Moscow Court Rejects Evan Gershkovich’s Appeal, Keeping Him in Jail Until At Least June 30

(MOSCOW) — Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich will remain jailed on espionage charges until at least late June, after a Moscow court on Tuesday rejected his appeal that sought to end his pretrial detention.

The 32-year-old U.S. citizen was detained in late March 2023 while on a reporting trip and has spent over a year in jail, with authorities routinely extending his time behind bars and rejecting his appeals. Last month, his pretrial detention was continued yet again — until June 30 — in a ruling that he and his lawyers later challenged. A Moscow appellate court rejected it Tuesday.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

In the courtroom on Tuesday, Gerhskovich, wearing a white T-shirt and an open checked shirt, looked relaxed, at times laughing and chatting with members of his legal team.

His arrest in the city of Yekaterinburg rattled journalists in Russia, where authorities have not detailed what, if any, evidence they have to support the espionage charges.

Gershkovich and his employer have denied the allegations, and the U.S. government has declared him to be wrongfully detained.

Read More: The Fight to Free Evan Gershkovich

Analysts have pointed out that Moscow may be using jailed Americans as bargaining chips in soaring U.S.-Russian tensions over the Kremlin’s military operation in Ukraine. At least two U.S. citizens arrested in Russia in recent years — including WNBA star Brittney Griner — have been exchanged for Russians jailed in the U.S.

In December, the U.S. State Department said it had made a significant offer to secure the release of Gershkovich and Paul Whelan, another American imprisoned in Russia on espionage charges, which it said Moscow had rejected.

Officials did not describe the offer, although Russia has been said to be seeking the release of Vadim Krasikov, who was given a life sentence in Germany in 2021 for the killing in Berlin of Zelimkhan “Tornike” Khangoshvili, a 40-year-old Georgian citizen of Chechen descent who had fought Russian troops in Chechnya and later claimed asylum in Germany.

Read More: Why Evan Gershkovich Is on the Cover of TIME

Russian President Vladimir Putin, asked this year about releasing Gershkovich, appeared to refer to Krasikov by pointing to a man imprisoned by a U.S. ally for “liquidating a bandit” who had allegedly killed Russian soldiers during separatist fighting in Chechnya.

Beyond that hint, Russian officials have kept mum about the talks. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov repeatedly said that while “certain contacts” on swaps continue, “they must be carried out in absolute silence.”

Gershkovich is the first American reporter to be arrested on espionage charges in Russia since September 1986, when Nicholas Daniloff, a Moscow correspondent for U.S. News and World Report, was arrested by the KGB.

Daniloff was released without charge 20 days later in a swap for an employee of the Soviet Union’s U.N. mission who was arrested by the FBI, also on spying charges.

source https://time.com/6970060/evan-gershkovich-appeal-rejected-moscow/

Academic Freedom Is More Important Now Than Ever

At least since the 1800s, colleges and universities in the United States have emphasized their civic missions. American college students weren’t just supposed to get better at exams and recitations, they were supposed to develop character traits that would make them better citizens. In the last fifty years, whether one attended a large public university or a small private college, chances are the mission statement of your school included language that emphasized the institution’s contribution to the public good. So why today is there a chorus of critics urging higher education leaders to cultivate neutrality, to cede the public sphere to others?

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

I suppose that in these days of social polarization and hyper-partisanship, some see campus life as a retreat from the bruising realities of political life. You can pursue theater or biology, religion or economics, without worrying too much what the person sitting next to you thinks of the political issue of the day. And if your institution has no political commitments, so the thinking seems to go, you may feel more inclined to form your own, or just not to have any at all. Whether one weds this to a monastic view of higher education, or skills-based vocational one, one can feel that university life provides a respite from the take-a-stand demands of the political. While there is certainly freedom in that, it should be remembered that we only have that freedom because of guarantees established by generations of political struggle.

