Jon Zimmerman is a colleague of mine at New York University and a fellow historian of education. He uses his deep knowledge of history to write on many topics. He is amazingly prolific.
Zimmerman writes:
NEWSDAY
April 16, 2014
Brandeis Betrays its Educational Mission
Jonathan Zimmerman
In 1949, Wayne State University president David Henry blocked an invited speaker from appearing on campus. The speaker was Herbert Phillips, a well-known philosophy professor. And the reason was simple: Phillips was a Communist.
“It is now clear that the Communist is to be regarded not as an ordinary citizen but as an enemy of national welfare,” Henry explained. “I cannot believe that the university is under any obligation in the name of education, to give him an audience.”
I thought of this episode—and many similar ones–as I read about Brandeis University’s decision to withdraw its offer of an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the prominent women’s rights activist who was slated to appear at its commencement exercises in May. Citing Ali’s controversial remarks about Islam, Brandeis said these comments were “inconsistent” with its “core values.”
But the core value of the university is—or should be—open dialogue and discussion. And it was Brandeis—not Ali—who who violated it, just as universities did by keeping out Communist and other left-leaning speakers during the McCarthy era.
A Somalian native who fled a forced marriage, Ali moved to Holland and was eventually elected to its Parliament. She also wrote the screenplay for a 2004 film about the treatment of Muslim women, which earned her death threats and led her to move to the United States.
And in a 2007 interview, Ali called Islam “a destructive, nihilistic cult of death”; later that year, she told another interviewer that “there is no moderate Islam” and that it must be “defeated.”
Over the top? Definitely. Offensive? I think so. But Ali’s comments hardly put her in the same category as Nazis or white supremacists, as several critics have recently charged. Unlike fascist ideologues, who stressed the second-class status of women and their duty to reproduce for the fatherland, Ali has spent her life fighting for female independence and equality.
She has also been at the center of an ongoing debate about the degree to which Islam has enhanced or inhibited women’s rights. I was appalled by her blanket condemnation of the religion, which contains much more diversity than Ali allowed. But she has raised utterly legitimate questions, and the university should be in the business of exploring rather than quashing them.
Ditto for Communists in the 1940s and 1950s, who raised tough issues about the morality of capitalism and its role in promoting imperialism. Some American Communists went to absurd lengths in apologizing for murderous behavior by the Soviet Union, to be sure, and a small number of them actually spied for the USSR. But they also had important things to say about economic and international affairs, if Americans cared to listen.
At nearly all of our colleges and universities, they didn’t. Communist novelist Howard Fast was banned from speaking at Columbia and at my own institution, New York University. Likewise, the German Communist Gerhart Eisler was barred from the University of Michigan and several other schools.
And it wasn’t just Communists who were kept out; so was anyone suspected of sympathizing with them. So Miner Teachers College—a historically black school in Washington, D.C.—blocked the writer Pearl Buck from speaking; another teachers’ college in California banned Carey McWilliams, editor of the Nation; and Ohio State University turned away Cecil Hinshaw, a leading Quaker pacifist.
Each situation was different, but the rationale was always the same: Communists (and their “fellow travelers”) were supposedly inimical to the essential mission of the institution. And it’s also what protesters at Notre Dame said in 2009, when the university tapped President Obama as its graduation speaker.
Over 300,000 people signed a petition urging Notre Dame to revoke the invitation to Obama, a long-standing supporter of abortion rights. In hosting the President, the petition said, the institution was “betraying its Catholic mission.”
But turning away Obama would have betrayed the university’s academic mission: to promote dialogue and understanding across our myriad differences. Fortunately, Notre Dame held firm to its invitation. Obama gave his address, and hundreds of graduates demonstrated their opposition to his abortion views by affixing pictures of baby feet to their motor boards.
That brings us back to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who won’t have the opportunity to address the Brandeis graduation next month. More to the point, though, students won’t have the chance to challenge and debate her. That’s the core value of the university, and also of a liberal society. Too bad that Brandies—and its avowedly liberal defenders—seem to have forgotten it.
Jonathan Zimmerman teaches history at New York University. His most recent book is “Small Wonder: The Little Red Schoolhouse in History and Memory” (Yale University Press).
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Had the privilege of hearing Jon speak at U of Michigan when he was here to address issues of speech, academic and religios freedom, and civil rights. His historical perspective was enlightening.
Sorry, but I thought the university canceled her commencement speech and honorary degree, but invited her back for to address and discuss with the students. was she invited to speak in place of the commencement address or not? From out here in the midwest, thanks!
Can’t they invite Ayaan Hirsi Ali to a debate or dialogue on a separate occasion? Or just invite her to give a lecture and then have a Q&A with the audience? I don’t think it’s a free speech issue, she’s got plenty of right wing venues, right wing think tanks and right wing media that are more than happy to allow her to voice her opinions
they already did that…yet you have people still harping about it including Hirsi..here and other places…no one’s answered the simple yet reasoned point that if you take DIane’s and other’s outrage to the logical extreme…then what they’re really saying is that Brandeis is literally silencing billions of people every year simply by not giving them honorary degrees. Is anyone willing to defend that absurd argument?
That one is such a straw man that it should appear in a remake of the Wizard of Oz. Your “arguments” seem to get weaker the more your ire increases. No one answers ridiculous straw man arguments because no one was making points even vaguely like them to begin with. And the willful and bizarre misreading of what Diane has said here is so bad that it seems likely that even the most measured responses to you will wind up being grist for the Crazy Mill.
Meanwhile, I’m now halfway through THE CAGED VIRGIN. Which book(s) of Ms. Ali have you read? Surely you can quote something she’s said to support the viewpoint that she’s “racist”?
We must not be reading the same article cause I could have sworn I read this” But the core value of the university is—or should be—open dialogue and discussion. And it was Brandeis—not Ali—who who violated it, just as universities did by keeping out Communist and other left-leaning speakers during the McCarthy era.”
presumably since Diane copied this article and posed a leading question as her blog post title I would assume that she agrees with its arguments…the implication of the quote I have just cited is that Ali has been prevented from engaging in open dialogue and discussion which has not happened. anyway I wasn’t aware that people were permitted to debate and dialogue with individuals receiving honorary degrees…I thought they just gave their speeches, received their accolades and that was it.
when did I say she was racist? And we’re not even discussing her viewpoints anymore so I don’t see it’s relevance to my point…. it’s not a strawman…it’s a logical extension of her argument..you can’t silence someone by refusing to give them an honorary degree while at the same time inviting them to speak and debate in a public forum….it’s just defies common sense how anyone could claim free speech is being infringed upon here.
