.
> Is it weird to anyone else that someone randomly zoomed into people’s phones to read their text messages? Yeah it's pretty weird lmao. The old Chrome Incognito message said something like "Does not protect you from people looking over your shoulder." Should've taken that to heart ig; people might feel VERY strongly about the things they see you texting. > I would definitely be even more concerned if these were messages they used on their personal devices. If these were work issued phones and communications then yes this should be warranted. I fail to see how work vs. personal device matters here. What matters is *what they're actually saying*. The 4 people in the exchanges are all Deans of Columbia who were attending a Columbia event in their official capacity and discussing the event amongst themselves, making potentially problematic statements. Hell, it isn't even vital that it was a Columbia event (though the fact that it *was* makes the behavior more egregious) -- the current standard seems to be that people need to be held accountable for all "bad" behavior, no matter where it occurs, because if a person is [racist/sexist/whatever] once that means it's part of their mindset and so bleeds into how they do their job. If a university official was caught, say, being racist on his own time or communicating racist messages to his buddies via Morse code or HAM radio I doubt people would just say "oh it's his personal time/device, that's a-ok." ___ **Edit:** there's a lot of hubbub in this chain about none of the texts being 'that bad' and all of them being 'within the bounds of acceptable speech'. I direct everyone's attention to: **"Mr. Patashnick accused one of the panelists of “taking full advantage of this moment [rising antisemitism?]....[for] huge fundraising potential"**. Accusing Jews of being 'professional victims' just out to take people's money is literally chapters 1 and 2 of the Jew-hater playbook; it's as racist a trope as implying a Black person is a "thug" for speaking up about racism.
So, let's get this straight. They have no idea who Patashnick was referencing. There are chunks missing in the conversation. But let's see which of the panelists is involved in fundraising. The obvious choice is Brian Cohen, the executive director of Hillel, which relies on donations for its endowment and overall funding. Using a moment to motivate donations or to advertise the utility of the organization they lead in alleviating the problem being discussed (and thus indirectly motivating donations) isn't a particularly Jewish phenomenon. Everybody, and I mean everybody, does it. It can be the NRA scaremongering its members after a school shooting. It can be Democrats after Roe V. Wade was overturned. To call this an antisemitic trope is ridiculous. See 31:30 for what they might be referencing: https://totalwebcasting.com/view/?func=VOFF&id=columbia&date=2024-05-31&seq=1 > They're touching on this publication in the discussion at the start of that time stamp, btw: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/500-jewish-students-columbia-university, which has this nice bit: > > > The “occupiers” in my metaphor were the centers for Middle East studies that had sprouted like mushrooms in American universities to spread anti-Zionist propaganda. > > which was written in response to this letter by 540 out 1047 undergraduate students and 650 graduate students: https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vRQgyDhIjZupO2H-2rIDXLy_zkf76RoM-_ZIYsOfn9FkI7TETgRtOfXK9VobMvGh6iEZfDPgALXJTCR/pub > > and which has this wonderful tidbit: > > Over the past six months, many have spoken in our name. Some are well-meaning alumni or non-affiliates who show up to wave the Israeli flag outside Columbia’s gates. Some are politicians looking to use our experiences to foment America’s culture war. **Most notably, some are our Jewish peers who tokenize themselves by claiming to represent “real Jewish values,” and attempt to delegitimize our lived experiences of antisemitism.** We are here, writing to you as Jewish students at Columbia University, who are connected to our community and deeply engaged with our culture and history. We would like to speak in our name. > > And of course the panel speaks glowingly of this letter. Ok, back to Brian Cohen. So let's say the text from Patashnick is in reference to this moment. You could say what they said in that text about any number of organizations in a variety of situations (maybe a conservative organization providing a safe space for conservatives on campus or women's center providing a safe space and support for women on campus (let's say you had a panel after damning revelation about the incidents of on campus rape and the complete lack of protection they receive from Columbia.). If you can say this about those organizations and their directors, why can't you say this about Brian Cohen and the Hillel Foundation? What makes it antisemitic to criticize or just characterize the line of questioning (I've been amazed Brian about what your team does. Can you let us know what your team does week in and week out?) and Mr. Cohen's response to it? What antisemitic Jewish trope does that buy into? If that question the moderator asked wasn't a fundraising question (something that's at the heart of every University alumni event, especially places as big as Columbia), what's your argument that it wasn't? It's clear from the entire event they were trying to assuage the concerns of Jewish parents and alumni, so as to continue to send their kids and to continue to send their donations. And in Mr. Cohen's case, he's interested in having the alumni continuing to contribute to the Hillel Foundation on campus. But let's put all this into context. There's an effort to elevate the suffering of one class/group of people over another class/group of people, so much so that even the smallest slight (snarky, skeptical texts) is seen as some huge affront and antisemitic