There’s plenty of legitimate uses of a swastika. Cultural and religious that have no connection to Nazi ideology
> that showed her standing in front of an Israeli flag with swastikas painted on it.
Oh…..
To you, an "Israeli flag with swastikas" may be a callous and vile juxtaposition of imagery.
But to Sherzad it's merely someone else's "intellectual property".
- Hire someone to help view all university business and academia through a victim/oppressor lens with a pre-determined racial hierarchy.
- That person fails to see the harm in demonizing one group that is higher on the hierarchy than another
- No one’s surprised
So it’s not a pro-nazi thing, she’s pretty much just saying “This country is fascist.” Like yeah it’s bad to have a picture with a swastika in it, but “she compared Israel to Nazi Germany” is a completely different discussion than “she’s a nazi sympathizer”
no no, see, words are violence when Ben Shapiro says them on campus, but it's totally different when swastika and blatant antisemitism is displayed by organizers. That's just power of the people. /s
There’s 34k civilians, (42k total people) dead in 200 days. It’s … not great.
Afghanistan is up to 70k civilians, in two decades, for context. Ukraine is at 10.5k in two years.
Lots of dead innocent people everywhere, whatever you want to call it.
Except Israel is totally committing genocide. They’ve killed more civilians than Hamas. Mostly children. Their goal is Palestinians gone from Gaza that’s very clear and that is genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Honestly I'm just getting sick of hearing about it. The 2 have been fighting for longer than anyone arguing about it now days has been alive and both sides have committed atrocities. In my personal opinion supporting either side is bullshit.
That is true but the conflict has been going on longer than that. Either way I've stated my opinion that both sides of the conflict are wrong which was my primary goal. Thank you for correcting me though 🤟
The only way to see what Isreal is doing to the Gaza strip and not realize it is genocide, is to not view the 34,000 killed as human.
Which is exactly what the Israeli government wants. Because they're commiting genocide.
Wow, shows how shallow their diversity workers are, to just jump to the conclusion and uphold the idea that the swastika is just a hate symbol and not a bastardization of another culture’s symbols
>that showed her standing in front of an Israeli flag with swastikas painted on it
^^Yeah ^^nvm ^^it ^^was ^^a ^^hate ^^symbol
The swastika in the photo really did not belong to her. It belonged to a Jewish man who was making a comparison between the genocide in Gaza and the holocaust and pointing out the frequently overlooked irony.
She said in the press conference that her social media was private and someone unaffiliated with the university sent in screenshots of the post to the president of the university.
A current University staff member who also spoke at the press conference and said they’d lost a promotion for being vocal about their support for Palestine and that others were afraid of potential backlash for speaking up.
>The swastika in the photo really did not belong to her.
You are responsible for what you put online. This defense isn't any stronger than "no officer, I had no idea that was in my car"
I used to go to an old church with some very old semi-historic tile from before WW2 that had swastikas on some of them. Weird that had the Nazis not appropriated the symbol it would probably be as common as the peace symbol is now.
It’s possible that the photo is exculpatory in some way so it’s too bad we can’t see it for ourselves (the Star Tribune didn’t include it).
Then again, the vast majority of us have gone our whole lives without a social media post containing a swastika. Avoiding such a situation seems like a low bar for a DEI manager.
Just based on the description it sounds like the flag is a commentary on Israel behaving like Nazis. That seems like a valid and protected form of criticism.
To be fair, the person you're responding to did not say they think it's morally ok, just that it might be protected speech. But while I don't think the government will be prosecuting her for posting this, I think the university is right to choose not to continue to employ her. They have a right to ensure that their employees represent the values of the university, and she clearly does not project the image they're going for.
You're right that it could be that. I doubt it, but that's definitely possible.
I don't personally see a lot of parallels between Israel and Nazi Germany, but I *do* see a lot of political movements getting more and more fascist, including American Republicans, and when people start behaving like Nazis I want to defend the right for people to say "hey, you're behaving like fucking Nazis" including the use of Nazi imagery as a means of criticism.
So you agree that it's valid to criticize Israel's treatment of Palestinians. Why is it not valid to compare that treatment to the Nazi's treatment of Jews?
There's a fine line between protect form of criticism and representative of an agency. The way government entities and universities view it is you are allowed to protest, you are allowed to be a part of what ever group you choose to.
You are not allowed to associate those viewpoints in any way, shape, or form to your position within the government or university. Her association with her social media accounts is justification enough since she listed herself as the DEI manager
Also, this whole image undermines her role to serve as the "expert of inclusion" on a compass when she takes sides in a heated argument
> Avoiding such a situation seems like a low bar for a DEI manager.
It's an occupational/moral hazard for DEI managers. Probably can't get the job without a resume highlighting your activism and said activism probably produces a myopic perspective which includes overlooking unhealthy opinions from the people/causes associated with DEI.
I mean its probably like being a cop -- a hiring selection bias for authoritarianism and a working environment which produces an unhealthy hostility towards civilians.
Or maybe even a lot of fields where there's a lot of quiet acceptance of unpopular ideas driven by the perceived wisdom of experience and internal group think. Show me an IT person who doesn't think a lot of users are just ignorant NPCs, and or a serious restaurant folks who think a lot of customers are tasteless gluttons.
CIA, Police, FBI, DEA etc etc. All of these government jobs limit your free speech. It wasn't the one exception. Read the other comment I made below which details other ways your free speech rights don't apply at work.
Genocidal racism like “from the river to the sea” or Nazism like having on of your movements founding leaders be a personal guest of Hitler and helping to form an SS unit? How about when actual Nazis fought by your side? How about hiding actual Nazis?
For the side that likes to call a government run by Jews “Nazis” all the time they sure have a lot of deep ties to the original German NSDAP. For a people that like to scream “genocide” they sure like to ignore all of their own ideological calls for and attempts at genocide.
Weird how when Jewish people fight back we’re committing “genocide” but the people actually trying to wipe us out, whose founding documents actually call for our genocide are just “freedom fighters” because Jewish people wanting to have self determination in our own homeland is somehow super offensive and also genocide.
You are free not to get arrested, not free from all consequence.
The drawing or wearing swastika would get you arrested in most of Europe, certainly in Germany.
Yes, the government is still an at will employer in most cases. Clearly there are contracts that are negotiated differently in some cases.
Best guess, they settle out of court and make this go away. She does not get her job back.
Having news circulate that one of your employees posted an image of herself with a swastika is a bad look, even if you did fire her.
I worked in employment law for a while and it was always interesting when the employer had more than a neutral reason to fire, but if there’s some colorable theory of discrimination (no matter how tenuous), they would settle as you suggested. Felt wrong to me, and I was happy to leave it.
Yes. You are free not to be jailed but you are not free from consequence. If an employee posted a photo of a KKK sign, with no other context, should they keep their job? . . .NO.
They are professionals and should know better. Should they be imprisoned? No. Unless they give further context to the symbol to the point they are implying actual harm.
Working for the government does not give you extra free speech rights private institutions do not give. I would say the opposite. They should represent the people and I do not want people representing me posing with hate group symbols. Pretty simple.
Yeah it's just wild that people think that 1st amendment protects an employee. There have been plenty of people fired for comments and/or pictures, and I suspect that the university will likely fight this.
She deleted it, must have been guilt. The school has a copy, it's evidence and UM attorneys are keeping it as evidence for her firing. She's dumb AF trying this case, it's going to backfire.