One of those fundamental guarantees is the ability to choose one’s field of study, to conduct research without political intervention, and to openly discuss the results of one’s work. In his forthcoming book Academic Freedom: From Professional Norm to First Amendment Right, David Rabban argues convincingly that academic freedom is a distinctive first amendment right, one which protects teachers and researchers while enabling society as a whole to benefit from the production and dissemination of knowledge. The American Association of University Professors sketched out this foundational professional norm in 1915. Scholars are free to explore issues and to debate them; they should be able to take positions that might turn out to be very unpopular in the broader political realm. Rabban shows how these protections have been protected in a series of court decisions over the last hundred years. Whether teaching the Bible, a contemporary video, or evolutionary biology, professors should not have to worry that political pressures will force them away from a path of inquiry or a mode of expression.

Today, though, such worries abound. Libraries are banning books at alarming rates, faculty are being disciplined for their political views, and student rights to protest are being curtailed beyond appropriate “time and place” guidelines. Issues around the right to speak one’s mind are front and center on college campuses, thrust there in part because of protests around the war in Gaza and the spectacle of congressional hearings about antisemitism. Ivy League institutions have attracted the most attention for outbursts of Jew hatred even as scores of civilian hostages from Israel are subject to torture, rape, and brutal isolation. But rejecting the vicious tactics of the war in Gaza, doesn’t make one a supporter of terrorist violence; starving Palestinians in Gaza won’t secure freedom for the hostages. In these dire conditions, it’s no wonder that colleges are faced with legitimate protests as well as traditional expressions of prejudice and hate. On campuses across the country, Islamophobia and antisemitic harassment can destroy the conditions for learning, but mass arrests of peaceful protestors and the censorship of speakers for their political views only undermine academic freedom in the long run.

In recent years, some progressives have expressed doubts about free speech, describing it as a neo-liberal disguise of existing power relations. Now, however, as those aligned with pro-Palestinian movements are being censured or arrested, the old liberal approach to freedom of expression seems more attractive to many protestors. Historians Ahmna Khalid and Jeffrey Snyder have been writing about these issues, and recently they gave a powerful presentation to a packed house at Wesleyan. They began with a critical appraisal of Florida’s various attacks on academic freedom, which on my campus was preaching to the choir. But the speakers went on to discuss how many of efforts that fall under the popular rubric of inclusion are also aimed at suppressing speech ostensibly to protect so-called vulnerable communities. Protecting students against speech in the name of harm reduction is almost always a mistake, they argued. Here, the debate got interesting. And this was their point: debates are only interesting when people are free to disagree, listen to opposing views, change their minds. But they also seemed to agree that in some cases intimidation could be intense enough to warrant restrictions on expression. I call this a “safe enough space” approach to speech, but in the discussion following their talk it was clear that they thought my pragmatist position left too much room for unwarranted “safetyism.” There was a real conversation; students and faculty were fully engaged.

Read More: The New Antisemitism

And that, of course, is when learning happens: when we are engaged in deep listening and in trying to think for ourselves in the company of others. This is what I argue in The Student: A Short History: being a student—at whatever age—means being open to others in ways that allow one to expand one’s thinking, to enhance one’s capacities for appreciation, for empathy and for civic participation. That participation energizes a virtuous circle because it’s by engaging with others that one multiplies possibilities for learning (and then for further engagement).

That virtuous circle depends on freedoms in a political context under direct threat from the populist authoritarianism movement led by Donald Trump. When Trump attacks his enemies, when he talks about them as thugs and vermin or proposes his own national university to replace the elites so despised by his base, he is telegraphing his intentions to remake higher education in the image of his MAGA movement. Many academics seem to shrug their shoulders, saying either that “other politicians aren’t so great either,” or to suggest (as elites often have when faced with growing fascist threats) that he doesn’t really mean what he says. This is a grave mistake, as we’ve seen before in history.