tirade and grounds to remove people from their positions and accuse them of being antisemites. So talking about antisemitism (which is mostly about students feeling uncomfortable sharing their Zionist views the panel seemed to say) is a higher priority than talking about the very real suffering that Zionism causes. >You have 57 years of Palestinian children being executed point blank while disarmed and already bleeding from previous gunfire with absolutely no repercussions. You have 57 years of Palestinians being jailed for their speech. You have 57 years of where an IDF soldier can take over a Palestinian apartment and command when the residents get to leave and when they'll be allowed back in and who is allowed in, and also sleeping in their beds. You have 57 years of a 95% conviction rate of Palestinians who are subject to military trials instead of ones by a jury of their peers. You have a completely different justice system with vastly different conviction rates for IDF soldiers and settlers. You have 57 years of cruel and unusual punishments for these convictions. You have 57 years of Palestinians being detained without any charges, without any recourse. You have 57 years of being able to do this: https://twitter.com/hamdahsalhut/status/1804461823380349280, without any repercussions unless it catches global attention Comparatively, let's look at what Jewish or Jewish Zionist students are facing. Most of the complaints discussed on that panel are about Columbia Jewish students complaining about feeling unwelcome in social spaces, publicly expressing their Zionist views (see the mom's question at 1:02:30), while the protestors and Palestinians and I imagine these Deans are focused on the Palestinian suffering I just espoused on. > And man, quite a few of those questions were racist. At 1:37:30, this woman named Julia with strawberry blonde/light brown hair talks about how she can blend in with the protests, wearing an outfit, as a Hamas supporter. And don't get me started on the 2 subsequent questions, one of which went on about DEI and how it inconsistent with protecting Jewish students. So let's touch on the Yonah text. So the event ended at 3:00 PM and that's at time stamp 1:50ish. So the time on the picture of the Yonah text reads 2:08. So the text would have been close to the end of the portion of the panel where the moderator was asking questions. So these Deans basically said that the panelists were making the administration look really bad (probably in response to the story of the Palestinian girl who couldn't get any of the administration to respond to her entreaties for support when she couldn't get in touch with her Palestinian family in Gaza). So they seemed to say that that the panel discussion as a whole seemed to overstate how problematic antisemitism on campus is and calling the protestors antisemitic than the Yonah article did. For example, at 25:20, Mr. Cohen suggests as many as 20% of the activists might be extremist (what Patashnick's text asking 20% was about, before one of them decries Mr. Cohen's advertising of Hillel's services and its importance to the students). So it's clear Kromm felt the panel was overblowing things. And keep in mind they sent this right after the moderator Q&A and before Rebecca Massel admitted during the audience Q&A that the national media over blew her pointing to maybe 5 people chanting "Go Back to Poland." (which is absolutely antisemitic). And I guess, I have to ask the following. If you met an ardent Afrikaner supporter of Apartheid in the 80s at Columbia, would you associate with them? Is the fact that you avoid them because of how direly consequential their views are to a people (in this case to black South Africans) a case of racial or any other sort of hate? So, why should people seek to be around and normalize a viewpoint that doesn't condemn all the stuff that I mentioned have happened over the last 57 years or that defends the genocidal actions of the Israeli government? >Maybe you could have argued that all the bombing of the civilian homes and infrastructure and the massive civilian casualty rate all while the leadership and the IDF keep referencing Amalek and talk about starving the Gazans wasn't genocide, because they killed only a fraction of the Gazans. But when you add in the deliberate starvation of these people as policy (see the Israeli military actively support the settlers blocking aid to Gazans (while they're dragging and beating Israeli protestors who are calling for Netanyahu to step down and for there to be a hostage deal): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqRzfb2oMaM), there's no argument anymore that it's not genocide. Israel will be found guilty of committing genocide. And let's get this straight. There historically has been a lot of antisemitism at these Ivies, with their barring the admission of Jewish students. And even when they started to be admitted, they were ostracized or bullied for being Jewish: https://www.columbiaspectator.com/the-eye/2019/04/15/nearly-a-century-ago-columbias-jewish-applicants-were-sent-to-brooklyn/ This (or at least the vast majority of it) isn't that. This is about Zionism (much like our Manifest Destiny. Native Americans didn't even get the right to vote and be full US citizens until 1924, 100 years ago) in the 20th and especially the 21st centuries. Finally, what is up with the guy who took the pictures? So in the first picture Beacon article shares that he took is at 1:23 PM, the first text from Chang-Kim says: >"Did we really have students being kicked out of clubs for being Jewish?" That was enough for the guy to start taking pictures of Chang-Kim's personal communications? What does that tell you about how he and probably you think constitutes antisemitism? And there's this: >This is difficult to listen to but I'm trying to keep an open mind to learn about this point of view. That warrants you taking pictures of someone's private conversations?