The strawman argument occurred when you wrote, “No one’s answered the simple yet reasoned point that if you take DIane’s and other’s outrage to the logical extreme…then what they’re really saying is that Brandeis is literally silencing billions of people every year simply by not giving them honorary degrees.”
That’s ridiculous. And that’s why no one has or will answer it. Nice attempted dodge by answering everything BUT the obvious strawman argument to which I referred. Did you seriously think anyone missed it?
You might note, too, that I had earlier written here that no one claims that Ali has no outlets to speak, including POSSIBLY at Brandeis. But only the latter after being publicly slapped in the face by that same organization. As Diane reasonably asked, who would be comfortable accepting that invitation after what’s transpired thus far? Or don’t you think that’s relevant? I have no idea what Ms. Ali feels or intends to do regarding Brandeis, but it wouldn’t be shocking if she mistrusted the university as likely to provide a safe or fair venue for her at this point.
Of course, Brandeis didn’t have to invite Ms. Ali in the first place. Once it did, however, it showed itself to be cowardly by kowtowing to outside and inside political pressure to renege. That suits you fine because you disagree with what you claim to be Ms Ali’s views. And you most decidedly have allied yourself with those who accuse her of Islamophobia and racism. Repeatedly. Of course, ANY critic of Islam is now branded “Islamophobic.” How convenient. Just as any critic of Israel (including Jewish Israelis) is branded either antisemitic or a self-hating Jew. Another very convenient blanket defense against all criticism.
I don’t buy such defenses, and I don’t respect them. Ms. Ali seems to have a long experiential basis for her views. They may ultimately not hold up under careful scrutiny. They may require modification (and perhaps she, herself, will modify them as time goes on). But right or wrong, those views cannot simply be dismissed by epithets. And if you consider yourself progressive, I cannot help but ask: how do you resolve your local politics with the issues of misogyny, to put it mildly, that Ali raises regarding Islamic beliefs and culture? Does she make them up? Or don’t they matter? As a humanist, I cannot sit idly by in the face of some of the heinous practices that appear to be routine in the Islamic world. I’m no less critical of misogynistic practices and attitudes in the west, particularly in the US, and I see and oppose such things daily. Why do Islamic countries get a bye on these matters?
Haha, that’s funny. So Brandeis is silencing “billions of people” by not offering them honorary degrees? I think that’s called “reductio ad absurdum,” if I recall my Latin.
Brandeis offered Ms. Ali an honorary degree. Brandeis did not offer a doctorate to billions of people. Brandeis withdrew their offer under pressure. Brandeis did not act wisely. This was not a good move.
Do I approve? No. Am I outraged? Not as outraged as I am about the monetization of public education, the demonization of hard-working dedicated teachers, the overuse and misuse of standardized testing, and the deception called “reform.”
I’m not arguing her views anymore. I haven’t studied them enough so I’m not going to engage in that line of argumentation. I don’t know how many times I have to say that before you actually internalize it. Mine is not a commentary on her vies but a commentary on the moral and ethical implications of what Brandeis chose to do in revoking her honorary degree
If I were Ali I would happily accept the invitation to debate and dialogue with people at Brandeis who may disagree with me. I can’t say this with any certainty of course but I would presume that she’s afraid of actually being challenged and that’s the reason she hasn’t accepted the invitation back. I’m sure there are probably people on Brandeis campus who wholly agree with her views. There’s no reason to think her ability to actually say her peace would be infringed upon. I would think that the people who disagree with her want their voices heard and their arguments taken seriously. That wouldn’t happen if all they did was disrespect and shout down Ms. Ali while she was saying her peace in an atmosphere in which real dialogue is supposed to be taking place. It’s much easier to accept an honorary degree in a forum in which you won’t be challenged, then it is to accept a speaking invitation in a forum in which you know you will be challenged.
And I don’t understand why you value Hirsi’s feelings over all the people at Brandeis who disagree with her. You think Brandeis has disrespected Ali. By inviting someone to speak in a forum in which they can’t be challenged, a forum in which dialogue most certainly will not be taking place, which is what Brandeis did by initially choosing to give her an honorary degree and let her give a speech in a forum in which she could not be challenged and a forum which was obviously biased in her favor, Brandeis chose to direspect all the people at the university who disagree with her and would have welcomed the opportunity to dialogue with her in a neutral forum. Please explain to me how any university can tout itself as a marketplace of ideas when it prevents its constituents from having that neutral forum to challenge a speaker. Please explain to me why Ali’s feelings and Ali’s disrespect is supposed to be valued more then all those who just wanted the opportunity to debate her…an opportunity which Brandeis initially denied them…which any reasonable person would find profoundly disrespectful. Now they have that opportunity and instead of feigning righteous indignation Ali should accept the invitation and say her peace. No one is naturally entitled to have their views embraced. No one is naturally entitled to speak in a forum in which their views will not be challenged…anyone who doesn’t think of themselves as the repository of all that is wise and true should understand that. Sure could the timing have been better? Yeah the timing could have been better.But something tells me the timing is not your main point of contention
It’s difficult to argue with someone who just keeps moving the goal posts and shifting the focus. If YOU were Ms. Ali, you and I wouldn’t be having this series of disagreements. And if you’d stop putting words into Diane’s mouth, we wouldn’t be having this disagreement.
As for your amazing take on what went on at Brandeis, I’m flabbergasted. Now you contend that the honor was withdrawn so that the university could provide a forum for debate. I see. And Ali was hoping when she got the invitation for an honorary degree that she could slip a fast one past folks at commencement? But all those unhappy people (who mostly appear to represent the views of CAIR, not the average Brandeis student or faculty member) were weeping so much that Brandeis just had no choice but to either rescind their initial offer OR allow Ali to sneak off campus without being confronted. Is that how you view things? It wouldn’t have been possible to have both the honor and a debate later? Time and space in Waltham, MA must really have compressed since I lived there in 1974.
Here’s something to chew over in the meantime. Or not: http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/04/11/where-feminist-anger-brandeis/0EsU60OhyLPk3thM2TuoNJ/story.html
Thank you Michael, that was an excellent article.
Even if all you say is true, Reflective Thinking, they DID invite her to speak and receive an honorary degree and then they UNINVITED her. The rest of your argument is rhetoric. We are not debating her views, we are debating whether the university should have done a double take or a take back of their original position.
Although it was their right, many of us think it was a cowardly action.
End of debate.
I know you’re not debating her views. Neither am I, but Michael seems to think I am even though I’ve denied that multiple times and haven’t said one thing about her views ever since my first couple comments on the other post.
I don’t see how the rest of my argument is just rhetoric whatever that means. If my argument is rhetoric then so is yours. I don’t think it’s cowardly that Brandeis chose not to give a one-sided forum to a speaker when there were people at the university who wanted the opportunity to debate her. That to me is just being respectful of those individuals and to the concept of the university being a marketplace of ideas which Brandeis should have done in the first place. If you can devise a counter to that argument I would love to hear it.
