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.
There is no good faith discussion to be had about the subject matter when you are operating from an alternate reality based on misreading the title and the article. There is no alternate interpretation, you are reading it incorrectly. It does not say what you claim it says.
“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.
No, I pointed out there are probably additional IDF soldiers on that campus. If there are no additional IDF soldiers on that campus, she still objects to working with IDF soldiers plural. You are conflating her one example singular, with a perceived mistake, that is not there, in the title where it is uses a plural.
The use of a plural word is a non-issue. She objects to working with IDF soldiers broadly. Her objection was never intended to be limited to one professor, it was the only example she had. This is not a clever gotcha, you are misreading the title.
This is not a fantasy novel that’s left to the imagination, it’s a news article.
Speaking of fantasy, here's a fictional example. 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.
A Palestinian American was tasked to work with IDF soldiers but refused and was punished for it.
This is not a different interpretation of the title. This is a different title. These words in this alternate title mean something different than what the title says. You have superimposed this onto the article.
Here is an example.
I objected to eating rocks.
I was told to eat rocks and I objected to eating those rocks.
These are not different interpretations of the same sentence. They are two different sentences. In the first I stated an objection without prompting. In the second I was prompted to a task and I objected to it. It is possible to object to an action no one has told a person to do. An objection does not imply a prompt.
she was never asked to work with IDF soldiers
No one is saying that she was. The point is that while attending medical school she could be put in a situation where she could have to work with IDF soldiers.
she was not punished for objecting to work with IDF soldiers.
Her objection was in the Democracy Now! interview. Her objection was working with IDF soldiers. She was punished for giving this objection.
She was punished for calling out a professor and potentially opening him up for harassment.
Mohammad’s remarks on the program drew complaints from the professor – who she did not name – and a dean, who has since left Emory.
She didn't even name the professor. She was well within her rights as per campus regulations to do this.
Later that month, the open expression committee released a report of its own: according to its independent investigation, the content of Mohammad’s interview was protected by Emory’s policy on free expression. In fact, the committee said, the school of medicine had violated Emory’s policy on open expression by conducting the investigation in the way it did.
But regardless, her objection in that interview, is what got her suspended. She objected to working with that professor because he is an IDF solider. Reframing the objection as a call out, regardless if the objection could potentially lead to harassment or not, does not change that fact it was an objection.
“I refuse to work with Nazis.”
Except she didn't call the professor something that he is not. She said he volunteered in the IDF as a soldier. No one is claiming that is not the case.
“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.
She said a member of the IDF is in our faculty. The faculty said "You can't say that.", even though it is true and not being disputed by anyone. The truth could open the professor to harassment. Suspended.
The actual dispute seems to be:
“Who are you to decide what’s a genocide?”
This dispute is what we would be arguing about if we were both reading what the article actually said.
The suspension is still dubious, but can you at least see where I’m coming from?
The suspension is incorrect even by the university's own standards. Yes, when you read the article you did not comprehend it properly. Reread the article.
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)
This is again making a distinction where there is none. The official reason she was suspended is she made an objection in an interview with Democracy Now!. In that interview she objected to working with IDF soldiers. She brought up the professor who served in the IDF to make that objection. Regardless of how the school framed her objection she got suspended because of that objection.
In my example, I objected to eating rocks. What you are saying is, "You didn't object to eating rocks, you called out a specific rock for being a rock." In my example, I did call out the rock for being a rock. The statement, "There is a rock in my soup!" is an objection to having to eat rocks.