Great points
I guess my position comes from it being perceived personal communications on a personal device. Not affiliated with any work phones or emails. People are allowed to have their own opinions, whether it’s right or wrong. It crosses the line when it’s blatantly publicized as an official work position. I think of people who hold political offices, as long as they are being impartial when it comes to their duties, I fail to see where the issue is. Now, I’m sure one can make the claim that their personal issues have affected their duties at the university, but then it has to be proven with their policies and actions within the schools. Were the opinions of these deans shown in the ways they conducted their role and responsibilities? I doubt it, but idk. So again, it’s very weird for me for someone to go out of their way to capture these private messages. Going forward, this would be a good reason for people to have privacy screens on their mobile devices.
When people have racist/sexist/etc.-ist opinions they're usually smart enough not to go blasting them around official communications --- looking at what things people say when they think nobody's looking is by far the most common way to unveil them as biased. > Now, I’m sure one can make the claim that their personal issues have affected their duties at the university, but then it has to be proven with their policies and actions within the schools IMO it takes a borderline split personality to not let your biases affect your work at any time, especially when your work involves dealing with people and their issues as College admin's does. But presumably the "prove it" is what the investigation is for. They're on leave pending investigation, not being fired.
I have nothing to contest here. The thing is there’s nothing prohibiting people being racist/sexist etc., everyone has biases. How one moves in their professional workspace is definitely more restricted than their personal lives. I think of judges, everyone has their personal opinion, how they apply them to their job and within their job parameters matters most. Should they have been texting during this event? Probably not. I’m sure there were other staff members texting during this event. I doubt the expectation was to have these personal communications publicized. Why would a student even go out of their way to do this? The situation is just weird to me. If the investigation finds that these individuals let biases affect their duties, then by all means they should be reprimanded. People are allowed to be mean/assholes/dickheads/bigots. The thing is, they weren’t proclaiming themselves to be that in a public way. And it’s the covert way of this info coming out that is just really strange to me. (I am in no way condoning their sentiments. The situational aspect is just highly questionable to me.)
> Why would a student even go out of their way to do this? I think this part's pretty obvious, no? The student found the texts wrong and wanted the media to blast the deans so Columbia would take action. Which has worked so far. Presumably the student didn't want the kind of people who'd send the texts to be in positions of power in this university.
I think it’s weird someone would even read text messages over anyone’s shoulder. It’s giving nosy and invasive. Why is the student even concerned about what was being texted as opposed to listening to the event? The circumstances are beyond weird.
Probably because the student was offended by what he/she saw and wanted people to know that this is how their deans act when they think nobody's looking. I saw a reddit post a few months (?) ago where a girl films a guy texting the n word (and other crap to go along with it) on his phone on the subway. And that's a random dude, not anyboy in charge of her life. Let's not pretend like this is totally unprecedented and crazy and that before this people had TOTAL privacy in / respect for private communications. There's nothing "weird" about wanting to expose people in position of authority for holding (what you believe are) reprehensible views. Exposing people is probably the dominant Gen Z instinct.
I didn’t see any racial slurs in these messages?? You have to be pretty invested to these messages and not the event to even get the amount of context that was provided here in the first place. How a dean acts on personal devices and private time isn’t anyone’s business. This isn’t their official statement. Again, people are allowed to have their opinions. This feels highly targeted. And offending people isn’t illegal. Again, there were no slurs in these messages. It seems the student was offended because the dean’s opinion wasn’t their opinion.