We have it now. Was posted on r/TwinCities.
https://preview.redd.it/6rcx9xjihmxc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e64534518d4ac7d81e5305151cd1cfe3e92f4b55
It's surfaced and was posted on r/TwinCities.
https://preview.redd.it/h68yylwmhmxc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0baa73e459dc7e72bc2dca156e8ebe6545a23b37
Social media has destroyed activism. For so, so many reasons but the worst of which is that it elevates people completely unsuited to the difficult, spiritual and diplomatic work of change. No matter where you stand on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this person is not someone to be taken seriously. For a variety of reasons.
Save us Jeebus.
Hope she loses. You can’t claim ignorance of this in 2024, both of the swastika imagery nor the consequences of posting whatever the hell you feel like on social media.
Unpopular opinion: She’s taking a stand against an apartheid state. She’s not supporting nazism, she’s (and others are) pointing out Israel’s hypocrisy.
Popular opinion: a one state solution would be the eradication of every man woman and child in Israel. On one side of the wall is country pretty close to a western democracy, and the other side is a population run by Taliban wannabes with ZERO elections since they took power in 2007
None of this would be happening if Hamas wasn’t [shooting rockets at Israel for the last 20 years](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel#/media/File%3ARocket_Attacks_fired_at_Israel_from_the_Gaza_Strip_by_year.png) , and starting YET ANOTHER war with Israel, kidnapping people from a fucking music festival.
Apartheid? GTFO.
[Hamas admits to a goal of ethnic cleansing, and claims they have engaged in it IN THEIR OWN FOUNDING COVENANT](https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/880818a.htm)
*On the Destruction of Israel*
*Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.*
——
I’m an atheist, I have zero skin in the game beyond wanting people to be able to live their lives peaceably. All sky wizards are fake. They’d slit my throat for saying that in Hamas controlled territory, but not in Israel
I’m not taking a religious position in this conflict. It’s about human death and suffering.
I’m all for the end of Hamas. I’m against the destruction of the West Bank’s Palestinian people.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/child-killed-average-every-10-minutes-gaza-says-who-chief-2023-11-10/
That's a uselessly broad definition. We all know that what the Israeli flag looks like. Are you saying that the government of Israel can't be criticized for behaving like Nazis when they behave like Nazis?
No one's saying you can't criticize the Israeli government. Go ahead and call them authoritarian, or violent or racist or whatever. (I don't think you really want to invite that debate, but you do you...)
But when you choose to invoke the holocaust for dramatic effect against it's victims, you should expect to be called a Nazi, because that shit is very literally straight from the gallows at Nuremburg.
Ah! I get it! People killing women and children indiscriminately is wrong in the 30’s and 40’s, and comparing the killing of women and children indiscriminately in 2024 to the killing of women and children indiscriminately in the 30’s and 40’s is wrong!
I’m glad we are on the same page on how we shouldn’t talk about the indiscriminate killing of women and children in 2024. I guess we are all wrapped up here, right?
I didn’t support Palestine, I said we should stop indiscriminately killing women and children.
Notice how when I say people shouldn’t commit war crimes, you thought I was talking about supporting Palestine?
The OP has a history of posting only the most inflammatory articles with the most inflammatory commentary, so no surprises there.
Their usual targets are LGBTQ+ people and other progressive causes, so I guess someone who _used to be_ involved with DEI measures is close enough to that.
And or it wasn’t her flag. Maybe she didn’t see the issue with the flag but personally wouldn’t have drawn it herself.
If there’s something offensive in the background of a photo of me, and it doesn’t personally offend me, and I post it, it doesn’t mean I’m saying the thing in the background, it just means I’m not speaking against it.
Bet you also tell people it doesn’t matter what your intent it, but how the person receiving the comment interprets it. Or that someone standing by something equally horrible, like the confederate flag for example, is a heinous person deserving of scorn.
Double standards are double standards, even if it’s isn’t something you’re personally offended by.
It's like a sexual assault center in Canada that signed an open letter claiming there was "verified" sexual assault on October 7th. This is a place in which leader tells everyone that they will be believed if they come....I guess everyone but Jews. The school fired her immediately for that.
To them it's simple: any use of a swastika or any critique of Isreal is antisemitism.
Cant tell if they are missing the point on purpose or actually this obtuse.
Plus we have the usual antiwoke pigs in here piling on.
I saw the photo, assuming that is the one that was posted. Her entire excuse and rationale around the whole thing is a load of bullshit when she herself posted it on her private Instagram. It's a giant fucking flag behind you. She saw that and said, "Yeah, this is fine."
Sure, it was on her private account. That's fine, in my opinion, but it got leaked. And now it's public. Tough shit.
I mean, the flag in question is obviously not endorsing Nazi ideology, but rather making a commentary on the behavior of Israel. There are plenty of examples of art being made with references to Nazis as a form of social critique.
Also, as she stated, it wasn't her flag she just happened to be near it when the photo was taken.
I’d have to see the photo to know if the “hey it wasn’t my flag” excuse works.
I can take photos of stuff I didn’t create all day but I am promoting the message if I choose to feature it on my public feed.
I've never heard that claim before, but I'll just say that "less meaningful" is not the same as "not meaningful". It's certainly true that if most of your audience misconstrues your message, the problem is that your message was not clear enough. But also, very clear messages are often misconstrued, especially when an issue is so ridiculously polarized.
So you're aware that this is very obviously being used as an attack then, right?
If I said "Hitler is a Nazi" that's not a pro-Hitler or pro-Nazi statement. The only way you could see this as "proudly standing with" Israel or the Swastika is if you're intentionally missing the point.
Look, she made a poor choice, and it does have repercussions. I have no dogs in this fight. I regret even commenting at all since people take things to the extreme and that’s the cause of much of the animosity in this country. These big issues require a calm mind due to the sensitive nature of the topic. I want the best for everyone. People have decided how they feel and will not have any reasonable discussion, so I am not going to engage in this any further. It’s all just unfortunate.
I'm completely calm. In fact I think YOU need to settle down. /s
Seriously dude, there's a very obvious message being sent here (by the Jewish person who actually drew that symbol on that flag) and reasonable people reasonably pointing out how you're wildly misinterpreting that are not the problem. Just because they've "already picked a side" doesn't mean you're not just plain wrong about the intent of that message.
Dude, you have an agenda and are biased towards your cause. No hate from me here and I’m not going to take your bait. It’s unfortunate all this is happening.
You're making a lot of assumptions about me. My only cause is defending someone's right to protest. But I agree that it's unfortunate all this is happening.
Honestly, I’m just very bummed out about this all. I wish this was being handled with more care. That’s it. I respect people’s rights to protest 100%. I just think at times it moves into a territory that people need to be mindful of. Thanks for agree about it being unfortunate ❤️let’s hope the world can recover and we can become stronger as a human race.
Some of these protests are becoming anti-Jew instead of pro-Palestinian. There can be a peaceful two-state solution but people are saying that there should be no Jewish state at all.
So we should immediately dismantle all of the 22 Arab ethnostates in the Middle East? Or just the ONE that isn’t an Arab ethnostate so that we can have 23 Arab ethnostate?
25% of Israel's population is Arab. There are Muslims in the government, court system, a huge number in the medical field and even the military. I don't think you can call it an ethnostate.
Israel is the only religiously-diverse democracy in the Middle East, and it is being slandered as ethnostate… The lack of candor and simple truth in this situation is staggering, from at least one side of the argument.
There are 22 ethnostates in the Middle East, none of them are Israel but somehow Israel is the problem… it’s just naked antisemitism but somehow calling that out is wrong now.
A single state isn’t a viable solution considering the government of Gaza which has popular support believes in either killing or enslaving all the Jews.
Considering the history of Israel's founding it's pretty reasonable to say it shouldn't exist. It's not like they found a chunk of empty land and set up shop. They displaced about 700,000 people who already lived there.
