How strange that a university founded by Jewish philanthropists would offer an honorary degree to a woman who fights for gender equality and then withdraw its offer because protestors said she was “Islamophobic.”
Here’s What I Would Have Said at Brandeis
We need to make our universities temples not of dogmatic orthodoxy, but of truly critical thinking.
By AYAAN HIRSI ALI
April 10, 2014 6:38 p.m. ET
On Tuesday, after protests by students, faculty and outside groups, Brandeis University revoked its invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali to receive an honorary degree at its commencement ceremonies in May. The protesters accused Ms. Hirsi Ali, an advocate for the rights of women and girls, of being “Islamophobic.” Here is an abridged version of the remarks she planned to deliver.
One year ago, the city and suburbs of Boston were still in mourning. Families who only weeks earlier had children and siblings to hug were left with only photographs and memories. Still others were hovering over bedsides, watching as young men, women, and children endured painful surgeries and permanent disfiguration. All because two brothers, radicalized by jihadist websites, decided to place homemade bombs in backpacks near the finish line of one of the most prominent events in American sports, the Boston Marathon.
All of you in the Class of 2014 will never forget that day and the days that followed. You will never forget when you heard the news, where you were, or what you were doing. And when you return here, 10, 15 or 25 years from now, you will be reminded of it. The bombs exploded just 10 miles from this campus.
I read an article recently that said many adults don’t remember much from before the age of 8. That means some of your earliest childhood memories may well be of that September morning simply known as “9/11.”
You deserve better memories than 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing. And you are not the only ones. In Syria, at least 120,000 people have been killed, not simply in battle, but in wholesale massacres, in a civil war that is increasingly waged across a sectarian divide. Violence is escalating in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Libya, in Egypt. And far more than was the case when you were born, organized violence in the world today is disproportionately concentrated in the Muslim world.
Another striking feature of the countries I have just named, and of the Middle East generally, is that violence against women is also increasing. In Saudi Arabia, there has been a noticeable rise in the practice of female genital mutilation. In Egypt, 99% of women report being sexually harassed and up to 80 sexual assaults occur in a single day.
Especially troubling is the way the status of women as second-class citizens is being cemented in legislation. In Iraq, a law is being proposed that lowers to 9 the legal age at which a girl can be forced into marriage. That same law would give a husband the right to deny his wife permission to leave the house.
Sadly, the list could go on. I hope I speak for many when I say that this is not the world that my generation meant to bequeath yours. When you were born, the West was jubilant, having defeated Soviet communism. An international coalition had forced Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The next mission for American armed forces would be famine relief in my homeland of Somalia. There was no Department of Homeland Security, and few Americans talked about terrorism.
Two decades ago, not even the bleakest pessimist would have anticipated all that has gone wrong in the part of world where I grew up. After so many victories for feminism in the West, no one would have predicted that women’s basic human rights would actually be reduced in so many countries as the 20th century gave way to the 21st.
Today, however, I am going to predict a better future, because I believe that the pendulum has swung almost as far as it possibly can in the wrong direction.
When I see millions of women in Afghanistan defying threats from the Taliban and lining up to vote; when I see women in Saudi Arabia defying an absurd ban on female driving; and when I see Tunisian women celebrating the conviction of a group of policemen for a heinous gang rape, I feel more optimistic than I did a few years ago. The misnamed Arab Spring has been a revolution full of disappointments. But I believe it has created an opportunity for traditional forms of authority—including patriarchal authority—to be challenged, and even for the religious justifications for the oppression of women to be questioned.
Yet for that opportunity to be fulfilled, we in the West must provide the right kind of encouragement. Just as the city of Boston was once the cradle of a new ideal of liberty, we need to return to our roots by becoming once again a beacon of free thought and civility for the 21st century. When there is injustice, we need to speak out, not simply with condemnation, but with concrete actions.
One of the best places to do that is in our institutions of higher learning. We need to make our universities temples not of dogmatic orthodoxy, but of truly critical thinking, where all ideas are welcome and where civil debate is encouraged. I’m used to being shouted down on campuses, so I am grateful for the opportunity to address you today. I do not expect all of you to agree with me, but I very much appreciate your willingness to listen.
I stand before you as someone who is fighting for women’s and girls’ basic rights globally. And I stand before you as someone who is not afraid to ask difficult questions about the role of religion in that fight.