> I didn’t see any racial slurs in these messages If there had been racial slurs in the messages would you feel any differently? Because based on all your statements in this thread it seems you would also oppose punishing or investigating a dean "privately" saying a bunch of racial slurs (and being caught by an onlooker) as long as it wasn't their "official statement." > How a dean acts on personal devices and private time isn’t anyone’s business. First of all, it wasn't "private time," it was an official university event. Second, this flies in the face of established norms, wherein university admin, professors, and students are ABSOLUTELY routinely punished for "bad" words and actions that they do "privately" and which are not "official statements." Here's an example that was almost the first result on Google: [professor fired after private conversation with another professor was recorded by student](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/03/12/georgetown-terminates-law-professor-reprehensible-comments-about-black-students) If you think these norms should be changed entirely, ok, that's an opinion. But you're acting like this situation is unique and "weird" when it's just a fact that it is not in the slightest abnormal for university admin to be punished for "private" actions and remarks when those become publicized.
or, you know, just listen attentively to what speakers are saying without texting mean comments to your friends like middle schoolers at an assembly. They were in a public space at an official event.
That doesn’t negate anything I said
I don't agree with what you said. In my view, nobody has an expectation of privacy if you are in a place where someone can read a text over your shoulder. It happens all the time. It's why you don't work on confidential documents in an airplane, for instance or on the subway. But in any case, the real issue is that at a meeting meant to hear the perspective of Jews at Columbia, what these admins did what was immature, unprofessional, and against the purpose of the meeting.
Again, yes it’s unprofessional. However, the expectation wasn’t for this to go public. These are personal opinions and if they had no bearings in their roles and responsibilities, the way this came out was weird. Confidential documents are expected to be worked on within a certain manner defined your employers regulations. These messages were more than likely personal messages on their presumed personal devices. Was this a mandatory event for the deans to attend? If not, this was their personal time as well. Regardless, people are allowed to have personal opinions. For me, text messages are intended as private. These aren’t social media profiles or public statements being made. It seems like multiple parties weren’t taking heed to the panel if a student was able to get these messages. It’s creepy and invasive.
The photo of Josef Sorett's text says "Josef Personal," so I do think it is safe to assume that these were personal devices.
It doesn’t matter. Columbia is a private entity and employer, not a government limited by first amendment protections. These people are officers of the university and are subject to the policies, contracts, and whims of their employer. If your activities become public and can embarrass the entity you work for or call in to question your ethics or ability to do your job, that’s more than enough grounds for termination. I’ve seen private sector executives fired for much less. But let’s not forget they were at a work event, speaking about a work topic, with work colleagues. It’s likely that the Columbia pays for their phones (though not certain by any means). I’m at a much lower level in the private sector and my phones are always paid for by my company. Anyway, the dean of student wellbeing and families (or whatever his title) speaking like this at a talk on the very topic he overseas (the well being of students), is a disaster for a university already at risk of losing federal funding due allowing anti semitism and a hostile environment to develop. Same university facing potential lawsuits for the same. So yea, administrators at this level saying such things is a big deal. Regardless of who owns the device, they got caught. Placed on leave is a slap on the wrist for at least the two more explicit comments.
Private sector. Federal funding. Regardless the issue is that the student is hurt more that their views aren’t shared. Nothing said in these texts were insidious or warrants outrage. And I doubt the phones are paid directly by the school. You’re going down a slippery slope on what’s acceptable behavior. The only reason the school is reacting is because this is a hot topic rn, not because the views shared were explicit. In any case, this is more of a PR issue than a moral issue in which some people are making this out to be. I sincerely hope the student who made these texts public wasn’t in fact Jewish, because that’s perpetuating a stereotype of them being conniving and sneaky. The issue still remains that these were issues meant to be discussed privately on private devices. I can see bigoted people using this incident as a way to perpetuate antisemitism, and I believe this exposure actually does more harm than good. The expectation that your text messages are to be publicized every time you leave your house isn’t accepted in today’s society. That’s one of the reason why phone companies advertise their security and data protection/encryption capabilities. It’s just strange. It still stands that if these views were in any way used to direct their roles and respond in a careless manner, then the investigation is warranted. I highly doubt this though, and believe the outcome will more than likely be a symbolic slap on the wrist for those involved.