We should absolutely give the natives more land back, eliminate the poverty that we’ve forced upon them, and give them seats in both state and federal representation in the legislature.
Well one big difference is that we're not trapping Native Americans in an apartheid state, so there's that. Also it's been much, much longer. I 100% think it was an atrocity that Native Americans were forced off their land, just like it was, and continues to be, when the Israelis did it to the Palestinians. Basically zero Israel apologists will admit that though and I'll almost certainly be downvoted for saying it.
Israel clearly was involved in ethnic cleansing at its founding. Palestinians were forcibly removed and the many that fled were denied return.
Much like the state you live in.
And the Middle East, North Africa and Iran ethnically cleansed itself of all it's Jews. Not to mention Europe ten years before.
Israel isn't going to cease to exist. At some point a two state solution will need to happen, and unfortunately for the Palestinians it's going to be less than what they could have had in 1948, 1967 and 1973.
However, while I will readily admit Israel has committed grievous crimes against the Palestinians, who have committed plenty of their own, the Palestinians as a whole have an 80 year history of strategically terrible decisions, which have played a significant part in the current situation.
>Israel clearly was involved in ethnic cleansing at its founding. Palestinians were forcibly removed and the many that fled were denied return.
Israel agreed to a state that at its founding would be 40% Arab, so I don't think it's fair to say that Israel was clearly involved in ethnic cleansing at its founding. Were there some later examples of some Arabs being removed from their home after a war was started on Israel? Yes. I can't speak to what the intentions were for that, it's been a while since I've read detailed accounts, but I think it would be dishonest to say that there were some people that were probably wronged. That's not on common after war, unfortunately. However most of those who left did so because told to do so by Arab leaders. They were promised they would be allowed back in once they murdered all Jews living in the newly formed state of Israel. Obviously that didn't workout. [The man who coined the term 'Nakba' explains in his book that 'Nakba' means the failure of Arab leaders to deliver on the promise of wiping all Jews from the land, which therefore lead to a large displacement of the Arab population. ](https://archive.org/details/zurayk-nakba/page/n17/mode/2up)Before anyone comments wanting to get into a debate, I'm only commenting as a spectator of history. I'm not here to offer solutions. We're not going to solve the conflict over Reddit.
What you're describing is ethnic cleansing at the founding of Israel. We're talking about the same thing, it happened during an invasion and a war, but it was ethnic cleansing none the less. One can be a supporter of Israel, which I certainly am, and admit that it's history, as almost every country's history is, is full of regrettable actions.
The West Bank and East Jerusalem were ethnically cleansed of Jews. As were Algeria, Iraq, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Syria....
>Ethnic cleansing is the systematic removal of an ethnic, racial, or religious group from an area by force or intimidation, with the goal of creating an ethnically homogeneous region.
If there was an ethnic cleansing that occurred there wouldn't be a 21% Arab population in Israel today. It was never the intent of Israel to wipe out a population from that area. The word you are looking for is forced displacement. You can have whatever criticism you like about Israel's treatment of some portions of the population and how things played out, but to call Israel a state that was founded in ethnic cleansing is factually untrue and a misuse of the word.
Do you know about the 900,000 Jews forced out of the surrounding Arab states around the same time?
Also, apparently you’ve never heard of blood quantum or reservations or checkerboarding. What the US did was actually far worse and not that much longer ago. This comment just demonstrates your ignorance and subconscious anti Jewish bias.
As a higher ed employee that is a POC, we should fire all DEI people. It’s just another way for administrative bloat to occur which causes tuition to rise. These people get paid 100’s of thousands of dollars and do very little besides window dressing
Question: She was hired in October? In December she's already on vacation in Spain? How is this possible with work?
Also...wait until they find her Only Fans lmao!
Nazis were amongst the biggest supporters of the Palestinian people, historically.
Likewise, the Palestinians were also enthusiastic fans of Hitler, especially that whole Holocaust and genocide the Jews thing.
[https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/film/hajj-amin-al-husayni-meets-hitler](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/film/hajj-amin-al-husayni-meets-hitler)
The more things change, the more they stay the same…
The Palestinian ruling class was. The ruling class that was appointed by the British and was extremely unpopular in Palestine. Meanwhile at the same time the original "final solution" wasn't actually to kill European Jews, it was to [deport them to palestine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement). The Nazis sent a few thousand Jews to Palestine, and decided it was easier to just kill them. The situation is far, far more complex than you're suggesting, and you're doing no one any favors by doing so.
Kind of…I believe you’re talking about the Haavara Agreement which was a political agreement for German Jews to sell their assets in Germany and migrate to Palestine. This was an agreement between the Nazi Party and the German Zionist Jews, and was in effect from 1933 to 1939. It should be noted that Palestine was a region and not a country/state at this time and was under British rule after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in the region in the early 1900’s.
Back to the Haavara Agreement, about 60,000 German Jews were able to migrate to Palestine because of the arrangement, however, the Haavara Agreement was never part of the Nazi’s Final Solution, the Final Solution to the Jewish Question always included the mass murder of the European Jewry…early conversations however did include possible expulsion from Europe, and you are correct, those ideas were abandoned.
The Nazi’s plan from day one was to exterminate all Jews from the face of the earth. Hitler never minced his words, not in 1925 when he wrote about murdering Jews with poison gas, not in 1933 when he was first in power, not in 1939 during his ‘Prophesy’ speech, and not in 1942 at the Wannsee Conference where the plans were formally finalized to exterminate all Jews.
For the sake of brevity, I left out the Kaisern support of the Palestinian cause in the 19th Century. Even before there was any British engagement, 50 years before League of Nation existed, the Germans were focused on prompting anti-Semitism in Palestine.
I also left out the Grand Mufti‘s role in raising SS troops across the Muslim world for the Nazis. Also the Grand Mufti’s role in the attempted 1946-48 genocide against the Palestinian Jews. Classy as anti-Semitism goes.
Here is a political cartoon from 80 years ago using Nazi imagery to criticize Nazis. Do you think intent matters or do you think the mere appearance of that imagery in political expression is categorically wrong?
[https://picryl.com/media/untitled-691772](https://picryl.com/media/untitled-691772)
>Here is a political cartoon from 80 years ago using Nazi imagery to criticize Nazis.
I think you're being a bit too casual about the way you're throwing the word Nazi around here, unless you can provide documentation of Sherman Minton's Nazi ties.
This is a complex conversation, but I'll attempt to outline my thoughts.
What we're seeing in this political cartoon is the artist drawing parallels between the Minton bill and censorship exhibited by Nazi policy in the 1930s and 40s. As Sherman Minton is not known to have been a prominent victim of Nazi ideology, this political cartoon is unlikely to be construed as an extension of historical "anti-Mintonism" by Nazi supporters.
The problem with defacing an Israeli flag with Nazi imagery is that the Jews in fact *were* a significant victim of Nazi ideology. While you may argue that that the effects of Israeli actions against Hamas and their consequences for Palestinian civilians are reminiscent of the actions of Nazi Germany on the Jewish population of the time (I disagree, but that's an entirely different discussion), such defacement directly mimics the kind of targeted harassment and vandalism of Jewish homes and shops in Nazi Germany and may reasonably be interpreted as an extension of historical anti-Semitism.
I'm not saying you can't make comparisons--I'm saying that if your supposed "comparison" looks remarkably similar to the historic persecution of Jews, I reserve the right to interpret it as such.
The comparison between the Third Reich and the Jewish State of Israel is uneducated, anti-Semitic, and plain wrong. No matter the “message” that one may be attempting to make by painting swastikas on an Israeli flag, it shows complete lack of awareness and understanding on how states conduct military actions against terrorism.
