#mit university

[mit-university-shillong]

[dhanwantri]

#Datascience #python #IIT #KANPUR

🕉🙏🇮🇳

[memys-art-stuff]

It is vital that we keep the efforts of so many students across the United States from going to waste. We need to keep the momentum going and ensure that news of the cruelty happening to the people of Palestine is not ignored or suppressed.

Despite what many news outlets may have you believe, what is happening in our world is not minor in the slightest. It is a genocide that is happening before our eyes, day after day. Do not forget the administrative responses these colleges have given to the act of bringing attention this inhumanity. This is history happening now, and these colleges are on the wrong side of it.

These students are calling to divest college funds from Israel. Do not let the media warp their efforts and paint them as an antisemitic mob. Do not let those opposing these demonstrations hide behind claims of antisemitism to justify their actions. This is about stopping human suffering, and to believe anything different is willful ignorance.

[mitsdedistance]

[jamboreeindia142]

MIT University is considered synonymous with technology and innovation, and rightly so because this university started with a vision to address rapid scientific advances at the time of the industrial revolution. They aimed to provide a liberal and professional education, especially to transform innovative ideas into real-world businesses.

[informationatlas]

Parrots learn to make video calls to chat with other parrots, then develop friendships with each other

Researchers from Northeastern University, in conjunction with scientists from MIT and the University of Glasgow, conducted a study exploring the impact of teaching a group of domesticated birds to communicate using tablets and smartphones. The findings indicate that utilizing video calls may assist parrots in mimicking the communication patterns observed in wild birds, potentially enhancing their behavior and overall well-being in the homes of their owners.

via smithsonianmag.com

[bluesdesk]

Last written only tomodachi island update before I set up a new blog with screenshot updates in English

-

Twilight's favorite foods are Pineapple and Apples.

His absolute worst is FRIED CHICKEN

Twilight why??

-

Ganondorf said that one day he wants to surprise everyone with a sensational action. Help?

-

Sonic's favorite food in Tomodachi... is NOT the hot dog. I'm extremely disappointed. Though I gave him a pan and he cooked an hot dog?? And then he helped Amy cooking in their house

-

I forgot I had gifted Legend, Ravio and Fable some maracas and I found them all playing in Legend’s apartment. Legend was having the time of his life so I guess this is a new headcanon and I'll draw it >:)

-

Ganondorf absolutely doesn't like designer clothes! Maybe a hylian king gifted him a louis vuitton bag and he attacked Hyrule in protest.

-

Time was asleep at the cafè, with Cream and Linkle spying him from a window

[bluesmultiverseisland]

Island updates before I go to sleep!

4 of the Zeldas met at the café:

- MC/FS (Dot), back left

- OoT (Lullaby/Sheik) front left

- AlttP/Albw (Fable) front right

- HW (Artemis/Athena) back right

what

then... do something?

Fable, dear, what are you looking at

SHEIK NO

And finally

I need to draw these too, after Legend and Ravio and their maracas... (Yes I haveput the sd card in the pc and I have them in hd too, I'll make a post tomorrow!)

[mit-university-shillong]

[eretzyisrael]

by Dion J. Pierre

The author, PhD candidate Prahlad Iyengar, continued, “One year into a horrific genocide, it is time for the movement to begin wreaking havoc, or else, as we’ve seen, business will indeed go on as usual … As people of conscience in the world, we have a duty to Palestine and to all the globally oppressed. We have a mandate to exact a cost from the institutions that have contributed to the growth and proliferation of colonialism, racism, and all oppressive systems. We have a duty to escalate for Palestine, and as I hope I’ve argued, the traditional pacifist strategies aren’t working because they are ‘designed into’ the system we fight against.”

In a statement distributed by the CAA, Iyengar accused MIT of weaponizing the disciplinary system to persecute him.

“On Friday, MIT administration informed me that as a result of this article, I have been banned from campus without due process and that I face potential expulsion or suspension,” he said. “These extraordinary actions should concern everyone on campus. My article attempts a historical review of the type of tactics used by protest movements throughout history, from the civil rights movement to the struggle to the fight [sic] against South African Apartheid here on MIT campus.”