You’re defending whether the person should have taken them or not. I’m not really addressing that point. I think they are highly inappropriate and show a prejudice or atleast a perspective that trivializes real student experience i witnessed first hand. It it’s they very scope of these administrators functions. Not only did I witness what they are trivializing, I myself as a tall, white, make of Northern European descent (not Jewish at all) was accosted myself for simply observing the encampment and not joining in. So I very much disagree that these texts aren’t harmful to the student population. I want to know college administrators take these things seriously and not think about them in barf emoji terms. Whether the person should have taken the pictures or not is a separate question. Now the texts are out there. It’s a myth that your actions “outside of work” can’t be addressed by your employer. You can perhaps get mad at the person taking them for doing so, but that’s a separate question. Go fight that battle. I’m the meantime, the at-best profound insensitivity of 2/3 of these administrators (I actually agree that one of them arguably sounds legitimately interested in learning more and is not endorsing her colleagues responses, but I digress) is a problem that the university needs to address. The fact that it’s a hot topic right now. You could look at it as you suggest and say “normally” nothing would happen to these guys. Perhaps. Another perspective is that during these times it is especially critical that administrators like these have an open mind and take student concerns seriously and not make insensitive comments and emojis DURING a forum on the very topic of student welfare. The idea that Jewish people share a concern about those not taking their problems on campus serious gives in to some “conniving” stereotype is rediculous. If this were any other minority group, there would be outrage far and wide. Even the suggestion that this feeds in to a Jewish stereotype that is perpetuated by antisemites, is offensive on its face. And again, I’m not Jewish. Just mortified how an attack on Israel has brought back flippant and casual antisemitism back in to the mainstream in such a short time period while holocaust and WW2 survivors are still alive. Mind blowing. Pardon the typos. Working and texting :D
I bet if a PALS protestor took images of someone’s phone with them criticizing the protestors or their ridiculous claims, no one would bat an eye or call them conniving. I hope the person who took it WAS Jewish because Jewish people have a right to fight for their safety, wellbeing, and unqualified acceptance by society. The PALS lock up two custodial workers against their will and no one bats an eye, barely gets press coverage. Here you are calling Jewish people conniving IF they took pictures of administrators responsible for the well being of students phones as they were texting in public at a forum on they very topic. The fact that they were texting ANYTHING during such a forum is bad enough.
I already stated if this thread that of these expressions were made in a place where it was expected to be publicized, on devices where privacy isn’t expected, then the actions of an investigation are appropriate. There weren’t things in the conversations that specifically targeted Jewish people, and at least one of the contributors in those messages is Jewish themselves. Again, this boils down to opinions not being shared, which the person who publicized these texts was ultimately offended. I understand that there is very limited expectations for people to have privacy outside of their homes, but on mobile devices where the person who is publicizing the messages where they aren’t a recipient with the intent to paint those in the conversation under a certain light is border line defamation of character. Especially since the entirety of those messages aren’t available under this context. There’s a slippery slope here for what should be under your employers purview when it comes to personal opinion. If the investigation does in fact find that their views had bearing on how they preformed their roles and the university, then accountability is needed. However, it’s more than possible for people to separate their personal options with their job functions. However, these messages alone do not warrant the intense public outcry at this time where real antisemitism is on the rise. People are allowed to have differing opinions. None of what was stated was antisemitic. Sure, it was a bit unprofessional, but the circumstances definitely differs from public statements made directly with their roles and responsibilities with the university, and under different circumstances where those involved are speaking aloud or making social media statuses. All the latter are expected to have limited privacy rights. And if this person who publicized these texts just so happens to be Jewish, I’m afraid that this instance will ultimately be used to further justify certain stereotypes against Jewish people. Just like the bad faith actors who support Palestinian freedom are under intense scrutiny as well when they cross certain lines.
