Daniel Gilbert

Since 1954, "The Handbook of Social Psychology" has been the field’s most authoritative reference work, and today is the launch of the all-new 6th edition. Best news? The HSP is now an open-access public resource—free to read, download, and share. the-hsp.com

Excited that the latest work from my lab, led by @alexa_sacchi, with @jessicasah99 & Melissa Finlay, is out today! We found that children aged 4-11 show the "end of history illusion" for themselves, but a "beginning of history illusion" for others. 1/x authors.elsevier.com/a/1jMDM2Hx2xL41

The presidents of @Harvard, @MIT, and @Penn were all asked the following question under oath at today’s congressional hearing on antisemitism: Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate [your university’s] code of conduct or rules regarding bullying or harassment? The answers they gave reflect the profound moral bankruptcy of Presidents Gay, Magill and Kornbluth. Representative @EliseStefanik was so shocked with the answers that she asked each of them the same question over and over again, and they gave the same answers over and over again. In short, they said: It ‘depends on the context’ and ‘whether the speech turns into conduct,’ that is, actually killing Jews. This could be the most extraordinary testimony ever elicited in the Congress, certainly on the topic of genocide, which to remind us all is: “the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group” The presidents’ answers reflect the profound educational, moral and ethical failures that pervade certain of our elite educational institutions due in large part to their failed leadership. Don’t take my word for it. You must watch the following three minutes. By the end, you will be where I am. They must all resign in disgrace. If a CEO of one of our companies gave a similar answer, he or she would be toast within the hour. Why has antisemitism exploded on campus and around the world? Because of leaders like Presidents Gay, Magill and Kornbluth who believe genocide depends on the context. To think that these are the leaders of Ivy League institutions that are charged with the responsibility to educate our best and brightest. On the bright side, our congressional leaders deserve accolades for showing tremendous leadership and moral clarity in their statements, by the questions they asked, and the respectfulness with which they conducted the hearing. It was a masterclass of how our government and democracy should operate. If you have time, please watch the entire hearing. Throughout the hearing, the three behaved like hostile witnesses, exhibiting a profound disdain for the Congress with their smiles and smirks, and their outright refusal to answer basic questions with a yes or no answer.

As a professor who favors free speech on campus, I can sympathize with the "nuanced" answers given by U. presidents yesterday, about whether calls to attack or wipe out Israel violate campus speech policies. What offends me is that since 2015, universities have been so quick to punish "microaggressions," including statements intended to be kind, if even one person from a favored group took offense. The presidents are now saying: "Jews are not a favored group, so offending or threatening Jews is not so bad. For Jews, it all depends on context." We might call this double standard "institutional anti-semitism." University presidents: If you're not going to punish students for calling for the elimination of Israel and Israelis, it's OK with me, but ONLY if you also immediately dismantle the speech policing apparatus and norms you created in 2015-2016. Please read The Coddling of the American Mind. @glukianoff and I laid out exactly where the oppressor/victim frame came from (ch. 3), how it spread out of a few departments to gain power over administrators and campus culture (chapters 4 and 5), and how it drove the creation of the bureaucratic structures and processes that now have us all teaching and learning on eggshells (ch. 10). In chapter 13 we offer advice to leaders on how to to return universities to their academic mission and regain public trust.

We should want university harassment policies to reflect First Amdt limits. Otherwise, the result will be—we’ve seen the result. Of course unis apply speech codes selectively. Seeking consistency will fail. Goal should be rolling back codes altogether. washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/…