I already gave the alternative. Maintain the original invitation, provide a separate forum. I suggested that multiple times before. You’re the one who absolutely refuses to be reasonable in trying to rationalize a classless play. You’ve invented an either/or scenario that simply has no basis in reality.
And I’d like to see evidence that the main driving force behind opposing Ali’s honor was not pressure from a DC-based Islamist lobbying group, rather than a significant groundswell from the Brandeis campus itself. Even if it WERE the latter, I’d still disagree with what Brandeis did. But in the face of what I’m reading from CAIR, I think this was just another case of US academia folding out of fear. And that makes Jon Zimmerman’s piece even more relevant.
I remember listening to William F. Buckley speak at U of Florida in the mid-to-late ’70s. The venue was so packed most of us had to stand outside and listen on loudspeakers. Gee, we didn’t get to “debate” his views, but it was a terrific opportunity and I’m glad I didn’t miss it. And he had his own TV show and many other speaking engagements. And no one died. We’ve come so far in the last 40 years. Not.
“Even if it WERE the latter, I’d still disagree with what Brandeis did.” Ah so we’ve established this. I knew democracy and regards for the views of students and faculty, constituents in the university, didn’t matter to you in this context. Now it finally comes out explicitly. apparently only the speaker’s feelings and “sticking to your guns” is all that matters
“No one died” This is hyperbole, not an argument. I’m not sure why you put “debate” in quotes since when I say “debate” I do actually mean “debate”
I’d like to see the university conduct a referendum involving all the faculty and students on whether or not the honor should be bestowed. Then make the decision based on that referendum. that’s how all honorary degrees should be bestowed. there’s certainly no reason why a university president or board of trustees or whoever constitutes the small group of higher-ups who grant themselves the power to make that decision, should be the only ones who make that decision.
If you think that it’s “anti-democratic” to defend the rights of minority viewpoints to be heard, even in the face of majority opposition, you REALLY are clueless about how a democratic, free society has to operate. If majorities always got their way without needing to respect the interests of minorities, where would we be?
Your childish attempts to paint me as anti-democratic are, simply, a reflection of your own limited understanding of what it means to live in a society as diverse and complex as this one, and particularly what it means to have academic freedom on campus. If your notions were the rule, then I could only hear speakers that the majority liked, only see movies or hear music on campus that the majority approved of. Only have courses that or lecturers that the majority liked. How many times would we see controversial figures allowed to present on campuses run under your “majority rules, minorities lose” regime?
You’re a very naive, very foolish person. I hope that in time, you’ll gain some perspective (some people do, in time), but right now you appear to have nothing useful to say on this issue. Your every claim, every post, every comment is predictable because your ideas are grounded in such ridiculous absolutism. That might be just fine in Pakistan, but not here or in any complex, diverse, democratic society or institution.
I know you’re not likely to do so, but I wish you’d try to get a grip. No matter how you try to slice it, you’re getting these issues badly wrong.
since when is a referendum not based on a majority? since when is a referendum based on absolutism? I have very little connection to Pakistan. I’ve never been there…know little about the society..so that’just more irrelevancy and hyperbole from you.
you misunderstand what I said…I didn’t say who speaks should be decided on majority rules. that’s absurd I said who gets an honorary degree and gets to give a commencement speech should be decided on majority rules
Wow, I feel so relieved. You’re ONLY going to go to “majority rules” on this ONE instance of academic freedom and speech.
And I’m only going to restrict Pakistanis from ONE place on campus. See how fair that is? It’s not like you can’t go most places. It’s not that I’m biased, it’s just that I took a referendum and the majority of students and faculty voted that way. I have no choice. So even though my college catalog offered you access to the entire university, to free speech and academic freedom, to being to learn in a free environment and shape your own views, I have to keep this one aspect of campus life closed to you. Don’t worry. I won’t take another referendum to see if there are other areas that should be denied you. You can trust me when I say that no amount of pressure from on or off campus would ever get me to extend past this one, eensy-weensy restriction. And it is, after all, democratic. Don’t you feel relieved?
it’s not an issue of academic freedom and freedom of speech….she has been invited to speak in a neutral forum..you’re still equating an honorary degree with speech….i thought we were through with that line of argumentation? which doesn’t make any sense.
You mean YOU’re done with it. I don’t recall anyone else concurring.
I do understand. You have nothing to offer that sheds the smallest light on these issues.
now you’re just feigning memory loss and being petulant…we already agreed she wasn’t being silenced which means her freedom of speech is not being infringed upon…in fact you concurred previously right here
“You might note, too, that I had earlier written here that no one claims that Ali has no outlets to speak, including POSSIBLY at Brandeis.”…
although I’m not sure why you used the word “possibly” since she absolutely has been invited to speak…that is a fact
you just mentioned freedom of speech again…I’m not sure why given that the two of us have already agreed this isn’t a freedom of speech issue..like I said before that line of argumentation has been exhausted.
You won. You won. You won. You’re right. You’re right. You’re right.
Can you shut the front door on your way out, please?
geez seriously chill out…i’m not worried about being right…if I was I wouldn’t be having this discussion with you 🙂
and also you can choose to stop responding at any time…so..ya know…no point in telling me to shut the front door when you are perfectly capable
I mean seriously did you just not read what I said or did you purposely misrepresent me… suddenly wanting the majority to have decisions on who gets an honorary degree is equated with wanting the majority to vote on whether or not every speaker who the university wants to invite should speak? Who’s really being foolish here? of course the majority should NOT have the right to decide who gets invited to speak.
So it’s just a one-issue thing for you? Majority rules on only this? A referendum to be taken every semester about honorary degrees? Whom are you trying to kid?
It’s funny. When YOU take something Diane Ravitch says and run with it to absurdity, you are stunned when it’s pointed out, and you just find it impossible to admit that you’re gone completely off the rails.
When I simply take you at your word and show you the potential consequences of such policies, you’re also stunned and can’t imagine how anyone could go one angstrom past your specific words.
Funny world.
“So it’s just a one-issue thing for you? Majority rules on only this? A referendum to be taken every semester about honorary degrees?”
Yes, from the rooftops yet again. I’m not trying to kid you. I think it would have to go issue by issue to determine whether or not referenda should be used.
“When YOU take something Diane Ravitch says and run with it to absurdity, you are stunned when it’s pointed out, and you just find it impossible to admit that you’re gone completely off the rails. ”
You still haven’t explained why what I said about Diane was absurd. All you did was say it was absurd without giving me an explanation and then you justified that decision by saying I didn’t deserve one.I think that’s pretty funny.