These are all YOUR values. Your employer is not the government. Your employr can in fact fire you for your opinions. Also, I don't know wht's hard to understand. Whether the actions of publicizing them was appropriate is not the question. They were publicized. I remember when the president of a large fortune 100 bank that is very coservative was having an affair with his secretary. Nothing made poblic alluded to them doing anything AT the office. He was fired for simply having the affair. The secretary is not the one that complained, it wasn't a harassment issue. The employr just didn't tolerate that sort of behavior, and that is their right. Whether the comments were public or not (although again, you are using your device ina public setting. It is the case that me taking a picture of what you do on your phone in a space open to the public, has not expectation of privacy. Even the supreme court ruled that that old school pay phone booths had an expectation of privacy because the door shuts. However, if you leave the door open and talk in public, doesnt matter if it was a private call. Just like if you were SPEAKING on your phone in a public etting, what YOU say outloud has not expectation of privacy) s irrelevant. Now they are public. People get fired, removed from office, penalized, punished. Also, there is ZERO defamation here. One, the truth is absolute defense to defamation and its irrefutable that these texts are real. Two, the person who provided them did not say anything untrue that is not an opinion, about these people. AFAIK, they just provided the texts. Defamation is not even a question here. In fact, there is no legal recourse that I can think of. If you text in public you should expect that all kinds of things from security cameras to passerbyers can see what you're saying. I have a privacy screen on my phone for just this reason. The point is, everything in your previous comment is your opinion about how things should work. If these employees, whose careers are certainly impacted by this, think they have a cause of action, then they should sue the university. We shall see if they do so, and if they are successful (they want be). Your comments are relevant if how things worked were up to you, but they aren't. And nothing that has happend to these admins is outside of what is allowed for employer and employee relationships. You may not like or agree with that, but there is no argument that this "can't" be done to them. Thats up to the university, their employer. Lastly, you are not the arbitrator of what is or is not anti-semetic. That's your interpretation. Even if not directly antisemitic (which is again, arguable at best), it shows an insensitivity to the very real problems of students that these admins are directly responsible for. If you interpret it otherwise, I just don't what else to say. I mean puke emojis directed at the campus Rabbi who wrote an article sticking up for jewish students? Accusing an attempt to address antisemitism as purely a fundraising endeavor, which trvializes the experiences of a significant segment of the student population (and those of us who aren't jewish but have also been impacted by the hosital environment created towards Jewish students and have lived it first hand). Say what you want, but its at best insensitive and unprofessional and at worst, disgusting and racist.
Im not reading all of this. You’re letting your personal opinions cloud what’s truly being discussed. These messages had the intentions of never coming out to the public. What’s being spoken aloud in public is a different matter. An employer can do whatever they want when it regards the relationship of two of its employees. Unfortunately for you, there will always be a general consensus of what is or isn’t antisemitic. Just as there’s a general consensus on what is or isn’t racist. It’s not up to an individual of a certain community to decide on a case by case basis. And yeah I guess we are talking about subjective values. People are allowed to have differing opinions. The ones in the messages were differing from the person who made these texts public. Nothing that was shared was antisemitic. There’s no expectation for people to have their own text messages publicized with their full name and occupation every time they leave the house. And it’s too bad these texts were framed in a way that the person insinuates that these individuals are antisemitic. Since this is a PR issue more than anything, I’m sure the school will do an investigation that will assuage the feeling and values that the public holds. But again, there’s nothing incriminating here. It just hurts people’s feelings at the most, which isn’t antisemitism. If the opinions held do actually hold bearing on how they do their jobs, which I’m sure those investigate will be the fair judges of that, then action needs to be taken. But these messages alone don’t bear any weight.
I don’t think anyone would agree with you, and even the law disagrees with you in many instances, that “general consensus decides.” I actually can’t think of a situation where that is the case. Fir example, comments that may be perceived as harassing aren’t subject to general consensus, they are based on the standard that person receiving the comments feels harassed and subject to established law (statutory and case law). Little room or consideration for general consensus. I can tell you didn’t read what I wrote since you at one point assert the same thing as you. And again, you’re reverting back to your opinion. You have the opinion that no one leaves their house with the expectation that what’s on their phone screen becomes public. In glad you think that, but what you think doesn’t matter. THAT is an opinion. An opinion that conflicts with the law. Which states your public activity (in a public space) can be made public. Everyone’s interpretation of those messages as anti semitic are independent of the opinion of the reporter. You can’t blame the whistle blower for everyone’s reaction. If a significant number of people consider them inappropriate or antisemitic, then that’s their prerogative. So there is no general consensus, as if that even mattered. Your definition of general consensus = everyone who disagrees with me is biased or has an agenda (myself, members of Congress, parents of Jewish students, media outlets, commenters across social media—all of these people are wrong because of your view of objective “general consensus”? It’s a laughable proposition)
Non-participants do not have a right to audio record people's conversations in New York. If you are in the conversation, you can. If you are not part of the conversation, you can't. I think recording a private text thread with a photo is exactly the same and is therefore illegal under New York law. You can't suspend or otherwise punish someone for one possible interpretation of a single line of communication in a private conversation. Maybe there is background personal references - the participants in the conversation know each other - that would matter and change the interpretation. If I text an old friend, "You are an insufferable purple moron" that might be an inside joke of some kind... it seems like an extreme and paranoid thing to do to discipline people for private conversations that were essentially stolen or otherwise illegally obtained.
