NewDayRocks

Here I thought you were going to be reasonable, but the fact is that you refuse to see any flaw in your argument or see how the title can be misleading even when explained to you how others can read it. Do you really believe a sentence, especially one written as poorly as this article's, can not be interpreted in more than one way?

A story that leads "A woman objects to working with IDF soldiers" usually means there is a reason for her to say this. It could mean that she was put in a situation where this was the case or that she is simply just saying it. But simply just saying it is not news. I'm sure many many people object to working with IDF and no one will report that.

So you say, well it is newsworthy because she was suspended for it. Except that was NOT WHY SHE WAS SUSPENDED.

The reason for her suspension was not the objection. You quoted opinions around the objection, but not the actually reason itself.

. The professor told the medical school he didn’t feel safe, as Mohammad’s interview could expose him and his family to harassment. He asked medical school administrators to investigate her for violating the school’s code of conduct.

In July, an investigator released their initial findings: Mohammad had violated the medical school’s code of conduct with regards to “professionalism” and “mutual respect” by singling out and disparaging an individual during her Democracy Now! interview.

Read that please. She was suspended for singling out and disparaging an individual. Not wanting to work with IDF is not singling out or disparaging an individual, do you agree?

This finding was the basis of the school's punishment. It doesn't matter if you or I our the article don't agree with the finding. It was this and not the objection that is why she was suspended.

Where I object to eating rocks. I find one rock in my soup and I refuse to eat it. I say, "There is a rock in my soup!" You go, "Aha! There was only one rock in your soup. So you do not object to eating rocks do you?". While it's true I only found one rock, I still objected to eating rocks, plural. My objection is not limited to that one rock in particular.

I objected to eating rocks.

I was told to eat rocks and I objected to eating those rocks.

Except, in this case, we are in a restaurant and there is only one rock in sight.

It is not in your food. It's just on a table in the restaurant. No one told you to eat rocks. No one put rocks in your food. Sure, it could theoretically end you in your food, but it has not.

You loudly object that someone at the restaurant will put rocks in your food, even though they haven't. The chef complains because that this will make people think he is putting rocks in food. The restaurant asks you to leave.

The student objects to working with IDF soldiers when there is not even a hypothetical possibility of this to be true. Plus the fact that there is zero detail that she is even hypothetically working with the 1 "soldier". This all goes back to the fact that your interpretation of the title requires you to jump through these mental hoops just to make the title narrative work.

The more simple explanation is that the title is misinformation.

And that even if you disagree, more people would look at that title and think of my interpretation vs yours.

People look at that title and will naturally assume the poor woman was put in a situation where she had to work with IDF soldierss. Then if they read the article they will see they were misled when the 1 soldier identified is just a professor and there wasn't even a situation where she had to work with him AND her suspension was unrelated.

If my interpretation did not align with what others thought, it would not be the top comment in the post.

It seems we can agree that we are both reading the title and interpreting it differently. I don't think either of us will concede our interpretation at this point, so we can just leave it to others to look at this on their own.

Still, allow me to explain why I find your interpretation to be wrong.

There are probably IDF soldiers at the school besides that one professor. Her objection was not limited to only the one professor, that is the one example she had. She objected to working with IDF soldiers and got suspended because of that objection.

"Probably". Meaning: you. don't. know. this.

You have to make up the hypothetical yourself to explain the title, because it's not there in the article. You're trying to explain how the title is accurate yet you have to create the story for them. This is not a fantasy novel that's left to the imagination, it's a news article.

She never worked with IDF soldiers, no one is claiming she did. She is objecting to having to work with IDF soldiers.

Read the title again.

A Palestinian American medical student objected to working alongside IDF soldiers. The university suspended her

Let's try an exercise. Pretend there was no article at all and you only have this title. And then you were asked to explain the title based on what you think it means. Here are two of the fairest interpretations I can create.

1. A Palestinian American was tasked to work with IDF soldiers but refused and was punished for it.

2. A Palestinian American said she will not work with IDF soldiers and was punished for it.

Your interpretation aligns with #2, correct?

Except #2 is deeply flawed because, again, she was never asked to work with IDF soldiers and she was not punished for objecting to work with IDF soldiers. She was punished for calling out a professor and potentially opening him up for harassment.

Think of it this way. She didn't say

"I refuse to work with Nazis."

Instead she said more along the lines of

"There's a Nazi in our faculty." And the university was like yea you can't call our staff Nazis. Now people are going to witch hunt. Suspended.

The suspension is still dubious, but can you at least see where I'm coming from?

The most generous reading of your interpretation requires accepting another generous interpretation of the reason for suspension (that the official reason for her suspension is not the real one)

Look, I'm not trying to attack you despite the fact that you want to keep insulting my reading ability.

I am saying, the title of this article is misleading at best, if not outright lying.