“you’re gone completely off the rails. ”
So now you’re implying that I’m crazy? another perfect way to avoid answering my arguments…what’s the point of discussing something with a crazy person…am I right?
You’re impossible to take seriously. I have no opinion on your sanity or lack thereof. Only on your intellectual honesty. I have explained where you went off the rails (that doesn’t mean “crazy” but rather “off track” in such an extreme manner as to have completely abandoned the topic) in your ridiculous projection about “denying billions their rights”; I quoted your exact words. How much more specific do I have to get?
I can’t waste further time with you. If someone else jumps in who supports your notions, I might take a crack at arguing with him/her, on the chance that I’ll get a reasonable conversation. You’re just incapable or flatly unwilling to stay on point, to admit to your own claims when they’re obviously unfounded, and, I suspect, to admit to what REALLY bothers you about this situation, which is that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a vocal and highly-articulate criticism of contemporary Islam as a religion, a culture, a political force in many countries, and a force for the repression of women. You’re entitled to such views, of course, but why deny that that is what moves you so strongly here. You’re clutching at straws on the issue of academic freedom, desperately trying to find something to hold onto that would make sense on a consistent basis. But you can’t, because this is a very narrow issue for you. Critics of Islam don’t deserve fair treatment.
“You’re entitled to such views, of course, but why deny that that is what moves you so strongly here.”
Yeah your taking me at my word….you do a very darn good job of it. I thought you actually had to trust someone was being honest in order to take them at their word…apparently not in this alternate dimension where words don’t mean what they actually mean.
“denying billions their rights”
let me spell it out slowly for you and quote everything I intend to quote so you can understand what I’m saying… the author, the author of the article which Diane posted says right here,
“That brings us back to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who won’t have the opportunity to address the Brandeis graduation next month. More to the point, though, students won’t have the chance to challenge and debate her.”
The charge that students won’t have the chance to challenge and debate her is a bold-faced lie. Like I said before and also Ellen said before, a commencement speech is not a debate. So the author’s charge that no one will have the opportunity to debate her because she’s not getting the chance to be a commencement speaker is mystifying. It also continues to wrongly subscribe to the argument that free speech and notions of academic freedom have been infringed upon in making this decision. Diane posted this article without criticism and posed a leading
question in the beginning that would lead one to believe that she agrees with its entirety…that leads me to believe that Diane still thinks that Ali is being silenced….which if you logically extend that argument then everyone who doesn’t get an honorary degree from Brandeis is being silenced by Brandeis…if you think one person is being silenced by being denied an honorary degree then it would only be logical for you think that every person who doesn’t receive an honorary degree from Brandeis is being silenced by Brandeis…I know the argument is absurd and I know neither Diane nor the author has stated it explicitly but if you take the “one person is being silenced” argument to its logical conclusions then that is what you come up with. You get it now? That is what I have to say about Diane
“what REALLY bothers you about this situation, which is that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a vocal and highly-articulate criticism of contemporary Islam as a religion, a culture, a political force in many countries, and a force for the repression of women. You’re entitled to such views, of course, but why deny that that is what moves you so strongly here. You’re clutching at straws on the issue of academic freedom, desperately trying to find something to hold onto that would make sense on a consistent basis. But you can’t, because this is a very narrow issue for you. Critics of Islam don’t deserve fair treatment.”
keep repeating it till the cows come home…perhaps I’ll start to think myself a two faced lier the more you tell me that I am one…
“if you think one person is being silenced by being denied an honorary degree then it would only be logical for you think that every person who doesn’t receive an honorary degree from Brandeis is being silenced by Brandeis…I know the argument is absurd and I know neither Diane nor the author has stated it explicitly but if you take the “one person is being silenced” argument to its logical conclusions then that is what you come up with. You get it now? That is what I have to say about Diane”
Not everyone (in fact, hardly ANYONE) is offered an honorary degree from Brandeis or anywhere else. So, very very few people could be offered one and then have the offer retracted due to political pressure from special interest groups that are paid lobbyists whose job is to attack critics of Islam and Islamic states.
Hence, there is NO logical step you can take from that to your ridiculous statement about “billions” or “every person” being silenced. It’s such an idiotic argument, even as a purposeful reductio, that only an idiot could make it, let alone continue to defend it as reasonable. It’s not reasonable. It’s not even VAGUELY reasonable.
A sensible person in your position would say, “Okay, I took a shot, missed, withdraw it as silly, and will try something else.” That you don’t speaks volumes about you, your mindset, and your unbelievably weak position on all of this. Of course, you also don’t want any discussion of free speech, of academic freedom, and now not even of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whose political views are at the heart of this entire debate.
So congratulations. Having narrowed the conversation to an angstrom-wide strip of nothingness, you’re a huge winner! Go home and celebrate your victory.
“Hence, there is NO logical step you can take from that to your ridiculous statement about “billions” or “every person” being silenced.”
Of course there is…as long as you believe free speech equals an honorary degree…and the word “silenced” means what I know it to mean…and this section from the article Diane posted
“At nearly all of our colleges and universities, they didn’t. Communist novelist Howard Fast was banned from speaking at Columbia and at my own institution, New York University. Likewise, the German Communist Gerhart Eisler was barred from the University of Michigan and several other schools.
And it wasn’t just Communists who were kept out; so was anyone suspected of sympathizing with them. So Miner Teachers College—a historically black school in Washington, D.C.—blocked the writer Pearl Buck from speaking; another teachers’ college in California banned Carey McWilliams, editor of the Nation; and Ohio State University turned away Cecil Hinshaw, a leading Quaker pacifist.”
means what it says. why talk about other people being banned and silenced from speaking at universities if you don’t think that it’s relevant to this situation….which it isn’t because Ali has neither been banned from speaking nor silenced.
You won’t quit when you’re behind. You won’t quit when you’re ahead. Have you considered the possibility that there is no issue here other than your desperate need to be the smartest person in the room and get acknowledged as such?
Problem is, the room started with Diane Ravitch and Jon Zimmerman in it, both of whom know so much more about history, academia, and education than you’ll probably ever know that the notion of your getting the better of either of them, let alone both, is laughable.
This is my last comment to you. To quote Van Morrison, “Rave on, John Donne.” I’m done with you.
“Problem is, the room started with Diane Ravitch and Jon Zimmerman in it, both of whom know so much more about history, academia, and education than you’ll probably ever know that the notion of your getting the better of either of them, let alone both, is laughable.”
Again more distraction from another point of mine which you refuse to answer.