The connection between violence, particularly violence against women, and Islam is too clear to be ignored. We do no favors to students, faculty, nonbelievers and people of faith when we shut our eyes to this link, when we excuse rather than reflect.
So I ask: Is the concept of holy war compatible with our ideal of religious toleration? Is it blasphemy—punishable by death—to question the applicability of certain seventh-century doctrines to our own era? Both Christianity and Judaism have had their eras of reform. I would argue that the time has come for a Muslim Reformation.
Is such an argument inadmissible? It surely should not be at a university that was founded in the wake of the Holocaust, at a time when many American universities still imposed quotas on Jews.
The motto of Brandeis University is “Truth even unto its innermost parts.” That is my motto too. For it is only through truth, unsparing truth, that your generation can hope to do better than mine in the struggle for peace, freedom and equality of the sexes.
Ms. Hirsi Ali is the author of “Nomad: My Journey from Islam to America” (Free Press, 2010). She is a fellow at the Belfer Center of Harvard’s Kennedy School and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

fu*k Brandeis
LikeLike
Brandeis over reacted…bad decision.
LikeLike
Political Correctness is a plague on American academic and intellectual life. And so-called progressives who advocate the suppression of free speech and discourse on campuses and elsewhere are some of the crypto-fascists who help the radical right and corporatists chip away at our freedoms and constitutional rights. I recommended http://www.thefire.org/ for more information on tG erosion of free speech on campus, as well as Greg Lukianoff’s invaluable UNLEARNING LIBERTY.
LikeLike
The hijab of political correctness is only pulled tight around strong women. If you are shot in the head or you escape from a brutal marriage which you were forced into as a child, you are rallied around, celebrated, and treated like a heroine. But if you are a victim/survivor whose own will and mind brought you to your activism, that is a no-no. It is interesting: Wendy Davis of Texas is not maligned as a Christianophobe because she filibustered about women’s reproductive rights. I guess that’s because her sneakers were so cute. It’s very interesting how those who get upset when their freedom of speech is curtailed, when their rights are being threatened, are so quick to label others and shout them down. They are using the very process Ayaan wants for women in the Muslim world: the right to speak, the right to advocate, the right to autonomy, to silence her call for those things. Disgusting, pathetic, and shameful.
LikeLike
Brandeis is the loser for this action, as are the students who missed the delivery of this brief speech.
I am surprised that the American Enterprise Institute is hosting her as a visiting fellow.
LikeLike
I am very shocked by this defense of a well known hatemonger and can only surmise Ravitch is deeply ignorant of Ali’s bigotry and neocon call for war against all Muslims.
I guess Ravitch agrees with Ali’s belief that all civil and constitutional rights be denied to Muslims. I guess Ravitch agrees with Ali’s belief that the west must destroy Islam, that we must go to war against Islam. Ali calls for not only profiling against Muslims but also internment.
Ravitch makes NO attempt to find out what Muslim WOMEN have to say about Ali. Engaged, informed, politically active Muslim WOMEN have very critical things to say about her. But I guess like so many in the liberal west, Ravitch doesn’t give a damn about the voices of Muslim women because she thinks she already knows what they have to say.
I am saddened to see someone of Ravitch’s intelligence defend a bigot and a neocon war monger and hatemonger.
LikeLike
Ravitch believes in free speech in a free society.
LikeLike
Thanks for that, Diane. Keep fighting for the right of EVERYONE to be heard.
LikeLike
Thanks, Michael. I got a bunch of angry tweets, and my answer is always “I believe in free speech for all. Do you?”
LikeLike
Of course, you’re welcome. I still shudder at the number of people on all points of the political spectrum who would happily throw the first amendment in the trash when the speech in question offends them sufficiently.
LikeLike
I’m with Diane Ravitch and Michael Paul Goldenberg on this one.
And Frederick Douglass:
“To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.”
Has anyone besides me noticed that for much too long the self-styled “education reformers” that lead the “new civil rights movement of our time” have essentially branded the defenders of public education and a “better education for all” as engaging in hate speech?
Teacher bashing is much too mild to describe what has transpired. With teachers standing in for all public school staff, they are portrayed as lazy good-for-nothing incompetents who molest children and steal our money and mismanage schools districts and live off the fat of our land while destroying our economy. Worst of all, they pose an existential threat to America—literally, not figuratively. So the ordinary rules of decency and fair play and dialogue don’t apply to defenders of public schools because they are beyond the pale, too vile and loathsome to even consider listening to and learning from.