MIT has not responded to The Algemeiner‘s inquiry regarding Iyengar’s punishment, but according to excerpts of its letter to Iyengar, the administration told him the article “makes several troubling statements” and could be perceived as “a call for more violent or destructive forms of protest at MIT.” In retaliation, CAA is calling on students to harass David Randall, an associate dean, until he relents and revokes Iyengar’s punishment and Written Revolution‘s temporary suspension.

“On Pacifism” is not the first time that elite college students have endorsed violence in the name of opposing Israel and furthering the Palestinian cause.

In September, during Columbia University’s convocation ceremony, Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), a group which recently split due to racial tensions between Arabs and non-Arabs, distributed literature calling on students to join the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s movement to destroy Israel.

“This booklet is part of a coordinated and intentional effort to uphold the principles of the thawabit and the Palestinian resistance movement overall by transmitting the words of the resistance directly,” said the pamphlet distributed by CUAD, a Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) spinoff, to incoming freshmen. “This material aims to build popular support for the Palestinian war of national liberation, a war which is waged through armed struggle.”

Other sections of the pamphlet were explicitly Islamist, invoking the name of “Allah, the most gracious” and referring to Hamas as the “Islamic Resistance Movement.” Proclaiming, “Glory to Gaza that gave hope to the oppressed, that humiliated the ‘invincible’ Zionist army,” it said its purpose was to build an army of Muslims worldwide.

[dragoneyes618]

"Last week, the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania were called to testify before Congress about the alarming rise of anti-Semitism on their campuses, and their tepid responses to it, in the wake of October 7.

By now, you have probably heard about the trio’s horrendous overall performance, punctuated by their smug inability to respond to the simple question of whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates their schools’ codes of conduct. Since that time, the president of UPenn has stepped down, and support for the other two is wavering.

In case you are wondering, their answer should have been an unequivocal “yes, it violates our polices.” The right to free speech is fundamental, but it does have limits: The First Amendment is not a pass to threaten, harass, intimidate or otherwise violate the rights of others.

For the record, even those pundits who (incorrectly) defended the university presidents’ testimony as being legally correct, if morally tone deaf, had to admit that it did represent a glaring double standard. Each of these universities has in recent years protected other minority groups from even “micro-aggressions” by effectively and ruthlessly shutting down speech that their leaders find offensive.

Struggling to answer whether calls for genocide against Jews constitutes bullying, after you have already officially labeled “fatphobia” as “violence” and “using the wrong pronoun” as a form of “abuse,” is pathetic, and to see these schools pretending that they are genuinely concerned about free speech all of a sudden is nothing short of laughable. In the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s 2024 College Free Speech Rankings, for example, out of 248 US campuses, Penn and Harvard were ranked 247th and 248th, respectively. If you are only concerned about shutting down speech when that speech targets Jews, well, there is a word for that.

How Free Is Free Speech?

The First Amendment does not protect trespassing, vandalism, harassment, assault, or the destruction of property. Nor does it protect speech that is not meant to inform or persuade, but to disrupt lawful endeavors —activities like going to the kosher dining hall or studying in a library. The First Amendment does not protect someone who is making true threats, nor does it protect intimidation — “a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.”

Just a few months ago, in Counterman v. Colorado (2023), the United States Supreme Court clarified that this does not necessarily mean that the person speaking actually intended to threaten the victim. Rather, the Court imposed a recklessness standard — i.e., the First Amendment does not protect a person who consciously disregards a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence. To be clear, calling for the genocide of Jews, as the pro-Hamas student groups on campus have consistently been doing, does create a hostile environment for Jewish people on campus, violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and is not protected by the First Amendment.

It was obvious that all three university presidents were reading off scripts written by their respective attorneys (several of whom were sitting behind them and nodding throughout the hearing). The question then becomes: What now? What is the critical error that their lawyers (and the general counsels at other universities where Jewish students are being targeted) have made in failing to stand up for Jewish people, and how should they immediately correct it?

The answer is simple, and it is exactly what students, parents, donors, and the government alike should all be demanding from these institutions: They should continue to respect the First Amendment, but they should apply the appropriate standard for speech on a campus.