“Have you considered the possibility that there is no issue here other than your desperate need to be the smartest person in the room and get acknowledged as such? ”
more mis-representation of my intentions to distract and avoid answering my last point…and to think you had the nerves of steel which you most definitely have that allowed you to claim that you have just been taking me at my word…
“When I simply take you at your word”
seriously????? you haven’t taken me at my word…you’ve consistently misrepresented my intentions and have taken the liberty to speak for me…go back and read the numerous times where you’ve done that.
And where you did that for Diane and Prof. Zimmerman? Do you deny that you started this nonsense with EXACTLY that tactic? And that you keep pretending that your exact words weren’t quoted to you to point out where you did it?
And you wonder why I don’t really take you seriously?
I suspect that you’re not interested in such referenda when the person being honored (and then NOT honored) is someone you agree with. And I know that no institution the size of Brandeis can run reasonably if every such decision has to be brought to a vote of the entire campus (do alumni get to vote? What about donors? Institutional contributors? Corporate sponsors? Where do you want to draw THAT line?)
I went to a very small college with two separate but connected campuses of about 250 students. And running things there on a strictly majority rules basis was impractical enough, as we discovered. Some decisions can be put to community votes, when the community is sufficiently small and the issues can reasonably be said to impact enough members. But what you propose (well, not really, because you don’t seriously propose that this be done ALL the time: just when the “wrong” people threaten to speak on campus) is not reasonable for a community the size of Brandeis.
The real point here, though, is that if that gets voted on, what next? Which professor may teach a given course? How about which textbook or novels or plays may be taught? Political correctness runs amok on campuses enough as it is. And imagine how today’s pseudo-liberal PC types would feel if suddenly they were on the campus of Oral Roberts University or Liberty or some other fundamentalist or right-wing dominated institution? Would they opt for “majority rules” then? Would you? Pull the other leg, it’s shorter.
Academic freedom doesn’t mean “majority rules.”
Can I take this one step further. If we are speaking about “switching” or “disregarding” particular speakers are we not too far from banning books from the library which support controversial viewpoints.
After all, there is a debate going on about whether organizations should be forced to honor health policies which dispense contraceptives since they might be used for a birth control which is contrary to the corporate point of view or their religious beliefs.
Might we not assume these same attitudes could be or already are being applied to libraries. After all, if you believe that homosexuals should not marry, then why allow fiction or nonfiction which belies this belief. And if a book appears anti Moslem or anti Jewish or anti Christian, then why should it be on the book shelf. Believe me when I tell you there are many books which fall into these categories, plus more on a similar tact.
Where does it all end?
Time to reread Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451.
“I suspect that you’re not interested in such referenda when the person being honored (and then NOT honored) is someone you agree with.”
you do realize that I am fine with you responding to my points without mis-representing my intentions even after I’ve explicitly stated my intentions several times…there’s no one-ups-man-ship going on here. I don’t think I’m better then you and I’m not trying to beat you in a contest of words. in a previous comment on Diane’s other blog post on this topic you claimed that I was responding to your tone when I made comments similar to these. I wasn’t responding to your tone. Mis-representing someone’s intentions in a discussion is an oft-used way of distracting from one’s main points just as much as is going on about someone’s tone. It is perfectly reasonable for me to object to misrepresentation of my intentions especially since all it really serves to do is sow mistrust. I mean most people would have chosen to end this discussion a long time ago, given the number of times their intentions have been questioned in direct contravention to numerous explicit statements laying out their intentions. I chose not to because I value this discussion more then I care about your blatant disrespect and repeated attempts to speak for me instead of with me.
I am interested in such referenda. Do I have to put it in all CAPS for it to penetrate your brain? Do i have to put a million exclamation points after it? I am very much enjoying having this discussion. You may not think so. You may think I’m sitting here with a vein bulging through my skull, violently pushing the keys on my keyboard but I assure you I am not. I realize that students come to university not to have their views coddled and confirmed but their views challenged and their minds made uncomfortable. That’s why we don’t let them choose their professors or their professor’s viewpoints or what classes their professors can teach. Again I agree with you (surprise, surprise), that would be absurd. and guess what…students also have the option to agree or disagree with whatever their professor is saying. they have control over that. a professor is the equivalent of a speaker. either the audience can agree or disagree. like I said many times before, an honorary degree is an institutional endorsement (unlike the hiring of a professor…are you going to argue that the presidents of universities endorse the viewpoints promulgated by all their professors in all their classes… and the viewpoints promulgated by all the books and textbooks that students are made to read in those classes?…that would be absurd and therefore it is a false equivalency)) and all the constituents of that institution should be able to vote on it…
Honestly I’m undecided on where I would want to draw that line. I’d have to get back to you on that.
I don’t see how a referendum would be logistically impossible. Why not just set up an internet page where the students and professors could sign in with their university ID’s and vote? the mechanism is already there.
By the way, in the interests of full disclosure, do you think you should mention your ethnic and religious background? Some of us post under our real names. I wish everyone did. And that everyone was up-front about potential biases. You want to be part of an educational reform movement in this country? Maybe you should first try to grasp why academic freedom is one of the most important freedoms this country has, and why any and every threat to it must be opposed, regardless of how one feels about the specific content being defended. Selective speech rights, selective rights for speakers to appear (with or WITHOUT opposition, depending upon the venue), is not respecting our 1st amendment rights or our vital tradition of academic freedom. And never can be.
I am Pakistani. I am Jewish. I am agnostic. I do not see what any of that has any bearing on what I’ve said.. I do know what academic freedom is and I’ve already explained why this case does not infringe on anyone’s academic freedom simply because they invited her back to speak in a neutral forum which CAIR, I guarantee you does not condone..since CAIR does oppose the simple act of allowing a forum to a speaker who has something critical to say about Islam (regardless of whether or not that person is receiving an honor or not) as evidenced by the article Diane cites. By the way I do not agree with CAIR because not allowing someone to speak, that infringes upon academic freedom. Should I shout that from the rooftops or are you still going to question my intentions even though I’ve been fully honest with you even though I may disagree with you
or you can choose to believe I’m lying about my background ..up to you
RT – she was invited as a commencement speaker, not to participate in a debate.
And I have attended many speaker events – except for a few questions from the audience, the speaker determines the dialogue. I don’t see where the debate enters the picture.
furthermore I don’t hold any ire…i’m simply discussing an issue. how could you possibly see “ire” through a computer screen?
by accusing me of posing a strawman, all you do is avoid answering my argument.
There’s no basis whatsoever for your “logical conclusion” about what either Diane or Jon, or anyone else here has suggested. It’s just silly and you have no warrants for it other than a fevered imagination (and, I suspect, the fact that you really have nothing substantive to say about Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s writing, as you almost assuredly haven’t read it).