Let me add a personal note. In my junior year of high school I had an elective philosophy class; you know, one of those classes where every student had to have their parent[s] sign a permission note that detailed all the required reading. And guess what we read? It was just like an introductory college or university class, including that wonderful trio of old dead Greek guys—Socrates, Plato and Aristotle— along with Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx and Bertrand Russell and Ayn Rand and others I have since forgotten. I do remember reading a bit of Nazi nonsense too. The teacher was an older Jewish gentleman, always dressed in suit and tie, rather conservative; I know for a fact that he disagreed with a great deal of what we were studying. Yet he firmly believed that the best protection against destructive ignorance and hate was—ready for this?—
An informed citizenry that had grappled with all the big ideas and movements of our and previous times.
He was right then. He is still right.
Ignorance is not only not bliss, it is much worse: it simply sets us up to latch onto the latest catchy ideological fad—
Which is exactly what the FUDD [Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt & Dread] playbook requires.
“The bigotry of soft expectations.” “You can’t manage what you can’t measure.” “No Child Left Behind.” “Close Reading.” “Teach Like A Champion.” “Graduation rates are graduation rates are graduation rates.” “Career and College Ready.” “Standardized test scores can quantify the quality of teaching and learning.”
There is only one proven method for inoculating oneself against GAGA thinking and acting—
Bring everything out into the sunlight of open wide-ranging discussion. Prove the power of your ideas—or the weakness of your slogans and product launches and infomercials.
Exactly why Michelle Rhee and David Coleman and other heavyweights of the education status quo refuse to engage Diane Ravitch in public back-and-forth dialogue.
Just my tres centavitos worth…
😎
LikeLike
To all:
Dr. Ravitch wrote a superb book on censorship from the Left and Right of teachers and curricula in U.S. The book is called The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn. Highly recommended.
LikeLike
Agree with Diane…a university is the main place where all ideas should be considered. Students are trained to think critically and they must have the opportunity to hear diverse opinions, no matter how much they, or their administration, may disagree with the speaker. Columbia allowed Achmadinijad to speak despite rioting against him.
I invited a prominent and well respected Islamic Imam to speak at a university program a few years ago, and was almost drawn and quartered by a few ideologues, but never was I told he could not speak. Caveat…he drew a standing room only crowd, and they learned much about his belief system.
LikeLike
Bob, I saw that book as addressing dictums from both political sides, too. Some have only recognized a problem with one side or the other though.
Diane, Does it matter to you that, in the past, you helped to spawn animosity that still persists towards liberals and progressives who are on your side in the Resistance today?
LikeLike
75 percent of Egyptian women experience genital cutting. In some nations in North Africa, the percentage is higher. While many claim that female genital mutilation is not mandated by Islamic Law, what is beyond question is that in many societies where the practice is ubiquitous, it is the local Imam who is the most forceful supporter of cliterectomy.
Leftists are notoriously silent about the barbaric practice which has ruined the sex lives of tens of millions of helpless women.
If the left spent one percent of the effort it devotes to defending abortion rights or supporting access to tax-payer supported contraception to opposing female genital mutilation, it might have a right to criticize Ayan Hirsi Ali.
But the left couldn’t care less about these women; in the west, it been mostly a one woman crusade against the practice. That crusade has been led by Hirsi-Ali.
Several months ago, City College in New York threatened to revoke an offer of an honorary degree to playwright Tony Kushner based on allegedly anti-Semitic (or at least anti-Israel) comments he had made. Leftists went ballistic and Kusher got his doctorate honaris causa.
Now the same leftists who were infuriated about what happened to Kushner are celebrating what happened to Hirsi-Ali.
It’s sad, but it’s also typical of the American faux-progressive intelligentsia.
In America in 2014, it takes an immigrant from Somalia to stand up against mutilating young girls. In the name of political correctness, “leftists” would rather avert their eyes.
LikeLike
It doesn’t matter what political position(s) Ali holds. She should be heard if students are interested in hearing her. And it’s not the role of the university to decide who is and isn’t fit to be heard. College students aren’t children. When one side, left or right, gets to silence another, everyone – EVERYONE – loses. How do you expect students to make up their minds about crucial issues, particularly those that aren’t solvable through objective, scientific means, if they aren’t allowed to hear or discuss controversial ideas and hear advocates for more than one position?
LikeLike
Sandra HN, the specious designation of a human rights activist as a “well-known hate monger” is a mindless and useless form of attack.