Neutrality, whether based on principle, apathy or cynicism, today feeds collaboration. The attack on democracy, the attack on the rule of law, will also sweep away the freedoms that higher education has won over the last 100 years.

We can fight back. Between now and November 5^th, many of our students, faculty, staff and alumni will be practicing freedom by participating in the electoral process. They will work on behalf of candidates and in regard to issues bearing on the future of academic freedom, free speech, and the possibilities for full engagement with others. This is challenging work. In the noise of contemporary politics, it’s hard to practice authentic listening; in the glare of the media’s campaign cameras, it’s hard to see things from someone else’s point of view.

But that is our task. If we are to strengthen our democracy and the educational institutions that depend on it, we must learn to practice freedom, better. We must learn to be better students. Our future depends on it.

source https://time.com/6969851/academic-freedom-is-more-important-than-ever-now/

Trump Tried to ‘Corrupt’ 2016 Election, Prosecutor Alleges as Hush-Money Trial Gets Underway

(NEW YORK) — Donald Trump tried to illegally influence the 2016 presidential election by preventing damaging stories about his personal life from becoming public, a prosecutor told jurors Monday at the start of the former president’s historic hush money trial.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

A defense lawyer countered by saying that Trump was “innocent” and by attacking the integrity of the onetime Trump confidant who’s now the government’s star witness. Trump’s attorney said the case should never have been brought.

The opening statements launched the first criminal trial of a former American president, a case unfolding against the backdrop of a closely contested White House race in which Trump is not only the presumptive Republican nominee but also a defendant facing the prospect of a felony conviction and prison.

The trial will offer weeks of salacious and unflattering testimony about an effort by the then-celebrity candidate to stifle story he feared could torpedo his candidacy, including a porn star’s claims of an extramarital affair a decade earlier.

Prosecutors at the outset sought to elevate the gravity of the case, the first of four criminal prosecutions against Trump, to reach a jury, by framing it as about election interference. The depiction seemed intended to rebut criticism that the allegations at the heart of the case are less grievous than those of the three other cases, which center on charges of hoarding classified documents and subverting democracy.

“The defendant, Donald Trump, orchestrated a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election. Then he covered up that criminal conspiracy by lying in his New York business records over and over and over again,” prosecutor Matthew Colangelo told jurors.

The statements offered the 12-person jury — and the voting public — a roadmap for how to view the allegations at the heart of the case.

They also served as an introduction to the colorful cast of characters that comprise the tawdry saga, including a porn actor who says she had a sexual encounter with Trump; the lawyer who prosecutors say paid her to keep quiet about it; and the tabloid publisher who agreed to function as the campaign’s “eyes and ears.”

Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records — a charge punishable by up to four years in prison — though it’s not clear if the judge would seek to put him behind bars. A conviction would not preclude Trump from becoming president again, but because it is a state case, he would not be able to attempt to pardon himself if found guilty. He has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.

Read More: Your Questions About Trump’s Hush-Money Trial, Answered

The case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg revisits a chapter from Trump’s history when his celebrity past collided with his political ambitions and, prosecutors say, he scrambled to stifle stories that he feared could torpedo his campaign.

In his opening statements, Colangelo traced the origins of the effort to the emergence late in the 2016 campaign of the 2005 “Access Hollywood” recording in which Trump could be heard boasting about grabbing women sexually without their permission.

“The impact of that tape on the campaign was immediate and explosive,” Colangelo said, recounting for jurors how prominent Trump allies withdrew their endorsements and condemned his language.

The prosecutor said evidence will show the Republican National Committee even considered whether it was possible to replace Trump with another candidate.

Within days of the “Access Hollywood” tape becoming public, Colangelo told jurors that The National Enquirer alerted Cohen that porn actor Stormy Daniels was agitating to go public with her claims of a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006.

“At Trump’s direction, Cohen negotiated a deal to buy Ms. Daniels’ story to prevent American voters from hearing that story before Election Day,” Colangelo told jurors.