Exactly how did I misread what Diane said. She posted this article which claims that Brandeis has abandoned its commitment to debate and dialogue even though they invited Ali back to speak. that is a de facto argument that Ali’s speech is still being infringed upon. it also states that students won’t have the chance to challenge and debate her which is an outright lie and simply bad journalism. students will have a chance if Ms. Ali chooses to accept the invitation to speak in a neutral forum. Diane posed a leading question which takes a line from the article as her blog post title. And then she starts out by praising the author and offers no additional commentary afterwards. Is it a unreasonable for me to think that DIane and only Diane(I’m not talking about anyone else here including you) agrees with everything that is said in this article including the part where the author claims that Ali’s right to free speech is still being infringed upon and students are being denied the chance to debate her?
yes I haven’t read her writing…it’s amazing how you continue to accuse me of things that I fully admit to. usually people only continue to do that when the other person is denying the accusation…
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a fellow at the Belfer Center of Harvard’s Kennedy School and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. I don’t know anything about the Belfer Center but I do know that the AEI is a right wing libertarian type of “think” tank. AEI claims to be non-partisan but it’s amazing how so many GOPers tend to gravitate to the AEI and people like Dick Cheney find a friendly audience there. There are many admirable aspects to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, she has a great story but she’s hanging out with the wrong crowd. Paul Krugman once described the right wing think tanks, like AEI, Heritage and Cato, as taking the think out of think tank.
But, Joe, Krugman’s opinion is quite suspect.
And Harlan, your opinion of Krugman is even more highly doubtful.
Thank you for the response, Michael Paul Goldenberg. Since you say it, I’ll have to look again at Krugman’s opinions. YOU I do respect.
The issue here isn’t whether Brandeis should offer Ayaan Hirsi Ali the opportunity to speak. Very probably it should, for the reasons the author names, and indeed the school did invite her to campus to speak in another context when it rescinded its original invitation. It’s whether Brandeis should invite Ayaan Hirsi Ali to speak in the context of awarding her an honorary degree, a distinction for which someone known for condemning an entire world religion in extremely crude, simplistic terms probably isn’t the best candidate. These are two different things. Mr. Zimmerman’s confusion of the two in this piece doesn’t help shed much light on the issues of academic freedom raised by the Brandeis-Ayaan Hirsi Ali controversy.
Joseph, if I were offered an honorary degree, then it was rescinded, I would not accept an invitation to participate in a panel discussion. It is an insult. On both counts.
Clearly, which is why Brandeis should never have offered the honorary degree in the first place. Doing so put it in an ugly situation in which there were only two possible courses of action–award the degree or rescind the invitation–both of them extremely unpleasant and damaging to the institution. All things considered, I think it chose the better one.
I agree that it was wrong of Brandeis to cancel its invitation to Ali even though I find some of her anti Islamic views extreme. If I were Brandeis I would not want to give her an honorary degree and would not have invited her to speak at the commencement because of her extreme anti-Islamic views. I might have invited her to speak at a different forum. Unfortunately, the cancellation of her commencement speech and honorary degree sets a bad precedent for free speech, even though they have promised to invite her back again.
Brandeis has put itself in a terrible position. On a related problem I think it is a mistake for Brandeis as a “nonsectarian Jewish-sponsored . . .university” to invite such an extreme anti-Islamic speaker. A similar problem also exists among Arab and Islamic institutions as well. The Times of Israel had a thoughtful article by Yossi Klein Halevi and Abdullah Antepli addressing this. http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-muslims-and-jews-should-learn-from-brandeis/
I have to strongly disagree. To award an honorary degree to someone whose bigoted and intolerant views are in such opposition to the entire spirit of Brandeis University would be a travesty. In fact, Ms Ali has been invited to come to Brandeis to speak and participate in open debate. Unlike the Communists in the cold war era, she has net been denied a platform from which to express her views, What she has been denied is an honorary degree from Brandeis, and no one has a right to that
Paul, doesn’t bigotry imply prejudice? How is Ayaan Hirsi Ali prejudiced in that she actually was raised in Islam, in several Islamic countries, and personally experienced things that shaped her views of the religion and culture? Seems like that is a solid foundation for a viewpoint, whether you agree with it or not. She certainly wasn’t raised to believe what she now believes, so it can’t be suggested that a racist, bigoted anti-Muslim family or community prejudiced her against Islam. Quite the opposite.
And yet, it moves. . .
Hirsi Ali understands Islam far far better than most. She has lived it and been the victim of it’s practices. As an intellectual, she has studied the religion; it’s history of imperialism, and it’s often barbaric religious Sharia laws.She has been a true and very brave fighter for the rights of women living under Islamic law that proscribes for them a status as the property of men who are free to do whatever they want to do to daughters, wives and sisters. Everything she has said about Islam itself is correct. I suggest that you all read Andrew Bostom’s “The Legacy of Jihad,” which is a collection of the writings of Islamic thinkers and scholars. These are as primary as primary sources get. Read everything you can read before making statements about something you know little about. It’s very politically correct to think that all religions and cultures are essentially the same and that they are all good at heart and all think essentially like we do. That’s actually very ethnocentric thinking on our part. “Islam” itself doesn’t respect others or tolerate difference .This book will explain…..It is clear, of course, that every Muslim does not follow every dictate of Islam. That’s a difference that she and many others do talk and write about. Read Wafa Sultan, Noni Darwish,Ibn Warraq, and many other ex-Muslims who also know more about Islam than most. Understand that all Muslims, like people in all religions, do not follow the orthodox line of their religion. The sad thing is that the fundamentalist view of Islam has taken a dominant position politically, also due to misunderstanding by perhaps well-meaning Westerners. To support the Muslim Brotherhood like our state department does in Egypt or Saudi Wahabi fundamentalists and Jihads, is basically equivalent to supporting the WW2 Nazis instead of the democratically oriented Germans at that time. Not all Muslims support all of Islam, but heros like Hirsi Ali are the ones that can explain clearly to those not in the know about the dire dangers of the brand of fundamentalist Islam that is overpowering others. “Moderate” Muslims, those who do not follow all of Islam’s dictates, such as converting or killing all inferior “infidels,” or insuring the inferior status of women, are in great danger from their fundamentalist brothers. These are the people who are fighting for their lives in the Middle East and beyond and these democratically oriented folks are the ones we should be helping. In order to understand Islam and all the political and social implications of it’s power, we do need to educate ourselves and not make the comfortable assumptions we liberals do make about “all people wanting the same thing,” etc….Go out on a limb and read all those “not politically correct books,” and listen to those “not politically correct speakers,” and read what both the “right-wingers” and “left-wingers” have to say on the subject. Don’t just assume that either philosophical stance explains it all… …..I’m not surprised at what Brandeis did as it is a very “politically correct” decision and it does not leave them open to reprisals. What I do suggest is that we all need to look at issues and inform ourselves on even very uncomfortable subjects…even those that take us outside our comfort zones of “left” or “right” parties. Not everything is either this or that, there are grays, and this subject is one of them. …Hirsi Ali is one of the great women of our times! She is not a racist and is not anti-Muslim…She’s anti-Islam and therein lies all the difference….Dare to Read, Read, Read on this subject….Thank you Diane Ravitch for bringing up this serious subject of our times……All of us and our democratic institutions need to be able to approach issues rationally and equipped with knowledge. I fear that the “irrational” reactive approach is taking over. We need to not only hear, but most highly honor, the few as brave as Hirsi Ali.