A Somali-born woman is speaking out on the experiences of people you might not otherwise hear from. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has lived under religious dictatorship in a failed state, and also under threat of death, delivered in a note attached to the knife which killed the director of her film opposing the genital mutilation of girls.
If anyone has evidence of a call for generalized internment of any group, that might be grounds to call for revocation of an invitation. I haven’t found it.
I looked for one clear posting of the 2006 so-called “Anti Islamic” manifesto which is perhaps your source for your charge of “well-known hate monger”. Michelle Malkin has posted it, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali has taken shelter at the American Enterprise Institute, so she is affiliated with my political opponents. The academic credential to speak at an gathering of intellectuals is not conferred by political alignment, however, and we who live by the code of offering the service of our thought to all humanity should recognise it.
I chose to link the Times of India to post her manifesto, for historic reasons. I invite readers to study itself for themselves. Ayaan Hirsi Ali was one of the 12 signatories.
“Manifesto: Together Facing The New Totalitarianism
After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.
SALMAN RUSHDIE, TASLIMA NASREEN, BERNARD-HENRI LÉVY, IRSHAD MANJI, IBN WARRAQ, OTHERS”
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?230451
LikeLike
How many Muslim women have you actually talked with who are in agreement with her, who have been victimized as she profiles? I have worked with many young Muslim women, and many feel like they are prisoners in their own faith, in their own world. It is so very easy to call someone a hate-monger when you have not witnessed firsthand the brutality she describes. Any cultural or religious norms which imprison silence, or victimize must be rooted out. One does not have to agree with everything another person says to listen. Dialogue allows for addressing what one doesn’t like about the other’s statements; silence and ignorance just perpetuate harm and labeling.
LikeLike
In it’s never ending quest to reach the height of politically correct thinking, Brandeis has decided to ally itself with the supporters of genital mutilation instead of the foremost champion in the world decrying the barbaric practice of female genital cutting.
But to be frank, it’s not just Brandeis and it’s overwhelmingly “progressive” faculty which is to blame; its faux-leftists in general who have celebrated political correctness. If instead of celebrating pretend progressives like Andrew Cuomo and Rahm Emanuel, real progressives aligned themselves with genuine conservatives and Tea Party activists (who have spent the past few years trying to take down Republican elites like Jeb Bush) our country would be moving in a better direction.
The behavior of Brandeis is the perfect metaphor for the American left. Instead of standing up for Hirsi-Ali and her right to be heard and instead of standing up for tens of millions of women who have experienced the horor of the cliterectomy, American leftists prefer to champion politically correct orthodoxy.
Is it any wonder that we are in the state we’re in?
LikeLike
No, WigWag: it’s a perfect metaphor for those of ALL political stripes who believe that it’s okay to block the speech of those whose ideas are deemed a priori to be unacceptable. And the left doesn’t have the market cornered on that.
Nor is your claim about female circumcision supported by facts. That is, you haven’t the first clue who does and doesn’t speak out against the practice based on how they fall along the political spectrum. It’s just egregious baloney to trot that out as a fact.
American Leftists are not a monolithic body. I’m a leftist and I’m American. And I oppose female circumcision and advocate academic freedom and free speech on campus and anywhere else the law and the Constitution protect it. So please don’t make insupportable generalization about people on the left. As for celebrating Andrew Cuomo and Rahm Emanuel, I would suggest you are conflating progressives with neo-liberals, a very different beast indeed, one that is generally decried on this blog and most progressive sites I follow.
If your goal with your post is to dismiss the American left, better luck next time. I don’t consider the “No free speech for fascists” crowd to be progressive. They’re just crypto-fascists themselves.
LikeLike
You are right that ideologues are to be found on both the left and the right, but in this particular case, it is the leftist ideologues who are running amok.
You are incorrect, however when you suggest that my claims about female genital cutting is unsupported by the facts. If anything, I’ve understated the case.
It is entirely accurate to say that in many (but not all) Islamic nations genital cutting is ubiquitous; if you don’t believe it, do the research. It is also true that there are some non-Islamic nations (mostly in Africa) where the practice is common.
As for Western leftists (or “progressives” or “liberals” or “neoliberals” or whatever label you wish to apply) I am entirely correct to say that the mutilation of tens of millions of young girls (who are often mutilated when they reach puberty) is of little or no concern. The only reason that the issue is ever talked about in the West is because of Hirsi-Ali. Western feminists (who are mostly self-identified leftists) are loathe to talk about the subject.