The prosecutor described other payments as well that were part of what’s known in the tabloid industry as a “catch-and-kill” ploy — catching a potentially damaging story by buying the rights to it and then suppressing or killing it through agreements that prevent the paid person from telling the story to anyone else.

Colangelo also talked about arrangements made to pay a former Playboy model $150,000 to suppress her claims of a nearly yearlong affair with the married Trump. Colangelo said Trump “desperately did not want this information about Karen McDougal to become public because he was worried about its effect on the election.”

He told jurors they will hear a recording Cohen made in September 2016 of himself briefing Trump on the plan to buy McDougal’s story. The recording was made public in July 2018. Colangelo told jurors they hear Trump in his own voice, saying: “What do we got to pay for this? One-fifty?”

Trump arrived at the courthouse shortly before 9 a.m., minutes after castigating the case in capital letters on social media as “election interference” and a “witch hunt.”

The trial will require him to spend his days in a courtroom rather than on the campaign trail, a reality he complained about Monday when he lamented to reporters that he was “here instead of being able to be in Pennsylvania and Georgia and lots of other places campaigning, and it’s very unfair.”

Just as Trump sat through a jury selection process in which multiple prospective jurors expressed negative opinions about him, he will be forced to remain in court as salacious and potentially unflattering details about his personal life are shared with the jury.

Trump has nonetheless sought to turn his criminal defendant status into an asset for his campaign, fundraising off his legal jeopardy and repeatedly railing against a justice system that he has for years claimed is weaponized against him.

Hearing the case is a jury that includes, among others, multiple lawyers, a sales professional, an investment banker and an English teacher. As court began Monday, Judge Juan Merchan disclosed that one of the jurors selected for the case had conveyed reservations about participating, apparently because of the intense media attention. The juror was questioned privately but will remain on the case.

The case will test jurors’ ability to set aside any bias but also Trump’s ability to abide by the court’s restrictions, such as a gag order that bars him from attacking witnesses. Prosecutors are seeking fines against him for alleged violations of that order.

Prosecutors say Trump obscured the true nature of the payments in internal records when his company reimbursed Cohen, who pleaded guilty to federal charges in 2018 and is expected to be a star witness for the prosecution.

Trump has denied having a sexual encounter with Daniels, and his lawyers argue that the payments to Cohen were legitimate legal expenses.

To convict Trump of a felony, prosecutors must show he not only falsified or caused business records to be entered falsely, which would be a misdemeanor, but that he did so to conceal another crime.

The allegations don’t accuse Trump of an egregious abuse of power like the federal case in Washington charging him with plotting to overturn the 2020 presidential election, or of flouting national security protocols like the federal case in Florida charging him with hoarding classified documents.

But the New York prosecution has taken on added importance because it may be the only one of the four cases against Trump that reaches trial before the November election. Appeals and legal wrangling have delayed the other three cases.

___

Tucker reported from Washington.

source https://time.com/6969709/trump-hush-money-trial-opening-statements/

To Build an Alliance Against Iran, Israel Cannot Ignore the Palestinians

As the dust settles in the wake of Israel’s much-anticipated attack on Iran on Friday, the two countries seem to have pulled back from the brink of full-scale war. This strike on an Iranian military base near Isfahan—a response to Iran’s unprecedented April 13 missile and drone attack on Israel—caused minimal damage and was met with muted reactions from Iranian officials.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The limited scale of Israel’s retaliation reflects several considerations, including a genuine desire to prevent a regional war, U.S. pressure to avoid escalation, and the minimal damage inflicted by Iran’s attack (itself a response to Israel’s escalatory strike on an Iranian consular facility in Damascus) thanks to missile and drone interceptions. But one of the most significant factors is the region, as war cabinet minister Benny Gantz affirmed several days ago: Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates reportedly all played a role in cooperating with Israel, the U.S., and European partners to thwart the Iranian assault.