Hirsi Ali has had numerous opportunities to speak and express herself and her views. She’s not being suppressed in this country. She’s been on CSPAN many times.
No one has suggested that Ali doesn’t have outlets for her views.
The issue with Brandeis is that they invited her and offered her an honor. Then, due to political pressure, they withdrew the honor. Having insulted her publicly (I don’t believe she sought the honorary degree in the first place or the opportunity to address graduates), Brandeis then tries to cover itself by offering a different venue for Ali to speak. Whether she accepts it or not, whether she has other outlets or not, Brandeis screwed up. The right move was to stick by its guns on the honor and to offer those who objected the opportunity to express their views, possibly in a forum with Ali or in some other format.
It’s been argued here that the withdrawal of the offer is evidence of a fair, democratic process at work: people protested (how many and what percentage of the community isn’t mentioned, nor, on my view, does it matter), and the good leadership at Brandeis saw the error of its ways in making the initial offer. Sagely, they made a course correction. Ms. Ali’s feathers are ruffled? Well, too bad. She’s a bad person and after all, she got an invitation to speak some other time.
I think that argument is specious. First, I seriously dispute the notion that if the speaker had been someone respected and supported by those make that argument that they would be happy with this outcome. On the contrary, I believe they would be outraged. Their rationalization here simply connects with their views of Ms. Ali. I’ve offered for comparison the idea of Brandeis inviting Nelson Mandela to receive an honorary degree, then after getting pressure from students or alumni or corporate donors, withdrawing the honor but offering Mandela another venue. Not one of these people would say, well, hey, majority rules. Or anything of the kind.
Ms. Ali’s alleged crime is a clear-cut case of lacking political correctness on a campus that may pride itself for its intellectual openness but which in fact has shown its susceptibility to at least one flavor of political pressure. Would those on the American Left who support Brandeis’ call here be as quick to support it were the politics of the dis-invitee more to its liking? Not bloody likely.
Finally, I wonder once again, what gives a bunch of American non-Muslims the right to judge who is suitable to level criticism of Islam and what criticism is acceptable? Imagine a Muslim declaring who is allowed to critique Christian fundamentalists and in what manner. Just imagine.
I’m about 1/4th of the way through Ali’s first book, THE CAGED VIRGIN. What strikes me as interesting about it is not the criticisms leveled against radical Islam, but the lack of perspective Ali seems to have on fundamentalism in Western religion. It’s understandable that her focus is the problems with the religious, social, and political tradition in which she was raised (and, frankly, I agree with her take on those in the West who seem unwilling or unable to be critical of that tradition). It’s also understandable that as a relative newcomer to the West, she either hesitates to critique reactionary elements in the native religions and political movements here, or is not yet well-positioned to see them for what they are. But in the long run, she’s going to need to openly express the contradictions and hypocrisy that undergird the right-wing agenda in the west and its fundamentalist religious roots as seen in such contemporary books as Jeff Sharlett’s THE FAMILY and Max Blumenthal’s REPUBLICAN GOMORRAH , if she wants to be seen not as some tool of the American right-wing.
I don’t believe, in fact, that she is such a tool. Nor do I find her critique of radical Islamic fundamentalism and the impact it has on much of the rest of the Islamic world (regardless of the “extremism” or lack of charity she expresses towards what others, including Prof. Zimmerman, characterize as “moderate Islam”) unreasonable, racist (what race, exactly, is she targeting?), etc. Given her experiences in Saudi Arabia and Somalia, as well as what she went through in the Netherlands, the death threats she faced there, the assassination of Theo van Gogh, and her work to help oppressed women in the Islamic world and in Islamic communities in Europe, etc., it’s hard for me to fathom how some people in the American Left can be so certain that their perspective is more accurate than Ali’s.
Which books of hers have her critics here read, exactly, and what statements of hers, specifically, demonstrate that she is a racist? Which comments are beyond reason when it comes to Islamic involvement with terrorism? With the political, intellectual, social, sexual, and economic repression of women? I find it more than a bit ironic that Western people who consider themselves to be radical and supporters of feminism can attack Ali with impunity given the main focus of her work to liberate Islamic women and liberalize Islamic culture. If SHE is not “allowed” to criticize the culture and religion in which she grew up, who, exactly, is? Or is criticism of Islam simply never legitimate, which criticism of Western religion, be it by Jews, Christians, Muslims, atheists, or anyone else perfectly fair and legitimate? Why, as she asks, are the rules different for would-be critics and criticism of one world religion, Islam? How does it warrant special immunity from any and all criticism? Could that have anything at all with the connection between radical contemporary Islam and terrorist violence? Or is that just a complete coincidence?
Thanks, Bea. I suspect you’ll draw a good deal of flack for your comment, but that can’t come as a surprise to you. I, for one, appreciate what you wrote.
Thank you Michael! I expect many people will be unhappy with what we both wrote. I’m very well read on this and my message is that we all need to read many sources and educate ourselves beyond what is written or heard in either mainstream or “alternative” media. This is the time to apply that “scholarly” habit we teachers hopefully model and promote in our work.
I thank all the commenters for their contributions on this thread.
I am reminded of the following:
“To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.” [Frederick Douglass]
The above is especially important when feelings and views are so strong. I urge viewers to reread the comments by Jonathan Zimmerman in the posting. Then ask themselves whether it was better or worse when a few self-selected members of the establishment got to decide for the rest of use whose views could be heard and whose views were verboten.
And don’t forget that the self-styled “education reformers” have tried mightily to get all deviations from, alternatives to, and objections against their Potemkin Village Business Plan for $tudent $ucce$$ to be considered so vile, so off limits, so offensive, that they need not even be considered.
😎
This fits right in with what I wrote in a post yesterday. I read things about the end of two parties, but recently read a scholarly publication about politics in NC pointing out that we are actually experiencing the END of a one party system; that is, one (Democrats) dominated by an assumed Protestant ethic. Our Democrats are now really having to consider what being liberal means (it was easy when whites were in charge and Sunday School and baptism the norm for most). Not so much anymore.