This is from the Anti Defamation League:
The murder of six million Jews and millions of others carried out by the Nazis and their collaborators was the largest recorded genocide in modern history. Absolutely no comparison can be made between the complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the atrocities committed by the Nazis against the Jews.
While one can criticize Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, in contrast to the Holocaust, there is not now, nor has there been, a significant Israeli ideology, movement, policy or plan to exterminate the Palestinian population.
The Nazis’ “final solution” to the “Jewish problem” was the deliberate, systematic and mechanized extermination of European Jewry. Hitler’s final solution led to the calculated, premeditated murder of six million Jews and the destruction of thriving Jewish communities across Europe.
Israel says that its policies towards the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are based on security concerns and the need to defend its population in the face of terrorist acts. But while these policies can certainly be scrutinized and criticized, they are in no way akin to the policies and actions of the Nazis and the Third Reich.
By comparing Israel to Nazis, some seek to label Israel as a singularly, uniquely evil state on earth, playing upon old antisemitic stereotypes that treat Jews as demonic and uniquely evil.
Moreover, it can be argued that those that make the comparison between the Jewish state and the Nazis and Hitler – who perpetrated the greatest and largest act of antisemitism in world history – have not chosen this comparison innocently or dispassionately. It is a charge that is purposefully directed at Jews in an effort to associate the victims of Nazi crimes with the Nazi perpetrators and serves to diminish the significance and uniqueness of the Holocaust.
To make such a comparison is antisemitic and constitutes blatant hostility toward Jews, Jewish history and the legitimacy of the Jewish State of Israel.
Personally, I hope that someone educates this educator on history and the need for discretion when posting online…
Still, doesn’t make it wise on her part to post a photo with that kind of message…especially since her job is quite literally about Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.
You say that until one day you're being held responsible for being at an event when someone else does something on their own and you just happen to get snapped near it.
Nope. Situational awareness applies to all. We must always be aware of what is going on around us and thinking about how it is perceived. Because of this individuals position, they need to be even more situationally aware when they attend events or even post images to their “private” online accounts. Nothing is truly private online…and yes the individual personally posted the picture online.
This is just the kind of story that doesn't give enough information to form an intelligent opinion. Every single top level comment could be entirely backwards from truth without seeing the actual picture and reading the post.
Oh now it's
"Hold on context is important"
Like there's ever a context appropriate to fly the Nazi symbol for any movement.
Face it you saw a non-white woman on the snap shot/thumb nail and decided there's an exception to be made
Your reply implies you know who I am or how I think. But you know neither. Pointing out when judgement precedes understanding is a pretty common thread in my Reddit comments, like, for example, your comment.
The swastika picture may no longer be available, but there are plenty of swimsuit shots of her on the UK Daily Mail. She probably just became an embarrassment to the school...she checks all the right PC and DEI boxes, but her carrying on in public was too much. Back to modeling I guess.
Question: an earlier article I read described the flag with a swastika as being in the background of a crowd photo, very small and I got the impression it was hard to make out or notice right away. It just happened to be in the background and she didn’t know it was there.
This article makes it sound like she’s proudly standing in front of it.
To me, there’s a huge difference between the two scenarios. Does anyone know where the truth lands? It’s hard to make a judgment without seeing the photo.
I can't say whether or not it applies to this case, but I was visiting Barcelona in March and can confirm that they have a lot of pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli government protests, complete with signs and flags and general spectacle. It would absolutely be possible to end up with those in the background of a photo, particularly because the protests are often in the midst of tourist attractions.
Barcelona also has a ton of graffiti, like more than any US city I've been to. A lot of it is cool - very artistic and apolitical, but there is plenty of political graffiti, too, of all sorts. It is everywhere and is definitely going to pop up in tourist photos.
It’s not that simple. The way the university would get away with it is claiming the photo had nothing to do with letting her go.
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/public-employees/
Under the so-called Pickering-Connick test, employees must pass the threshold requirement of showing that their speech touched on a matter of public concern, defined as speech “relating to any matter of political, social or other concern to the community.” Then they must show that their free speech interests outweigh the employer’s efficiency interests.
The U.S. Supreme Court provided protection to a public university employee who was fired after providing truthful testimony pursuant to a subpoena. “Truthful testimony under oath by a public employee outside the scope of his ordinary job duties is speech as a citizen for First Amendment purposes.”
In retaliation cases, public employees must show that they suffered an adverse employment action (such as a dismissal or discharge) in retaliation for protected speech. Such employees must also show that the protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the employer’s decision.
There’s plenty of legitimate uses of a swastika. Cultural and religious that have no connection to Nazi ideology > that showed her standing in front of an Israeli flag with swastikas painted on it. Oh…..
To you, an "Israeli flag with swastikas" may be a callous and vile juxtaposition of imagery. But to Sherzad it's merely someone else's "intellectual property".
- Hire someone to help view all university business and academia through a victim/oppressor lens with a pre-determined racial hierarchy. - That person fails to see the harm in demonizing one group that is higher on the hierarchy than another - No one’s surprised
The reason why tuition is out of control- useless position created to virtue signaling.
Lol I went to the U for four years, tuition is out of control because the place is a for-profit college masquerading as a public one
"It just *happened* to be in the background!"
So it’s not a pro-nazi thing, she’s pretty much just saying “This country is fascist.” Like yeah it’s bad to have a picture with a swastika in it, but “she compared Israel to Nazi Germany” is a completely different discussion than “she’s a nazi sympathizer”
Man, the dog whistle and microaggression crew seem to have changed their tune recently and are a lot more into subtlety and interpretation
no no, see, words are violence when Ben Shapiro says them on campus, but it's totally different when swastika and blatant antisemitism is displayed by organizers. That's just power of the people. /s
Everybody would rather be in denial and willfully misinterpret her stance than consider that they've been supporting a genocide.
Israel isn’t committing genocide. You just hate Israel. Stop shilling for pan-Arab imperialism in the Levant.
There’s 34k civilians, (42k total people) dead in 200 days. It’s … not great. Afghanistan is up to 70k civilians, in two decades, for context. Ukraine is at 10.5k in two years. Lots of dead innocent people everywhere, whatever you want to call it.
Except Israel is totally committing genocide. They’ve killed more civilians than Hamas. Mostly children. Their goal is Palestinians gone from Gaza that’s very clear and that is genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Honestly I'm just getting sick of hearing about it. The 2 have been fighting for longer than anyone arguing about it now days has been alive and both sides have committed atrocities. In my personal opinion supporting either side is bullshit.
That is not true. The state of Israel is younger than our president, for example.
That is true but the conflict has been going on longer than that. Either way I've stated my opinion that both sides of the conflict are wrong which was my primary goal. Thank you for correcting me though 🤟
The only way to see what Isreal is doing to the Gaza strip and not realize it is genocide, is to not view the 34,000 killed as human. Which is exactly what the Israeli government wants. Because they're commiting genocide.
Interesting. How do you define genocide then?
In the levant so far!
Wow, shows how shallow their diversity workers are, to just jump to the conclusion and uphold the idea that the swastika is just a hate symbol and not a bastardization of another culture’s symbols >that showed her standing in front of an Israeli flag with swastikas painted on it ^^Yeah ^^nvm ^^it ^^was ^^a ^^hate ^^symbol
The swastika in the photo really did not belong to her. It belonged to a Jewish man who was making a comparison between the genocide in Gaza and the holocaust and pointing out the frequently overlooked irony. She said in the press conference that her social media was private and someone unaffiliated with the university sent in screenshots of the post to the president of the university. A current University staff member who also spoke at the press conference and said they’d lost a promotion for being vocal about their support for Palestine and that others were afraid of potential backlash for speaking up.