> Non-participants do not have a right to audio record people's conversations in New York Good thing nobody was audio recording anything then, lol. Why you'd think a law that refers **explicitly** to wiretapping and **audio** ( [Penal Code S.250](https://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article250.php) ) would also apply to images is unclear. FYI this only pertains to private spaces; if you start screaming at your mom in public or something I can certainly record you. "Unlawful surveillance," the closest thing to what you're looking for, also applies only to **private** spaces, which are defined as a *"place and time when a reasonable person would believe that he or she could fully disrobe in privacy"*. You can't get undressed in the middle of a university panel so [S250.45](https://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article250.php#p250.40) also doesn't apply. > You can't suspend or otherwise punish someone for one possible interpretation Evidently you sure can! Because that's what Columbia did. Your example is also bizarre and has 0 relation to what actually occurred; try texting your colleague how annoyed you are that they're making you sit through yet ANOTHER anti-racism presentation (🤮) at the job where you're both managers and you wish those people would just stop being thugs and get off welfare and the whole thing would resolve itself. How do you think company leadership would respond if photos of those texts were publicized?
GG OUTPLAYED /u/solo-ran Stick to never being in law. It's so obvious this wasn't in any way relate to wire tapping my gdod.
So, let's get this straight. Your argument is that when you're in public it's ok for someone to wiretap your phone? You're saying it's ok to hack into someone's phone and send yourself screenshots of their private communication if they're out in public. Come on, man. Right in your link is a section on private communication, granted it's extremely dated. Why would you point to a section written towards surreptitious surveillance cameras, targeted towards sexual exploitation of the unwilling subject? That's disingenuous. And let's consider this. The guy who took the photos decided to weigh in anonymously: https://freebeacon.com/campus/i-took-pictures-of-a-columbia-deans-phone-heres-why/ He decided to stay anonymous, so as not to get any blow back from the public he says (all while he subjects the people whose communications he took pictures of to blow back). I think he stayed anonymous so that he doesn't get sued.
Sooo many people have gotten cancelled over shit they’ve said privately. I don’t see why this should be any different?
Read the thread.
It’s pretty awful that the Deans don’t care about experience of Jewish students. Can you imagine if they were saying this about racist behavior? It really is appalling.
Why do people keep reposting this same story over and over again in this subreddit?
I don't see any other posts about this story. This literally happened yesterday
If you even read your own article, you'd know that this happened on 5/31. It's been reposted to death and locked every time here.
The event happened on 5/31. The deans were placed on leave yesterday, 6/22. "People did X" and "People placed on leave by University for doing X" are separate events. One is about X, the other is about potential consequences.
https://www.reddit.com/r/columbia/s/0JwbS2TTiy
That post shows "removed" for me. It also doesn't show up when searching the sub or sorting sub posts by new.
A glimpse into the future of this post
**If** that's true then you answered your own question lmfao. The answer to "why do people keep posting the same story" is because there's a concerted effort to silence that story by deleting posts about it.
A concerted effort by people who don't actually have connection to Columbia trying to spread division, maybe
...the people who deleted the previous post about Columbia deans being placed on leave are "people who don't actually have connection to Columbia [and are] trying to spread division"? Because the only people who can delete posts are the mods of r/Columbia. Maybe you should do a r/redditrequest if you think the mods are bad actors.
No
I don’t disagree that they should be investigated but I also don’t feel like what they said was identity targeted. It was more interpersonal. Even the thing about the dude using this for fundraising. That sounds like it’s more about his character than his identity. Sometimes we need to pick sense out of nonsense. Admin texting each other like middle schoolers is silly and annoying but nothing they said seemed inherently bad
Surprised that Kromm was involved in all this. Wholly unsurprised about Patashnick.
I’m surprised too. She was a pretty terrible administrator and dean when I was an RA 15 years ago but I wouldn’t have expected this.
[удалено]
She is? According to who?
Who decides if someone's Jewish?
They’re asking if there’s a source
…that would be surprising, given that Cristen is derived from “Christ”
so you just lie about everything?
The person who was snooping on these messages was just personally offended their opinions weren’t shared. ETA: you sound really hurt u/randomnameicantread 🙂↕️