Talk:Liz Magill

Untitled
I believe "possible future items from 10+ years ago should be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F470:6:2001:B5F7:9213:DF51:A0BA (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Upload Official Portrait
Can someone please upload the official portrait for Penn President Liz Magill? It can be found at https://president.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/2023-07/m-elizabeth-magill.jpg

Thank you! Scottspitzer (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2023
Mary Elizabeth Magill (born 1965) is an American legal scholar and academic administrator, who since 2022 has served as the 9th president of the University of Pennsylvania. 1.145.58.7 (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Thats almost exactly what the lede already says. Please clarify what you are asking for.  RudolfRed (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Magill addresses remarks about genocide from House antisemitism hearing amid national backlash
Magill ultimately reiterated that calling for the genocide of Jews "can be harassment."

In a post on Instagram following the hearing, the Penn Israel Public Affairs Committee criticized Magill’s answer to Stefanik’s question. "Calling for the genocide of Jews doesn’t necessarily violate Penn’s rules, but these 5 things do...” the post read.

PIPAC then went on to list activities, such as having scooters within University buildings or playing drinking games, which are against University policy. In an email to the Penn Hillel community, Rabbi and Executive Director Gabe Greenberg and College juniors and Hillel co-presidents Lauren Krasilovsky and Olivia Domansky also criticized how Magill's statement said that the characterization of calls for genocide depend on context.

"Throughout the hearing, Magill and the other college presidents sought to delineate their support for free speech, no matter how objectionable, so long as it does not turn into violence," the email said.

"In that moment, I was focused on our University's long standing policies aligned with the U.S. Constitution, which say that speech alone is not punishable," Magill said. "I was not focused on, but I should have been, the irrefutable fact that a call for genocide of Jewish people is a call for some of the most terrible violence human beings can perpetrate."

While her response on Tuesday was ambiguous as to whether such rhetoric would violate the University's policies, she clarified in the video that she did view it as "harassment or intimidation."

"It is intentionally meant to terrify a people who have been subjected to pogroms and hatred for centuries and were the victims of mass genocide in the Holocaust," Magill said.

Magill indicated that she and Provost John Jackson Jr. would initiate a process to examine University policy regarding free speech.

RE the Dec5 US House hearing https://www.congress.gov/event/118th-congress/house-event/116625?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22antisemitism%22%7D&s=3&r=2 It seems to me that the entire debate here is misframed. Honestly If you actually watch the 5 hour plus hearing, I think it is fair to say that this hearing is an full on attack by right wing GOP against liberal higher ed Just watch the opening statement by the chair: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J0Nu9BN5Qk Also, this entire debate is about a 2-3 minute clip taken out of a 5 hour plus hearing.And honestly, anyone who focuses on a 3 minute clip from a 5 hour hearing is not doing their job. If you bother to watch the hearing, you will see the 3 women, the presidents of Harvard, MIT, UPenn, do two things 1 they repeatedly state how abhorrent antisemitism is 2 the repeatedl stress how difficult free speech is; the classic example is the ACLU defending the right of the Nazis to hold a march in Skokie Illinois, at the time home to many holocaust survivors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:197:D00:3CA0:D829:B0A8:5D80:9E72 (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

"In today's world, where we are seeing signs of hate proliferating across our campus, in our world in a way not seen in years, these policies need to be clarified and evaluated," she said.

Magill’s video comes following 24 hours of harsh criticism of her statements from public officials and Penn community members, including from Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who told reporters that Magill’s comments at the hearing were “absolutely shameful.” Harvard University President Claudine Gay and Massachusetts Institute of Technology President Sally Kornbluth have also faced criticism for their responses to similar questions from Stefanik.

The exchange between Stefanik and the three university presidents has garnered national media attention, prompting White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre to clarify that “we do not stand for genocide. That is unacceptable”

2600:1002:B02A:7F55:C1BB:FBFC:DE03:CCBB (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * This lengthy unsourced text from an unnamed and single-purpose Wikipedia "editor" is a case of putting the cart before the horse. Magill's day-after walk-back of her testimony before Congress, quoted here, speaks to an event that has not yet even been mentioned on her bio page. See my following comment on the need to get a neutral report of the discourse between Magill and Rep. Stefanik, and the subsequent calls for Magill's ouster, onto her bio page before leading with her walk-back.
 * I personally cannot be the editor / writer / compiler of the text in question. I am Jewish and the daughter of a Holocaust survivor. My mother's cousin Max Hanns Kohn, a left-wing university student, was imprisoned by the Nazis in August 1933 and murdered in May 1935 in the Dachau concentration camp and his mutilated body was dropped at his father's door. So, yes, i understand what calling for the genocide of the Jews on a university campus means, both in terms of "context" and "conduct" and it strikes very close to home. I hope that someone else will be able to treat Ms. Magill's testimony before Congress with measured calm.
 * Catherineyronwode (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What are the Las Vegas offs on when she will be fired 2601:240:CB00:193C:454F:4735:6EAA:F27 (talk) 02:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Cautious approach to her December 2023 testimony before Congress.
As of today, no mention appears on Ms. Magill's bio page concerning the current (and, at the time of this writing, ongoing) media scrutiny surrounding Ms. Magill's insistence on "context" and "conduct" when asked by Rep. Elise Stefanik whether on-campus calls for genocide against Jews would violate the anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies of UPenn. I realize that their verbal exchange was highly charged with emotion, but it is my hope that a good editor can work out a neutral presentation of the congressional hearing, with sources. To completely avoid mention of the hearing -- and its aftermath, which has included calls for Magill's resignation or dismissal -- while semi-protecting the bio page, actually casts Wikipedia's neutrality into question. Catherineyronwode (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * My thanks to all who worked overnight to create the new section on Magill's appearance before Rep. Stefanik and the fall-out from that event so far. Neutrality is being well served. I added a few links for the benefit of the younger generation of readers, but made no other changes because it was very clean and well sourced. Happy Hanukkah! Catherineyronwode (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy Hanukkah may be triggering given your past edit history. ISP changes withstanding 2600:1011:B1AE:804:4821:4429:B84D:E455 (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