Israel and the U.S. cannot take this regional defense cooperation for granted, however. Israel needs to adopt a new approach in Gaza—and on the Palestinian issue more broadly—if it ever hopes to capitalize on the shared strategic interests with its neighbors and prevent Iran from continuing to make ideological and military inroads throughout the region.

The quiet cooperation in the face of Iran’s April 13 attack was striking. After months of growing diplomatic isolation amid the devastating war in Gaza, Israel now seemed to have the region in its corner.

But this realignment will prove illusory if not actively fostered. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UAE, and Bahrain may share Israel’s opposition to Iran’s malign activity, but that does not negate their discomfort with being seen as Israeli partners or erase months of condemnation related to the war in Gaza. Arab states have downplayed their role in countering Iran’s attack given Israel’s deep unpopularity and are facing domestic pushback for doing so.

Changing course vis-à-vis the Palestinians is the only way for Israel to shift this paradigm. The overwhelmingly dominant narrative in the Arab world is that Israel is carrying out genocide against Palestinians. The war in Gaza and the Palestinian issue more broadly pose the biggest barrier to expanding Israel’s regional ties and creating a more cohesive pro-U.S., anti-Iranian regional alliance. Israel’s poor reputation—for reasons legitimate and illegitimate—serves as a glass ceiling on deepening cooperation with Arab regimes, which are sensitive to public opinion despite being autocratic. In the current geopolitical environment, a formal Middle East Air Defense alliance remains a pipe dream, yet would be an invaluable security asset for Israel and the U.S. and would realign the region against Iranian aggression.

Jordan is particularly sensitive to this dynamic. Ties with Israel are deeply unpopular among Jordanians (over 50% of whom are of Palestinian descent). Efforts by Israel’s far-right government to advance West Bank annexation and thwart the possibility of Palestinian statehood could pose an existential threat to the Hashemite regime, as Iran reportedly seeks to expand its network of proxies to Jordan and capitalize on growing anti-Israel sentiment. Such an outcome would be disastrous for Israel.

Arab public sentiment should not dictate Israeli policy. To a certain extent, Israel’s unpopularity reflects endemic antisemitism and a rejection of Jewish national rights more than a response to Israeli behavior. But greater sensitivity to optics in the Arab world could meaningfully improve Israel’s regional standing while also benefiting other strategic priorities.

This challenge begins in Gaza. It was not inevitable for Israel that this war would result in this degree of diplomatic ostracization; its Sunni Arab partners have no love for Hamas and would happily see its regime in Gaza uprooted. Israel needs to immediately take concrete steps to alleviate Gaza’s humanitarian crisis and give greater priority to preventing further civilian deaths. So long as Arab publics consume images and videos of death and destruction in Gaza on a daily basis, normalization with Israel will feel like a betrayal of the Palestinian people. Addressing humanitarian concerns in Gaza also provides the necessary groundwork for finishing the fight against Hamas and preventing its resurgence.

In the medium term, if Israel hopes to rely on its Arab partners in Gaza to provide security, coordinate and fund reconstruction, and equip a new generation of Palestinian leaders with the skills needed to govern, Israel must tangibly commit to Palestinian self-rule and eventual statehood. In parallel, sidelining Palestinian terror groups and preventing a wider uprising in the West Bank requires strengthening the Palestinian Authority, curbing illegal settler activity, and combating extremist Jewish violence and Palestinian terrorism alike. Reversing Israeli policies that drive violence and inflame tensions in the Palestinian arena will undermine efforts by Iran and its proxies to stoke local and regional resentment against Israel.

Hamas’ October 7 attack was prompted by reports of tangible progress toward Israel-Saudi normalization. Iran and its allies see the expansion and deepening of Israel’s regional ties as a threat to their long-term aspirations of destroying Israel. October 7 and Israel’s brutal counterattack did succeed in stoking regional resentment against Israel and fostering support for the Palestinian “resistance.” But last week’s events and signals from Arab leaders have shown that the door has not yet closed on Israel gaining greater acceptance among its neighbors—along with more overt and formalized security cooperation against the Iranian threat. To capitalize on this opportunity, Israel must opt for regional de-escalation, minimize and mitigate the humanitarian repercussions of the war in Gaza, and create conditions for Arab states to be able to credibly claim that cooperating with Israel does not undermine Palestinians’ wellbeing and national interests.