From a legal perspective, it is easy to see where the university legal counsels’ confusion specifically arose. Those horrible answers were written under the assumption that the only limits a university can put on student speech are the limits contemplated in the foundational Supreme Court First Amendment case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

In that case, regarding speech at a KKK rally, the Court held that a state could only punish speech that “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Brandenburg is famously a very high standard, and that is precisely where the universities are hiding: Despite the hundreds of anecdotal incidents from the last two months, and notwithstanding all of the well-known studies confirming that inflammatory discriminatory anti-Semitic rhetoric leads directly to anti-Semitic violence, officials are telling students and parents and now Congress that their hands are tied because, in most cases, there has not been direct enough incitement.

Campus Standards Are Different

Now, the truth is that even under the Brandenburg standard, schools can still impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. As the Court in Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972) explained: “The crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time.”

So even under that paradigm, any activities that disrupt the educational enterprise and functioning of a school may be restricted. Common sense dictates that rallies celebrating calls for anti-Semitic genocide disrupt the educational enterprise and functioning of a school because they leave some students genuinely fearful for their lives.

But that argument is also unnecessary, because Brandenburg is absolutely the wrong standard for schools to be using, and university presidents and lawyers need to correct that mistake as soon as possible.

In Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), the Supreme Court explained that the Constitution does allow for schools to shut down speech that will “materially and substantially interfere” with the “requirements of appropriate discipline” in the operation of the school” or that “invad[es] the rights of others.” That is the standard that these schools must now vigilantly enforce.

Of course, private colleges and universities, like Harvard, Penn, and MIT, can restrict certain speech, conduct, and demonstrations, in most cases, without triggering any constitutional issues. But even a public university is not a public street, and the rules for what speech must be allowed on each are very different.

The Supreme Court in Healy v. James (1972) cited Tinker to hold that university officials do not have to tolerate student activities that breach reasonable campus rules; interrupt the educational process; or interfere with other students’ rights to receive an education. (This is especially true when the student speech is happening in school-sponsored forums, or is reasonably perceived as somehow bearing the school’s imprimatur.)

The Court has also repeatedly held (in Bethel v. Fraser [1986] and Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier [1988]) that schools have even greater latitude to limit student expression if they can establish a “legitimate pedagogical concern.” Ensuring that all students — including Jewish students — have a safe and harassment-free environment in which to learn should be an overwhelmingly legitimate pedagogical concern.

Under the Tinker line of cases, schools do not even have to wait for a breach to actually occur; administrators can act if they can “reasonably forecast” that the expression in question would disrupt school discipline or operation, or violate the rights of other students. In Melton v. Young, for example, the Court ruled that schools could prohibit the wearing of a Confederate flag jacket because it was reasonable to assume that it would be disruptive in an environment of heightened racial tension.

Waving a Hamas flag and cheering on slaughter, as bodies are still being identified and hostages are still being held, announcing solidarity with the “resistance” and that “armed struggle” — i.e., murder —“is “legitimate,” and yes, calling for the genocide of Jews, are all behaviors that are no less likely to cause a disruption than a jacket.

Tinkering with Free Speech

Under Tinker, it is more than reasonable to forecast that there will be substantial disruptions that would violate the right of Jewish students to a non-hostile educational environment if groups are allowed to host events that glorify and celebrate the murder of Jews.

Schools can and must act now to prevent that from continuing to happen, using both common sense and the relevant case law to draw the appropriate line. The limits on the First Amendment are there to help the government with its primary responsibility —to protect all of its citizens from harm —and authorities must be constantly vigilant to enforce the law correctly.

Regardless, the answer to “what now?” then, is this: Everyone calling for change should articulate what that change is, and institutions fixing their policies should clearly explain how they will “tinker” with their free speech formulas so that the next time their leaders are asked if calling for a Jewish genocide is problematic, the answer can just be “yes.”

-Goldfeder, M. (2023g, December 13). Poison Ivies - Mishpacha Magazine. Mishpacha Magazine - The premier Magazine for the Jewish World. https://mishpacha.com/poison-ivies/

[mitsdedistance]

[salamencerobot]

[killervelveteenrabbit]

Oren Root, a longtime New York City lawyer and Columbia University graduate who was at the school when anti-Vietnam War protests rocked it in 1968, said Shafik's summoning of police was "an extraordinary miscalculation."

"President Shafik and her advisers clearly didn't learn from history," said Root, who was a top editor at The Spectator, the Columbia student newspaper, in 1968 and 1969. “Calling in the cops was clearly a mistake. Things have not gotten any calmer.”