>The swastika in the photo really did not belong to her. You are responsible for what you put online. This defense isn't any stronger than "no officer, I had no idea that was in my car"
So if you’re in a parade, and someone behind you has a Canadian flag, does a picture of you near it make you Canadian?
If the Canadian flag was a Swatztika, would you have posted it online?
at the press conference she held she claimed to be disgusted by it, but she wasn’t that disgusted when she shared it to social media…
I used to go to an old church with some very old semi-historic tile from before WW2 that had swastikas on some of them. Weird that had the Nazis not appropriated the symbol it would probably be as common as the peace symbol is now.
It’s possible that the photo is exculpatory in some way so it’s too bad we can’t see it for ourselves (the Star Tribune didn’t include it). Then again, the vast majority of us have gone our whole lives without a social media post containing a swastika. Avoiding such a situation seems like a low bar for a DEI manager.
If it were truly innocuous, I don’t think she would have deleted it.
Just based on the description it sounds like the flag is a commentary on Israel behaving like Nazis. That seems like a valid and protected form of criticism.
[удалено]
To be fair, the person you're responding to did not say they think it's morally ok, just that it might be protected speech. But while I don't think the government will be prosecuting her for posting this, I think the university is right to choose not to continue to employ her. They have a right to ensure that their employees represent the values of the university, and she clearly does not project the image they're going for.
and that flag with the swastika may give some people ideas... And will use the war Israel caused as justification for why.
You're right that it could be that. I doubt it, but that's definitely possible. I don't personally see a lot of parallels between Israel and Nazi Germany, but I *do* see a lot of political movements getting more and more fascist, including American Republicans, and when people start behaving like Nazis I want to defend the right for people to say "hey, you're behaving like fucking Nazis" including the use of Nazi imagery as a means of criticism.
“valid”
What's the problem?
You don’t seem to know what the word valid means.
Why is it not valid to criticize Israel's treatment of Palestinians?
That’s not the statement you framed earlier. You should edit it to be consistent.
So you agree that it's valid to criticize Israel's treatment of Palestinians. Why is it not valid to compare that treatment to the Nazi's treatment of Jews?
Do you do other things than prop up strawmen?
There's a fine line between protect form of criticism and representative of an agency. The way government entities and universities view it is you are allowed to protest, you are allowed to be a part of what ever group you choose to. You are not allowed to associate those viewpoints in any way, shape, or form to your position within the government or university. Her association with her social media accounts is justification enough since she listed herself as the DEI manager Also, this whole image undermines her role to serve as the "expert of inclusion" on a compass when she takes sides in a heated argument
> Avoiding such a situation seems like a low bar for a DEI manager. It's an occupational/moral hazard for DEI managers. Probably can't get the job without a resume highlighting your activism and said activism probably produces a myopic perspective which includes overlooking unhealthy opinions from the people/causes associated with DEI. I mean its probably like being a cop -- a hiring selection bias for authoritarianism and a working environment which produces an unhealthy hostility towards civilians. Or maybe even a lot of fields where there's a lot of quiet acceptance of unpopular ideas driven by the perceived wisdom of experience and internal group think. Show me an IT person who doesn't think a lot of users are just ignorant NPCs, and or a serious restaurant folks who think a lot of customers are tasteless gluttons.
Why do people always think their speech is protected at their place of employment. That's not how that works at all.
It’s the state university, so it’s a little different than a private employer.
r/ohnoconsequences
If your employer is the government, the 1st amendment absolutely applies.
No it doesn't. Great example, the military. You absolutely don't have first amendment free will in uniform.
lol you picked the one exception
CIA, Police, FBI, DEA etc etc. All of these government jobs limit your free speech. It wasn't the one exception. Read the other comment I made below which details other ways your free speech rights don't apply at work.
Heck, school teachers get fired for stuff they have on social media all the time.
Or on only fans
I also don't believe hate speech is covered under the first amendment if this is what that is
Hate speech is covered under the 1st and I'm pretty sure it isn't even a category of speech recognized under US law.
Anyone with a high clearance....virtually 1 million plus jobs in the U.S. govt alone
Now they know what it's like to lose their job for having the wrong opinion, serves them right.
Someone with the "wrong" opinion on genocidal racism should lose their job...
Genocidal racism like “from the river to the sea” or Nazism like having on of your movements founding leaders be a personal guest of Hitler and helping to form an SS unit? How about when actual Nazis fought by your side? How about hiding actual Nazis? For the side that likes to call a government run by Jews “Nazis” all the time they sure have a lot of deep ties to the original German NSDAP. For a people that like to scream “genocide” they sure like to ignore all of their own ideological calls for and attempts at genocide. Weird how when Jewish people fight back we’re committing “genocide” but the people actually trying to wipe us out, whose founding documents actually call for our genocide are just “freedom fighters” because Jewish people wanting to have self determination in our own homeland is somehow super offensive and also genocide.
You are free not to get arrested, not free from all consequence. The drawing or wearing swastika would get you arrested in most of Europe, certainly in Germany.
The first amendment also applies to the U of M because it is also a government institution.
Is it not an at-will employer like the rest of the state? Genuinely curious…
Yes, the government is still an at will employer in most cases. Clearly there are contracts that are negotiated differently in some cases. Best guess, they settle out of court and make this go away. She does not get her job back. Having news circulate that one of your employees posted an image of herself with a swastika is a bad look, even if you did fire her.
I worked in employment law for a while and it was always interesting when the employer had more than a neutral reason to fire, but if there’s some colorable theory of discrimination (no matter how tenuous), they would settle as you suggested. Felt wrong to me, and I was happy to leave it.
Yes. You are free not to be jailed but you are not free from consequence. If an employee posted a photo of a KKK sign, with no other context, should they keep their job? . . .NO. They are professionals and should know better. Should they be imprisoned? No. Unless they give further context to the symbol to the point they are implying actual harm. Working for the government does not give you extra free speech rights private institutions do not give. I would say the opposite. They should represent the people and I do not want people representing me posing with hate group symbols. Pretty simple.
Yeah it's just wild that people think that 1st amendment protects an employee. There have been plenty of people fired for comments and/or pictures, and I suspect that the university will likely fight this.
Anyone have the photo in question? I can’t find it anywhere.
She deleted it, must have been guilt. The school has a copy, it's evidence and UM attorneys are keeping it as evidence for her firing. She's dumb AF trying this case, it's going to backfire.
We have it now. Was posted on r/TwinCities. https://preview.redd.it/6rcx9xjihmxc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e64534518d4ac7d81e5305151cd1cfe3e92f4b55
It's surfaced and was posted on r/TwinCities. https://preview.redd.it/h68yylwmhmxc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0baa73e459dc7e72bc2dca156e8ebe6545a23b37
Social media has destroyed activism. For so, so many reasons but the worst of which is that it elevates people completely unsuited to the difficult, spiritual and diplomatic work of change. No matter where you stand on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this person is not someone to be taken seriously. For a variety of reasons. Save us Jeebus.
Hope she loses. You can’t claim ignorance of this in 2024, both of the swastika imagery nor the consequences of posting whatever the hell you feel like on social media.
Unpopular opinion: She’s taking a stand against an apartheid state. She’s not supporting nazism, she’s (and others are) pointing out Israel’s hypocrisy.