No Israeli policy can be a quick fix for Iranian behavior or the deep-seated anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiment in the wider Middle East that fuels the Iranian regime’s malign activity. Israel cannot be afraid to use military force when needed and must remain vigilant in protecting its citizens—particularly after it failed to do so on October 7. A day could very well come when Israel has no choice but to go to war against Iran, just as it had no choice but to go to war against Hamas. But “speaking Middle Eastern” is about more than projecting military strength. It is well within Israel’s power to invest in repairing its reputation in order to take away the fodder from Iran’s quest to destroy it, and there are ways to do so that are clearly in its national interest.

source https://time.com/6969674/israel-alliance-against-iran-palestinians/

Ecuador Votes to Tighten Security Measures Amid Nationwide Wave of Violence

QUITO, Ecuador — Ecuador’s fledgling president got a resounding victory Sunday in a referendum that he touted as a way to crack down on criminal gangs behind a spiraling wave of violence.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

An official quick count showed that Ecuadorians overwhelmingly voted “yes” to all nine questions focused on tightening security measures, rejecting only two proposals on more controversial economic measures.

The quick count was announced by the head of the Electoral National Council, Diana Atamaint. It confirmed a private exit poll released hours before that indicated a resounding victory and sign of support for President Daniel Noboa, the scion of a wealthy banana exporting family.

Among the measures approved are President Noboa’s call to deploy the army in the fight against the gangs, to loosen obstacles for extraditing accused criminals and to lengthen prison sentences for convicted drug traffickers.

Ecuador was traditionally one of South America’s most peaceful countries, but it has been rocked in recent years by a wave of violence, much of it spilling over from neighboring Colombia, the world’s largest producer of cocaine. Last year, the country’s homicide rate shot up to 40 deaths per 100,000 people, one of the highest in the region.

Read More: Ecuador in Turmoil After ‘Most Wanted’ Criminal Escapes Prison: What to Know

Noboa has rallied popular support by confronting the gangs head on. That task became more urgent in January when masked gunmen, some on orders from imprisoned drug traffickers, terrorized residents and took control of a television station while it was live on the air in an unprecedented show of force.

Following the rampage, the 36-year-old president decreed an “internal armed conflict,” enabling him to use emergency powers to deploy the army in pursuit of about 20 gangs now classified as “terrorists.”

The referendum, in which 13 million Ecuadorians were called to vote, contained measures to extend those powers and put them on firmer legal ground.

Some of the measures approved imply changes to Ecuador’s constitution, but because they were previously endorsed by the Constitutional Court, Noboa only needs to publish them in the official gazette to go into effect. Some of those initiatives are the ones related to the use of the army and extradition.

For the changes that require changing some general laws, the president will have to send a reform proposal to the Assembly, which will have 60 days to process them.

Noboa, ahead of the final tally, celebrated the results. “We’ve defended the country,” he said in a message posted on social media. “Now we will have more tools to fight against the delinquent and restore peace to Ecuador’s families.”

Noboa’s law and order rhetoric recalls the policies of El Salvador’s wildly popular president, Nayib Bukele, a fellow millennial, and could give him a boost politically as he prepares to run for reelection next year.

Noboa, is serving the final 18 months of a presidential term left vacant when fellow conservative Guillermo Lasso resigned amid a congressional investigation into allegations of corruption. Noboa was elected following a shortened but bloody campaign that saw one of his top rivals brazenly assassinated while campaigning.

source https://time.com/6969567/ecuador-security-crime-referendum-vote-results/

White House Condemns Antisemitism on College Campuses

The White House condemned antisemitism on college campuses, days after New York City police dispersed a pro-Palestinian rally at Columbia University and arrested more than 100 students.