Your own reply is backing me up on this.

these other IDF soldiers that the woman was forced to work with

We are talking about this specific woman at this specific university who was suspended. Your quoted reply talks about other universities. There is no proof in this article that anyone other than the professor worked with the IDF, that she would hypothetically be forced to work with.

the details of how the university forced her to work with these soldiers. Was she forces to deploy with them?

No.

Did she have to do research with them?

The school continued to employee the professor to her medical school. Medical students work with professors and other students. Her objection is to be put in a situation where she could have to work with him or anyone else who was part of the IDF to meet requirements to get her degree.

So in short she was never forced to work with any IDF soldiers. She may at some hypothetical point run into such a situation.

Was she threatened somehow?

You are purposely misreading my question. Was she threatened to work with the IDF soldier or face consequences? She was not.

Was she threatened at some point during the period the article talks about? Probably.

how she got suspended for refusing the above

So no, she was not suspended for refusing to work with an IDF soldier because she never was in that situation.

I want to stop for a second and also point out, I am not attacking or even judging anyone for not reading the article. We can all agree people do not read every link in every thread. This is a very long article to boot.

But for those that do not want to read the entire thing and only looked at the headline, they would assume based on the way the headline is written that the university forced her to work with IDF in some capacity, she refused, and they suspended her. This is how any objective person would interpret the headline.

You can say well technically the professor counts as a soldier, there are soldiers on other campuses, the title didn't say she got suspended for refusing, only that she got suspended, etc etc... but these are all not how most people would interpret it and you know it.

You are upset about Isreal as many people, including a vocal portion of Lemmy are and that is fine. But that doesn't mean you can't criticize poorly written clickbait titles meant to enrage instead of inform. This is The Guardian, a supposedly upstanding news source. What does it say about them or the contents of this story when the first 2 sentences you read are so misleading?

A medic is a non combatant, but as I mentioned in the post you are replying to, I am willing to concede this professor as an IDF soldier.

I'm glad you can read, so please quote the article the following

• these other IDF soldiers that the woman was forced to work with
• the details of how the university forced her to work with these soldiers. Was she forces to deploy with them? Did she have to do research with them? Was she threatened somehow?
• how she got suspended for refusing the above

Can't find these points in the article? Funny, me neither.

My comment is that the title is blatantly false.

It's already a stretch to say volunteering medical services for the IDF makes you a soldier, and yes it's a lie to say she was forced to "work" with soldiers.

But, let's give you the benefit and say is just semantics and the first part is accurate (it's not)

The title is STILL blatantly false because the school did NOT suspend her for refusing to work with this professor. The (arguably unjustified) suspension is unrelated.

What a strange hill to die on.

No where in the article does it say they work at the same faculty. You simply do not know this to be true.

She called him out publicly for volunteering for a foreign military currently enacting a genocide. It's a big stretch to call that "outing" or "public harassment".

And nowhere does the headline claim something different.

Except the headline does not say this.

Any reasonable person reading the headline would think the university is forcing her to work with the IDF and suspended her for refusing.

But like you just made my point for me, she was suspended for the calling out part.

I don't agree she should have been suspended, but the headline is 100 percent false.

He's a Professor at her medical faculty. That means she has to work with him to get her degree.

Maybe this is an English issue, but generally students learn from, not work with their teachers. But again, the article does not actually mention he is her professor, only that they are at the same school. We don't know that they have any interaction at this school.

She refused to do that.

The university suspended her.

Except that's not why she was suspended. They suspended her for giving an interview where she calls out the professor for volunteering to provide medical services for the IDF. Since she was leading the campus protests, this was considered targeted harassment.

The title is wrong and misleading. A more accurate title would be "University student suspended for outing a pro-Israel professor in interview", but i guess truth doesn't get clicks.

So I had a teacher in HS that worked at NASA. Was I working alongside NASA scientists when I was 15?

Furthermore, the article never specified that she was HIS student. They may have never interacted at all.

I can accept she doesn't want to be affiliated in any way with Israel (good luck with that), but the title puts two sentences together where the first is false and the second is unrelated.

A Palestinian American medical student objected to working alongside IDF soldiers. The university suspended her

The title says working alongside IDF soldiers. It's not implying anything.

I like how you ignore the second sentence though to make a false point

Is the title implying or not implying that her suspension is related to the fact that objected to working alongside IDF?

Explain to me how being a student is considered "working alongside" with a professor simply because they are both at the same school?

To everyone not reading this article: "working along side IDF soldiers" in this case means being a student at a university where one professor had volunteered for a short stint to be a medic for the IDF (because, you know, Oct 7 happened)

She got suspended because she outed him (though not by name directly) in an interview and opened him up to possible harassment. The suspension is questionable and we can debate the limits of free speech in this case.

BUT she was not suspended because she refused to work with or for the IDF. That is a bs title.

It helps that when the left are in power things run normally, quietly, boring, so that three same news items can run daily.

With this administration every day is a new law being broken.

It is the Russian way