Popular opinion: a one state solution would be the eradication of every man woman and child in Israel. On one side of the wall is country pretty close to a western democracy, and the other side is a population run by Taliban wannabes with ZERO elections since they took power in 2007 None of this would be happening if Hamas wasn’t [shooting rockets at Israel for the last 20 years](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel#/media/File%3ARocket_Attacks_fired_at_Israel_from_the_Gaza_Strip_by_year.png) , and starting YET ANOTHER war with Israel, kidnapping people from a fucking music festival. Apartheid? GTFO. [Hamas admits to a goal of ethnic cleansing, and claims they have engaged in it IN THEIR OWN FOUNDING COVENANT](https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/880818a.htm) *On the Destruction of Israel* *Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.* —— I’m an atheist, I have zero skin in the game beyond wanting people to be able to live their lives peaceably. All sky wizards are fake. They’d slit my throat for saying that in Hamas controlled territory, but not in Israel
Thank you
I’m not taking a religious position in this conflict. It’s about human death and suffering. I’m all for the end of Hamas. I’m against the destruction of the West Bank’s Palestinian people. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/child-killed-average-every-10-minutes-gaza-says-who-chief-2023-11-10/
Holocaust inversion IS Nazism though.
Criticizing the Israeli government is not Holocaust inversion though.
Juxtaposing Jewish and Nazi iconography is the definition of holocaust inversion.
That's a uselessly broad definition. We all know that what the Israeli flag looks like. Are you saying that the government of Israel can't be criticized for behaving like Nazis when they behave like Nazis?
No one's saying you can't criticize the Israeli government. Go ahead and call them authoritarian, or violent or racist or whatever. (I don't think you really want to invite that debate, but you do you...) But when you choose to invoke the holocaust for dramatic effect against it's victims, you should expect to be called a Nazi, because that shit is very literally straight from the gallows at Nuremburg.
Ah! I get it! People killing women and children indiscriminately is wrong in the 30’s and 40’s, and comparing the killing of women and children indiscriminately in 2024 to the killing of women and children indiscriminately in the 30’s and 40’s is wrong! I’m glad we are on the same page on how we shouldn’t talk about the indiscriminate killing of women and children in 2024. I guess we are all wrapped up here, right?
If you think Jews were killed "indiscriminately" then you need to stop talking because you very literally don't know what the holocaust was.
[удалено]
I didn’t support Palestine, I said we should stop indiscriminately killing women and children. Notice how when I say people shouldn’t commit war crimes, you thought I was talking about supporting Palestine?
If Israel doesn't want to be compared to Nazi Germany, they should behave differently.
And if you don't want to be compared to [Hermann Göring](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_G%C3%B6ring), you should stop doing his shtick.
Compare me to whoever you want. I'm not concerned with your opinion.
I think everyone ITT is intentionally misconstruing this point. And they’re doing a poor job of hiding their intention.
The OP has a history of posting only the most inflammatory articles with the most inflammatory commentary, so no surprises there. Their usual targets are LGBTQ+ people and other progressive causes, so I guess someone who _used to be_ involved with DEI measures is close enough to that.
lol Holocaust inversion is like antisemitism 101. Please educate yourself.
And or it wasn’t her flag. Maybe she didn’t see the issue with the flag but personally wouldn’t have drawn it herself. If there’s something offensive in the background of a photo of me, and it doesn’t personally offend me, and I post it, it doesn’t mean I’m saying the thing in the background, it just means I’m not speaking against it.
Bet you also tell people it doesn’t matter what your intent it, but how the person receiving the comment interprets it. Or that someone standing by something equally horrible, like the confederate flag for example, is a heinous person deserving of scorn. Double standards are double standards, even if it’s isn’t something you’re personally offended by.
If you are eating at a table and someone wearing a swastika sits down, and you refuse to get up, what does that make you?
Yeah you can’t work **that job** and… be that bigoted… or stupid.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion but also death to the Jews
Reminds me of an old, awful joke - I hate racists! And the dutch!
It's like a sexual assault center in Canada that signed an open letter claiming there was "verified" sexual assault on October 7th. This is a place in which leader tells everyone that they will be believed if they come....I guess everyone but Jews. The school fired her immediately for that.
Wait, what do you think she was saying that was bigoted?
To them it's simple: any use of a swastika or any critique of Isreal is antisemitism. Cant tell if they are missing the point on purpose or actually this obtuse. Plus we have the usual antiwoke pigs in here piling on.
Sounds like she met some consequences she wasn’t prepared to face.
I saw the photo, assuming that is the one that was posted. Her entire excuse and rationale around the whole thing is a load of bullshit when she herself posted it on her private Instagram. It's a giant fucking flag behind you. She saw that and said, "Yeah, this is fine." Sure, it was on her private account. That's fine, in my opinion, but it got leaked. And now it's public. Tough shit.
Never thought I’d see the day that people would be proud to stand with the swastika
I mean, the flag in question is obviously not endorsing Nazi ideology, but rather making a commentary on the behavior of Israel. There are plenty of examples of art being made with references to Nazis as a form of social critique. Also, as she stated, it wasn't her flag she just happened to be near it when the photo was taken.
I’d have to see the photo to know if the “hey it wasn’t my flag” excuse works. I can take photos of stuff I didn’t create all day but I am promoting the message if I choose to feature it on my public feed.
Depicting something is not the same as endorsing it. But you're right that the framing and the details of the photo could make a big difference.
[удалено]
I've never heard that claim before, but I'll just say that "less meaningful" is not the same as "not meaningful". It's certainly true that if most of your audience misconstrues your message, the problem is that your message was not clear enough. But also, very clear messages are often misconstrued, especially when an issue is so ridiculously polarized.
I am quite aware of the commentary behind it.
Well, the statement they're replying to of yours implies otherwise.
So you're aware that this is very obviously being used as an attack then, right? If I said "Hitler is a Nazi" that's not a pro-Hitler or pro-Nazi statement. The only way you could see this as "proudly standing with" Israel or the Swastika is if you're intentionally missing the point.
Look, she made a poor choice, and it does have repercussions. I have no dogs in this fight. I regret even commenting at all since people take things to the extreme and that’s the cause of much of the animosity in this country. These big issues require a calm mind due to the sensitive nature of the topic. I want the best for everyone. People have decided how they feel and will not have any reasonable discussion, so I am not going to engage in this any further. It’s all just unfortunate.
I'm completely calm. In fact I think YOU need to settle down. /s Seriously dude, there's a very obvious message being sent here (by the Jewish person who actually drew that symbol on that flag) and reasonable people reasonably pointing out how you're wildly misinterpreting that are not the problem. Just because they've "already picked a side" doesn't mean you're not just plain wrong about the intent of that message.
Okay, I will accept if I am wrong. How do you know these facts though? Where are you getting all your credible information?
So what's the problem?
Dude, you have an agenda and are biased towards your cause. No hate from me here and I’m not going to take your bait. It’s unfortunate all this is happening.
You're making a lot of assumptions about me. My only cause is defending someone's right to protest. But I agree that it's unfortunate all this is happening.
Honestly, I’m just very bummed out about this all. I wish this was being handled with more care. That’s it. I respect people’s rights to protest 100%. I just think at times it moves into a territory that people need to be mindful of. Thanks for agree about it being unfortunate ❤️let’s hope the world can recover and we can become stronger as a human race.
Once again, DEI people proving they are usually the worst people in the room...
Some of these protests are becoming anti-Jew instead of pro-Palestinian. There can be a peaceful two-state solution but people are saying that there should be no Jewish state at all.
Always has been.
Some?
Becoming?
No one has a right to an ethnostate, if the solution that works is a single state with equal rights, why should we oppose it?
So we should immediately dismantle all of the 22 Arab ethnostates in the Middle East? Or just the ONE that isn’t an Arab ethnostate so that we can have 23 Arab ethnostate?