And ... she's gone
Today Liz Magill resigned, followed by the resignation of the Board Chair of UPenn, Scott Bok. Catherineyronwode (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on December 9 2023
--proposed edits--

The person who is suggesting these edits is doing so out of the pursuit of keeping Wikipedia an accurate, neutral and reliable source of information. This individual also watched the full 5 hours of the congressional hearing and has conducted the necessary research to have an informed understanding of the history that has unfolded - as of the time of writing this.

This particular section does not paint a wholistic picture of the past events. It only mentions that she was called before Congress, not why she was called. People do not just get called before a congressional hearing of the United States of America for no reason. Please see below proposed edits including original texts in bold.

-- Multiple students from college campuses including the University of Pennsylvania petitioned to Congress that they feel unsafe attending school due to growing tensions and requested for actions to be taken.-- On December 5, 2023, Magill testified in front of the House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce, along with the presidents of MIT and Harvard, about anti-semitism on university campuses. --Many called into question the three presidents' moral character due to answers provided during the hearing with members of Congress, leading to wide spread condemnation. In particular, -- exchanges the three university presidents had with Republican…

Over 11,000 this is now inaccurate and old info as of this date -- Over 25,000 -- people signed a petition calling for her resignation.

--After a replacement is found Magill will then continue with the university within the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School.-- 155.190.21.5 (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * More than 70 members of Congress, including both Democrats and Republics demanded Magill be removed from her position in the aftermath. 155.190.21.5 (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Main picture
It is bad. Who is the editor who chose it? 2600:1011:B1AE:804:4821:4429:B84D:E455 (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Page Locked
This is not a public figure. This is a private citizen. 2600:1011:B1AE:804:4821:4429:B84D:E455 (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2023
Change "The sum is 0.005% of University of Pennsylvania’s endowment of 21 billion USD." To "The sum is 0.5% of University of Pennsylvania’s endowment of 21 billion USD." 147.235.204.162 (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * true, the one who can calculate has an advantage :) ThurnerRupert (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * To be more specific, it is unclear where in the article you are wanting the edit to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

"gift" which can be cancelled any time
how is this legally working that the wharton school gets shares of stone ridge, then creates a stevens center of whatever, from a money transfer perspective? because the center has expenses, and the gift is in shares, which can be cancelled any time. this would mean that penn would want to sell the shares as quick as possible to have money, or real shares which cannot be cancelled? and if they cannot sell them, how are such shares useful to pay anything with it? you know more? ThurnerRupert (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a good question; news orgs seem to be repeating his claims without analysis, only referencing what he wrote in his letter to staff about the 'founding agreement' of his asset-management partnership [perhaps something signed by anyone acquiring shares?] allowing for shares to be rescinded under certain conditions. I haven't seen a source that references those agreements directly. Presumably the university has already benefited from the 2017 donation, has some capacity to sell shares, &c.  This seems an unusual clause so it's not obvious how enforcable it is, may have arbitration clauses, &c. – SJ +  18:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

for the action of ross stevens itself, there is even a rhyming proverb in german dialects: "schenken und wieder nehmen, tut der teufel händ und füss verbrennen.", which means "give and take again, the devil will burn your hands and your feet." :) ThurnerRupert (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Big picture
The editor of this page seems like they possess a lack of neutrality on the matter. It was a 5 hour hearing. It writes about one specific question and answer from Congress and then includes how it was "clearly" classified as abhorrent. There was 5 hours of morally deprived answers following this opening statement.

Please include why she was called to Congress in the first place. The students who fear being on campus went through great lengths to be heard and feel safe again. 155.190.21.5 (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Made a change to the structure to reflect the content and amount of sources in the article; does anyone disagree?
Should something be different? FortunateSons (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree on the amount of coverage related to Penn, vs. coverage of the rest of her career, but her Penn gig is part of her career, and a separate Penn heading doesn't make sense. JSFarman (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand your point; I’m amiable to moving part of the section back to the career part, and renaming what is left into a section on the hearing, like in the article on Claudine Gay? FortunateSons (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That would make more sense but you would need to title the section; is it controversy? Is it resignation?  It isn't congressional hearings, as her resignation was also related to Palestine Writes.JSFarman (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * “Resignation in the aftermath of the 2023 congressional hearing on antisemitism“ sounds good? FortunateSons (JSFarman (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)talk:FortunateSons|talk]]) 18:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I will let others weigh in on this. My personal opinion (which has no place on Wikipedia) is that her overall career should not be a footnote to the controversy. JSFarman (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand that position; if you have the time, you should consider extending the other (more positive) sections, that sounds like a worthy endeavour? If you ping me in this topic, I am happy to offer feedback (and consensus) if you need it. FortunateSons (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)