I correct one thing I typed yesterday which was that the silent majority voted in favor of an Amendnent against get marriage. The proposition was voted on in an unpopular election cycle, so it is questionable whether it was the silent majority or just provoked and extreme folks who came out to vote just for that.
I can see the liberal society needs to debate issues line of thinking at the university level. I still think, though, that how to fit that line of thinking into elementary school is a conundrum. Children want and need guidance and parameters. Stand for nothing, fall for anything is real for children.
And again I come back to my prevailing epiphany of today which is that the dominant threats we are facing today are a result of federal action and energy. This leaves states and counties pushing back, as another post today shows. But the dialogue of how to raise children could take up the time involved in raising them. Shouldn’t we have some idea of what to do so we don’t waste ten years (an entire generation) on the liberal dialogue about what is best for them?
At this point, parental instinct is what will prevail. And for many parents, given the crossfire of the dialogue/debate and the fallout of unattended-to pockets of poverty dominating school culture, instinct will point parents to charters and private school.
Timing is everything. We got it completely wrong in 2002. Now what?
“get” marriage was meant to read “gay” marriage (re: the Amendment).
Auto-correct is a phenomena with impacts that somehow fit into this current debate too, perhaps. Not sure how but all things 21st Century seem connected somehow.
More important, WHY did Brandeis withdraw the invitation? Protests by CAIR. Sort of proves Hirsan’s point.
Ali’s point, of course.
I suppose it all points to the role of the university in the United States. Is it a place for students to be exposed to all points of view to debate so they can develop their own individual opinions or is it to maintain the status quo?
Brandeis started out with the first, then morphed to the second.
I’m not even sure that Brandeis is supporting “the status quo” so much as it’s supporting a frightening trend on college campuses of limiting conservative (or perceived-as-conservative) speech, opinions, behavior (be it on the part of guests, faculty, staff, or students), and also selectively punishing the same things from the left if they are “too controversial” (e.g., Ward Churchill). Sometimes the attempts at repression are reactive, as in the Ali case; other times, they are, ahem, proactive, as seems to be the case on many campuses with overzealous mid-level administrators with nothing better to do than act as thought and language police.
What bothers me to no end is the number of people on both the right and the left who think they’re such advocates for academic freedom and free speech, but fail to see how their willingness to be selective about who gets those rights negates their claim that they believe in either. I never realized how many lawyers read this blog until the various experts on constitutional and academic law starting weighing in here on the Ali/Brandeis situation. I was hoping for less legalistic and more ethical conversations. Silly me.
I see your point Micael. And it’s both sides of the line which are being squelched.
Buffalo must be more progressive. UB has an excellent Speaker Series. Over the last ten years I’ve been to see Laura Bush, Barbara Ehrenreich, the Dalai Lama, Jay Leno, John Stewart, and my favorite – Steven Colbert. They also had both Bill and Hillary Clinton and Al Gore as speakers. There are many more I have missed. Tom Toles, a political cartoonist and a UB graduate, was the commencement speaker – who received an honorary doctorate – at my daughter’s graduation.
In addition to UB, there is a book group which invites international authors to speak to sell out crowds.
And other local colleges have similar events open to their students and to the public. It was my privilege to hear Maya Angelou at Buff State and Bugliosi, the author of Helter Skelter (back in the day), at Niagara University. When I attended UB I got to meet Moe of the Three Stooges and hear Rod Serling recite the opening lines to the Twilight Zone (but that was pre Speaker Series days).
I thought that is what higher education was all about – Opportunities and experiences beyond the realm of every day life.
If you check out the F.I.R.E website you can keep abreast of free speech and academic freedom issues across the nation. What’s wonderful about that group is that it’s run by people with diverse political views, unified by a passionate support for the 1st amendment and academic freedom. Even the ACLU gets some of these cases wrong, due to its own proclivities to cave in when pressure of a certain sort is applied (or from certain sources). I’ve never known F.I.R.E. to cave in. And that takes real integrity and, to my thinking, a deep understanding of why everyone’s speech has to be protected.
I wrote a paper in my senior year in high school on censorship in the US, Britain, France, and the then Soviet Union. For all our high-blown rhetoric to the contrary, the US has had some very ugly incidents when it comes to censoring writing (the burning of Wilhelm Reich’s books in incinerators on NYC’s lower west side in the mid-1950s by the federal government being one of the most outrageous and heinous). When Americans get scared enough, the thin veneer of “democracy” peels off pretty readily. Right now, in the US and Europe, we’re seeing a lot of fear driving various authorities to try to suppress free expression and a surprising number of people who value their safety over those rights. And then, the terrorists really DO win. Whether the forces who use terrorist tactics to frighten officials or citizens into fearing free expression are political, religious, economic, or otherwise matters not. They must be opposed at every turn.
Nice post, Michael.
While I don’t always agree with the ACLU, I accept their claims because not only do they protect others, they also protect ME and MY rights.
And I’m very nervous of how the government has been seeping into my privacy. The current policies make Nixon look sane.
I’d say they make Nixon look both prescient and like he just didn’t have enough high-tech to fully realize his darkest dreams.
The international author speaker series is called Babel sponsored by Just Buffalo Literary Society. Google to see next year’s speaker line up.
Damn it. Missed Patti Smith on Friday. Would have been worth the drive.
Oh, wait, that’s NEXT year. My son’s 20th birthday, too. Might have to go.
Michael…The technique of grinding down the real discussion into dust is used often by those who refuse to see the real point. It’s the technique of taking you off on a tangent so as not to deal with the real issue at hand. I’ve seen it used many times before and is most likely part of some “training” by CAIR or one of it’s delightful cousins.
I thought he was just brain-damaged. Ockham’s Razor and all that, Bea. But your theory might play, too.
Of course, it would be more worrisome if there were anyone pushing back besides just the one person. Then, there might actually be some meaningful debate being undermined.
What I love about the Brandeis situation is that it got me to read Ali and a couple of other folks I’d been meaning to read for years. She writes really well (no surprise, given her interviews). I never want to be as ignorant as the opposition.
http://www.thefire.org/video-the-state-of-free-speech-in-america-with-lukianoff-fish-rauch-posner-rosen/
This should be enlightening to anyone whose mind isn’t already shut tight.
“Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” –Mark Twain
Finished Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s first book, THE CAGED VIRGIN, last night. Impressive, thought-provoking, and probably unread by her critics here, just as most of those Muslims who attacked the film she made with Theo Van Gogh never bothered to watch it (not unlike many of those who attacked Scorsese’s LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST). Love to discuss specifics, not gross generalities about her and her views, grounded in things she’s actually said and/or written. Any takers?
Ok, I’m a taker, but perhaps email would be better?
mikegold@umich.edu