Though it avoided naming a specific university, the White House statement is the latest sign of how campus tensions spurred by the Israel-Hamas war are influencing U.S. politics in a presidential election year.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“While every American has the right to peaceful protest, calls for violence and physical intimidation targeting Jewish students and the Jewish community are blatantly antisemitic, unconscionable, and dangerous,” White House Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates said. “They have absolutely no place on any college campus, or anywhere in the United States of America.”

New York City Mayor Eric Adams said he was “horrified and disgusted with the antisemitism being spewed at and around the Columbia University campus.” In a post on X, he said he had instructed the police to investigate “any violation of law.”

I am horrified and disgusted with the antisemitism being spewed at and around the Columbia University campus. Hate has no place in our city, and I have instructed the NYPD to investigate any violation of law they receive a report about and will arrest anyone found to be breaking…

— Mayor Eric Adams (@NYCMayor) April 21, 2024

The rally at Columbia started Thursday, a day after Columbia President Nemat Shafik testified at a House hearing on campus antisemitism. Among the 108 students arrested was Isra Hirsi, daughter of Representative Ilhan Omar, a Democrat from Minnesota.

Read More: The Growing Antisemitism Among Young Americans

Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, a New York Republican, criticized Shafik’s leadership of the university in a post on X, saying Sunday that “Columbia’s leadership has clearly lost control of its campus putting Jewish students’ safety at risk.” She called on Shafik to resign.

Stefanik was among the lawmakers who pressed Shafik on Wednesday about praise by some Columbia professors for Hamas’s attack on Israel on Oct. 7. The invasion prompted an Israeli assault on the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

My full statement on Columbia University’s Failed Leadership:

“While Columbia’s failed leadership spent hundreds of hours preparing for this week’s Congressional hearing, it clearly was an attempt to cover up for their abject failure to enforce their own campus rules and protect…

— Elise Stefanik (@EliseStefanik) April 21, 2024

Billionaire Bill Ackman, who has repeatedly criticized antisemitism in the wake of Hamas’s attack, took aim at the leaders of Columbia, Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, contrasting them with “other well managed elite universities.”

I thought @Columbia was a private university dedicated to educating its students in an atmosphere conducive to learning. Apparently I was wrong.

It is interesting to compare the calm and productive learning environments at other well managed elite universities like @DukeU and… https://t.co/eXbdLdOH8M

— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) April 21, 2024

Yale University President Peter Salovey responded to protests on his university’s campus, saying Sunday that while Yale supports “free speech and civil discourse,” it’s committed “to campus safety, peaceful assembly, and civil discourse.”

source https://time.com/6969552/white-house-condemns-antisemitism-college-campuses-protests/

Sri Lankan Police Investigate After Race Car Crashes Into Crowd, Killing 7 and Injuring 20

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka — A race car veered off the track during a competition in Sri Lanka on Sunday and rammed into a crowd of spectators and race officials, killing seven people and injuring 20 others, officials said.

Thousands of spectators looked on as the mishap took place during a race in the town of Diyatalawa in the tea-growing central hills, about 180 kilometers (110 miles) east of the capital Colombo.

It wasn’t immediately clear what caused the mishap.

Police spokesman Nihal Thalduwa said one of the cars veered off the track and crashed into spectators and officials of the event. Seven people, including four officials, were killed and another 20 were being treated at a hospital, said Thalduwa. He said three of the injured were in critical condition.

Thalduwa said police have launched an investigation into the accident, which was the 17th out of 24 events scheduled. The race was suspended after the accident.

About 45,000 spectators had gathered at the race circuit at a Sri Lankan military academy. The event was organized by the Sri Lankan army and Sri Lanka Automobile Sports.

source https://time.com/6969549/sri-lanka-race-car-crash/