25% of Israel's population is Arab. There are Muslims in the government, court system, a huge number in the medical field and even the military. I don't think you can call it an ethnostate.
Israel is the only religiously-diverse democracy in the Middle East, and it is being slandered as ethnostate… The lack of candor and simple truth in this situation is staggering, from at least one side of the argument.
There are 22 ethnostates in the Middle East, none of them are Israel but somehow Israel is the problem… it’s just naked antisemitism but somehow calling that out is wrong now.
A single state isn’t a viable solution considering the government of Gaza which has popular support believes in either killing or enslaving all the Jews.
I'm so glad you have come out to oppose the over two dozen Islamic Republics that have a homogenous religion and ethnic group.
Yeah, fuck them too.
Hey, what is the ethnic makeup of South Korea?
Considering the history of Israel's founding it's pretty reasonable to say it shouldn't exist. It's not like they found a chunk of empty land and set up shop. They displaced about 700,000 people who already lived there.
Wait until you find out about Minnesota.
Yeah, it was really shitty what Europeans did to the people living here before us. I have no problem with admitting that.
What's different? Should the US not exist?
We should absolutely give the natives more land back, eliminate the poverty that we’ve forced upon them, and give them seats in both state and federal representation in the legislature.
Sounds good. I agree. Just keep in mind that it's not actually going to happen.
Maybe not, but if you don’t fight for those things that are objectively good maybe you need to reevaluate how you see yourself in this world.
Well one big difference is that we're not trapping Native Americans in an apartheid state, so there's that. Also it's been much, much longer. I 100% think it was an atrocity that Native Americans were forced off their land, just like it was, and continues to be, when the Israelis did it to the Palestinians. Basically zero Israel apologists will admit that though and I'll almost certainly be downvoted for saying it.
Israel clearly was involved in ethnic cleansing at its founding. Palestinians were forcibly removed and the many that fled were denied return. Much like the state you live in. And the Middle East, North Africa and Iran ethnically cleansed itself of all it's Jews. Not to mention Europe ten years before. Israel isn't going to cease to exist. At some point a two state solution will need to happen, and unfortunately for the Palestinians it's going to be less than what they could have had in 1948, 1967 and 1973. However, while I will readily admit Israel has committed grievous crimes against the Palestinians, who have committed plenty of their own, the Palestinians as a whole have an 80 year history of strategically terrible decisions, which have played a significant part in the current situation.
>Israel clearly was involved in ethnic cleansing at its founding. Palestinians were forcibly removed and the many that fled were denied return. Israel agreed to a state that at its founding would be 40% Arab, so I don't think it's fair to say that Israel was clearly involved in ethnic cleansing at its founding. Were there some later examples of some Arabs being removed from their home after a war was started on Israel? Yes. I can't speak to what the intentions were for that, it's been a while since I've read detailed accounts, but I think it would be dishonest to say that there were some people that were probably wronged. That's not on common after war, unfortunately. However most of those who left did so because told to do so by Arab leaders. They were promised they would be allowed back in once they murdered all Jews living in the newly formed state of Israel. Obviously that didn't workout. [The man who coined the term 'Nakba' explains in his book that 'Nakba' means the failure of Arab leaders to deliver on the promise of wiping all Jews from the land, which therefore lead to a large displacement of the Arab population. ](https://archive.org/details/zurayk-nakba/page/n17/mode/2up)Before anyone comments wanting to get into a debate, I'm only commenting as a spectator of history. I'm not here to offer solutions. We're not going to solve the conflict over Reddit.
What you're describing is ethnic cleansing at the founding of Israel. We're talking about the same thing, it happened during an invasion and a war, but it was ethnic cleansing none the less. One can be a supporter of Israel, which I certainly am, and admit that it's history, as almost every country's history is, is full of regrettable actions. The West Bank and East Jerusalem were ethnically cleansed of Jews. As were Algeria, Iraq, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Syria....
>Ethnic cleansing is the systematic removal of an ethnic, racial, or religious group from an area by force or intimidation, with the goal of creating an ethnically homogeneous region. If there was an ethnic cleansing that occurred there wouldn't be a 21% Arab population in Israel today. It was never the intent of Israel to wipe out a population from that area. The word you are looking for is forced displacement. You can have whatever criticism you like about Israel's treatment of some portions of the population and how things played out, but to call Israel a state that was founded in ethnic cleansing is factually untrue and a misuse of the word.
Do you know about the 900,000 Jews forced out of the surrounding Arab states around the same time? Also, apparently you’ve never heard of blood quantum or reservations or checkerboarding. What the US did was actually far worse and not that much longer ago. This comment just demonstrates your ignorance and subconscious anti Jewish bias.
What an arrogant and useless piece of shit
As a higher ed employee that is a POC, we should fire all DEI people. It’s just another way for administrative bloat to occur which causes tuition to rise. These people get paid 100’s of thousands of dollars and do very little besides window dressing
Question: She was hired in October? In December she's already on vacation in Spain? How is this possible with work? Also...wait until they find her Only Fans lmao!
Nazis were amongst the biggest supporters of the Palestinian people, historically. Likewise, the Palestinians were also enthusiastic fans of Hitler, especially that whole Holocaust and genocide the Jews thing. [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/film/hajj-amin-al-husayni-meets-hitler](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/film/hajj-amin-al-husayni-meets-hitler) The more things change, the more they stay the same…
The Palestinian ruling class was. The ruling class that was appointed by the British and was extremely unpopular in Palestine. Meanwhile at the same time the original "final solution" wasn't actually to kill European Jews, it was to [deport them to palestine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement). The Nazis sent a few thousand Jews to Palestine, and decided it was easier to just kill them. The situation is far, far more complex than you're suggesting, and you're doing no one any favors by doing so.
Kind of…I believe you’re talking about the Haavara Agreement which was a political agreement for German Jews to sell their assets in Germany and migrate to Palestine. This was an agreement between the Nazi Party and the German Zionist Jews, and was in effect from 1933 to 1939. It should be noted that Palestine was a region and not a country/state at this time and was under British rule after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in the region in the early 1900’s. Back to the Haavara Agreement, about 60,000 German Jews were able to migrate to Palestine because of the arrangement, however, the Haavara Agreement was never part of the Nazi’s Final Solution, the Final Solution to the Jewish Question always included the mass murder of the European Jewry…early conversations however did include possible expulsion from Europe, and you are correct, those ideas were abandoned. The Nazi’s plan from day one was to exterminate all Jews from the face of the earth. Hitler never minced his words, not in 1925 when he wrote about murdering Jews with poison gas, not in 1933 when he was first in power, not in 1939 during his ‘Prophesy’ speech, and not in 1942 at the Wannsee Conference where the plans were formally finalized to exterminate all Jews.
For the sake of brevity, I left out the Kaisern support of the Palestinian cause in the 19th Century. Even before there was any British engagement, 50 years before League of Nation existed, the Germans were focused on prompting anti-Semitism in Palestine. I also left out the Grand Mufti‘s role in raising SS troops across the Muslim world for the Nazis. Also the Grand Mufti’s role in the attempted 1946-48 genocide against the Palestinian Jews. Classy as anti-Semitism goes.
You also forgot to mention the former Nazis that fought alongside the Arabs in ‘48. There’s a reason a cache of STG 44’s was found in Syria.
And whose side are nazis protesting on again?
