The young woman in the Horowitz video has written an explanation of her views. I’ll leave it to others to parse it more fully. But on my quick reading it doesn’t seem like she actually says she’s against the rounding up Jews for liquidation. Instead, she merely says that her statement “for it” wasn’t intended to be an endorsement of that. It seems like hair-splitting to me. If I’d been in a similar situation, I’d be pretty eager to say outright and forthright that I’m against genocide, rather than merely say, in effect, “I didn’t mean to sound like I’m in favor of genocide.” But maybe I’m overreading.
Update: From a reader:
I think you will find the full statement much more compelling:
It seems that wizbang excluded a key opening statement: “Allow me to begin by stating that I do NOT condone murder, I do NOT condone genocide, and I do NOT condone racism under any circumstance whatsoever against Jews or anyone else.”
Fair enough, and I take her at her word. But it’s worth noting that on countless campuses a mere apology for far less evil speech isn’t enough. I have no desire to pick up the speech code cause. But I do think that if universities are going to play that game, they should do it fairly. Update II: Lots of email from folks not buying it. For instance:
If she truly did not condone genocide and murder, she wouldn’t support organizations that have both as their primary focus. Maybe Wizbang shouldn’t have left that piece off, but I see it as nothing more than meaningless throat-clearing, akin to a leftist declaring their dedication to free speech right before demanding the silencing of a conservative speaker.