It's not "my" article, but it does lay out what actually happened and what the given reasons were. I thought that basic information might be useful. Hence the link.

Possibly the best Canadian humor since SCTV.

Not that I disagree with that, but when you didn't link to anything I got suspicious. I refer people to the link for an explanation of why she was cancelled and whether it was out of fear of student violence.

That cannot possible be ‘news’ in any sense.

How old-fashioned a view.

Wow, putting tariffs in illegal drugs coming into the country. Think of the revenue.

Actually, it was going to mention some stuff that the government wouldn't have liked:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/31/doctor-nyu-usaid-gaza-presentation-canceled

I don't have "requirements" or the authority or desire to set them. I just muddle through as best I can with what I'm given to work with.

Neither of us owns the table. Neither of us can put it on whatever table you want to put it on. It’s just us folks talking.

Looking back, I can see why you, in particular, might have trouble understanding that answer. Ill-formed questions invite such answers. But it is an answer.

The first was incomprehensible. The second was a direct answer, but it was your second try. And if all the flummery you surrounded it with is now off the table, we can all go home. But that's up to you.

You did ask, and I answered. Twice. Your turn.

"Would you have it otherwise?" is an open-ended question. You had multiple choices. You could have said "Yes" or "No" and stopped there. You didn't do that; you expanded on your answer in a way suggesting that you have some ideas on the subject. You could have told us what they are or asked if we wanted to hear them. You did neither. You emitted some bafflegab about a mythical table. If you want to tell us what you think, you can do that. If you don't, you don't have to. It's your choice.

Neither of us owns the table. Neither of us can put it on whatever table you want to put it on. It's just us folks talking.
If you don't want to tell us what you think about something, the usual method is not to talk about it. It's certainly the most efficient and least annoying.

Objection, non-responsive.

Would you have it otherwise?

I understand that you want to talk about something else and it's your right to try to drum up a response. Maybe someone will oblige you. I plan to stick to my point and engage anyone who wants to talk about that

There are normal, well-understood ways of dealing with actual threats and forcible obstruction. None of them involve putting a department into academic receivership without a genuine academic reason.

The word that does the real work is "academically." I don't share what you describe, and I haven't bothered to check, as the political views of members of the Department. Because that's none of my f*****g business or the f*****g business of the federal government. I assume they have deplorable politics. Academic life is full of people who have deplorable politics, of all stripes. To take your own example, Columbia used to have eminent historians who held almost exactly the views you described. But their scholarship was first-rate and their status was never threatened. Probably because the government didn't have a problem with that particular set of views back then. Things got a little dicier when the weird political views of certain scholars pissed the government off. I'm sure I don't have to recite the history of the late 40's through mid 60's.
Whatever the political views of some of the Department members, I have seen nothing from anyone competent to speak -- definitely not including anyone in the Trump administration, Chris Rufo, Barrie Weiss, or, to be blunt, you -- even suggesting that the Department needs an academic overhaul.

Is there anyone in the Trump administration who is competent to say, or has any idea, whether there is anything academically wrong with the Department? Disagreements with faculty members' politics don't count.

If there were money in it, they'd be doing it.

Indeed.

No, that has to wait until 2028. It's the pattern. Republicans get into office by yelling that government is f****d up, spend their time proving it, and leaving the Democrats with an agenda hobbled by the need to make massive repairs.

A woman upbraided Samuel Johnson for putting improper words in his dictionary. He replied: "Madame, you have been looking for them."

You must be new around here.

Why is Greenland any different from anywhere else?

What will we get first, SNL or the real Hillary?