[удалено]
Here is a political cartoon from 80 years ago using Nazi imagery to criticize Nazis. Do you think intent matters or do you think the mere appearance of that imagery in political expression is categorically wrong? [https://picryl.com/media/untitled-691772](https://picryl.com/media/untitled-691772)
>Here is a political cartoon from 80 years ago using Nazi imagery to criticize Nazis. I think you're being a bit too casual about the way you're throwing the word Nazi around here, unless you can provide documentation of Sherman Minton's Nazi ties. This is a complex conversation, but I'll attempt to outline my thoughts. What we're seeing in this political cartoon is the artist drawing parallels between the Minton bill and censorship exhibited by Nazi policy in the 1930s and 40s. As Sherman Minton is not known to have been a prominent victim of Nazi ideology, this political cartoon is unlikely to be construed as an extension of historical "anti-Mintonism" by Nazi supporters. The problem with defacing an Israeli flag with Nazi imagery is that the Jews in fact *were* a significant victim of Nazi ideology. While you may argue that that the effects of Israeli actions against Hamas and their consequences for Palestinian civilians are reminiscent of the actions of Nazi Germany on the Jewish population of the time (I disagree, but that's an entirely different discussion), such defacement directly mimics the kind of targeted harassment and vandalism of Jewish homes and shops in Nazi Germany and may reasonably be interpreted as an extension of historical anti-Semitism. I'm not saying you can't make comparisons--I'm saying that if your supposed "comparison" looks remarkably similar to the historic persecution of Jews, I reserve the right to interpret it as such.
there is no point in publishing this article without showing us what we are discussing… the photo. Show the photo or shut up, media
The comparison between the Third Reich and the Jewish State of Israel is uneducated, anti-Semitic, and plain wrong. No matter the “message” that one may be attempting to make by painting swastikas on an Israeli flag, it shows complete lack of awareness and understanding on how states conduct military actions against terrorism. This is from the Anti Defamation League: The murder of six million Jews and millions of others carried out by the Nazis and their collaborators was the largest recorded genocide in modern history. Absolutely no comparison can be made between the complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the atrocities committed by the Nazis against the Jews. While one can criticize Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, in contrast to the Holocaust, there is not now, nor has there been, a significant Israeli ideology, movement, policy or plan to exterminate the Palestinian population. The Nazis’ “final solution” to the “Jewish problem” was the deliberate, systematic and mechanized extermination of European Jewry. Hitler’s final solution led to the calculated, premeditated murder of six million Jews and the destruction of thriving Jewish communities across Europe. Israel says that its policies towards the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are based on security concerns and the need to defend its population in the face of terrorist acts. But while these policies can certainly be scrutinized and criticized, they are in no way akin to the policies and actions of the Nazis and the Third Reich. By comparing Israel to Nazis, some seek to label Israel as a singularly, uniquely evil state on earth, playing upon old antisemitic stereotypes that treat Jews as demonic and uniquely evil. Moreover, it can be argued that those that make the comparison between the Jewish state and the Nazis and Hitler – who perpetrated the greatest and largest act of antisemitism in world history – have not chosen this comparison innocently or dispassionately. It is a charge that is purposefully directed at Jews in an effort to associate the victims of Nazi crimes with the Nazi perpetrators and serves to diminish the significance and uniqueness of the Holocaust. To make such a comparison is antisemitic and constitutes blatant hostility toward Jews, Jewish history and the legitimacy of the Jewish State of Israel. Personally, I hope that someone educates this educator on history and the need for discretion when posting online…
The person who the flag belonged to (who was in the background of the photo) was a Jewish man who was comparing the genocide in Gaza to the holocaust.
Oh well since a single Jewish person had a flag that most Jews would like consider antisemitic, that makes it okay for everyone to wave. /s
Still, doesn’t make it wise on her part to post a photo with that kind of message…especially since her job is quite literally about Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.
You say that until one day you're being held responsible for being at an event when someone else does something on their own and you just happen to get snapped near it.
Nope. Situational awareness applies to all. We must always be aware of what is going on around us and thinking about how it is perceived. Because of this individuals position, they need to be even more situationally aware when they attend events or even post images to their “private” online accounts. Nothing is truly private online…and yes the individual personally posted the picture online.
You simply can not make this kind of s#*t up.
I find myself saying this every single day recently.
Yeah. She deserves to be fired for that.
This is just the kind of story that doesn't give enough information to form an intelligent opinion. Every single top level comment could be entirely backwards from truth without seeing the actual picture and reading the post.
Oh now it's "Hold on context is important" Like there's ever a context appropriate to fly the Nazi symbol for any movement. Face it you saw a non-white woman on the snap shot/thumb nail and decided there's an exception to be made
Your reply implies you know who I am or how I think. But you know neither. Pointing out when judgement precedes understanding is a pretty common thread in my Reddit comments, like, for example, your comment.
The swastika picture may no longer be available, but there are plenty of swimsuit shots of her on the UK Daily Mail. She probably just became an embarrassment to the school...she checks all the right PC and DEI boxes, but her carrying on in public was too much. Back to modeling I guess.
Someone just posted that picture on altmpls
[удалено]
How is this basis for an opinion? just gonna yelp it up over here?
She'll probably win, but I'd probably fire her too.
People that want you fired for having the wrong opinion getting fired for having the wrong opinion? Served her right.
Question: an earlier article I read described the flag with a swastika as being in the background of a crowd photo, very small and I got the impression it was hard to make out or notice right away. It just happened to be in the background and she didn’t know it was there. This article makes it sound like she’s proudly standing in front of it. To me, there’s a huge difference between the two scenarios. Does anyone know where the truth lands? It’s hard to make a judgment without seeing the photo.
Given that she deleted it instead of defending it, I would guess she’s posing right by it, but yeah hard to say without seeing.
There is a new post on altmpls with that picture
Oh. I looked and that is much worse than I thought it’d be.
Ooof.
I can't say whether or not it applies to this case, but I was visiting Barcelona in March and can confirm that they have a lot of pro-Palestinian/anti-Israeli government protests, complete with signs and flags and general spectacle. It would absolutely be possible to end up with those in the background of a photo, particularly because the protests are often in the midst of tourist attractions. Barcelona also has a ton of graffiti, like more than any US city I've been to. A lot of it is cool - very artistic and apolitical, but there is plenty of political graffiti, too, of all sorts. It is everywhere and is definitely going to pop up in tourist photos.
Free speech only applies to the government, not businesses. 🙄 I hope the court dismisses this with prejudice.
The … University of Minnesota … is owned by the State Government
[удалено]
It’s not that simple. The way the university would get away with it is claiming the photo had nothing to do with letting her go. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/public-employees/ Under the so-called Pickering-Connick test, employees must pass the threshold requirement of showing that their speech touched on a matter of public concern, defined as speech “relating to any matter of political, social or other concern to the community.” Then they must show that their free speech interests outweigh the employer’s efficiency interests. The U.S. Supreme Court provided protection to a public university employee who was fired after providing truthful testimony pursuant to a subpoena. “Truthful testimony under oath by a public employee outside the scope of his ordinary job duties is speech as a citizen for First Amendment purposes.” In retaliation cases, public employees must show that they suffered an adverse employment action (such as a dismissal or discharge) in retaliation for protected speech. Such employees must also show that the protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the employer’s decision.
U of M has some legal quirks, as it existed before the State existed.
It’s a government job since they’re at a public school.
When a tolerant organization hires and intolerant person to lead a program practicing tolerance... surprised Pikachu face
Israel is acting like the Nazi's now towards the Palestinians. I don't see how this is offensive.
Yea, go ahead and hitch your cart with Hamas, fing tool
Palestinians =/= Hamas
Oh great more posts from altmpls
I'm surprised how effective the propaganda has been at making any critique of Isreal is considered antisemitism.
Yeah just any old critique....like calling them Nazis. Pfft you can't say anything without offending someone these days