I didn’t get the sense that the college presidents were taking any specific stand in their responses to a question that was effectively about their bylaws, rather than the morality of the statements considered in the question. My interpretation of the story is that a lot of the anger aimed at these presidents is because they answered the question that they were asked instead of answering an implied morality question.
Stefanik’s “attack” on the college presidents was performative hypocrisy. She was right wth Trump on Charlottesville.
But, for the college Presidents this is a pretty strange hill to die on.
I didn’t get the sense that the college presidents were taking any specific stand in their responses to a question that was effectively about their bylaws, rather than the morality of the statements considered in the question. My interpretation of the story is that a lot of the anger aimed at these presidents is because they answered the question that they were asked instead of answering an implied morality question.
They equivocated instead of answering directly. You’re basically right, though.
“implied morality” = loaded
Hmm, that name sounds familiar:
Stefanik’s vote to keep Santos was a big misfire