The Hirsi-Ali case is an interesting one. Paul Berman, a regular commentator for the New Republic wrote an entire book a couple of years ago about how the left has recoiled in horror from the Hirsi-Ali’s advocacy for the rights of Muslim women.
Berman’s book, entitled “The Flight of the Intellectuals” is well worth a look. You should read it.
The Brandeis attack on Hirsi-Ali is far from the first she has experienced. Several self styled leftist journalists (Timothy Garton Ash for example) have attacked Ali. The left just can’t stand the idea of a strong, articulate black woman defending the rights of millions of Muslim women.
It’s strange; 20 years ago when a fatwa was issued against Salman Rushdie for supposedly blasphemous statements in the “Islamic Verses” leftists reacted in horror. Now the left prefers to issue fatwas of its own.
It doesn’t really matter if you call them “progressives,” “liberals,” or “neoliberals” does it?
After all, they all reek with the stench of hypiocrisy.
LikeLike
You seem to have willfully misread what I wrote. I did NOT in any way claim that your facts about circumcision were wrong. What you said that you have no facts to support is that the left is silent about that practice. Some people on the left no doubt are. And so are people on the right and in the center. Some people don’t even know that this is a practice anywhere on earth.
Please: read more carefully before telling someone that they got it wrong. I am staunchly and vocally against genital mutilation of ANYONE. I fought with my son’s mother to ensure he was not circumcised, and I have repeatedly spoken out against female circumcision as well. And I consider myself to be very, very left of center.
LikeLike
Neo-liberals are NOT liberals in any reasonable sense of the word. Learn the difference before you really embarrass yourself. And I believe your claim about Ms. Ali being the only person who speaks about female genital mutilation in Africa and elsewhere is false. I was aware of it decades before I ever heard of her. I don’t’ think I’m the only one. I’m happy to stand up for her right to be heard at Brandeis, but let’s not sanctify her quite yet. She’s one voice. She may even be wrong on some things. And if you need to continue to attack the left en masse, you’re going to find that some of us simply won’t sit still for it. It’s garbage. Cite one actual fact with sources, not simply repeat your own opinion, and we can talk. Otherwise, I suggest that you’re simply blowing hot air.
LikeLike
Michael Paul Goldberger, there is no reason to mention that you are very left of center; its obvious.
After all, you say,
“I fought with my son’s mother to ensure he was not circumcised..”
You would almost have to be very left of center to be so foolish as to suggest that male circumcision should even be mentioned in a debate about Hirsi-Ali and her criticism of female genital mutilation. Other than the word “circumcision” the two practices have virtually nothing in common.
Only someone painfully misinformed would think that what he said to his son’s mother is even remotely related to the subject at hand.
I’m not saying that your remarks are idiotic because your a leftist, but it is obvious that leftists have a proclivity to delusion and foolishness.
But right wing ideologues are often foolish themselves.
It’s possible that your comments are wrong simply because you just don’t know what you are talking about.
Oh; one more thing. The case of Brandeis and Hirsi-Ali has nothing to do with the First Amendment (as you suggested).
The First Amendment applies to Government not institutions like Brandeis.
You do know that. Don’t you?
LikeLike
Oh, my. How dare I suggest that there’s any basis to compare forced genital mutilation of infant boys which at times has carried the imprimatur of the medical profession, with an issue that you’ve taken up because apparently it serves your politics. I would oppose forcible circumcision of any human being because I’m a humanist and I recognize bullshit when I read it. The oft-repeated claim that babies are too young to feel the pain (their nerve sheaths are allegedly not sufficiently developed for cutting their foreskins off to be painful. Asked why they inevitably cry when it’s done, doctors and other apologists tell us that it’s “pressure.” Yeah, and my urologist told me two weeks ago before catheterizing me that I might feel some pressure, too.
So I’m sorry if my bringing up opposition to male circumcision ALSO is a problem for you. Not very sorry, though.
And you might want to read the Greg Lukianoff book I’ve mentioned here several times before smugly telling me about how the first amendment applies or fails to apply to free speech issues on campus. I believe you’ll discover that it’s a far more complicated matter than you think, particularly given claims that nearly every university makes in its catalog that would lead unsuspecting potential students and parents to believe that these places are BASTIONS of academic freedom. Of course, making promises and failing to deliver on them, particularly when your product sells for tens of thousands of dollars, can have repercussions in court. And lately is starting to do just that, thanks to the efforts of organizations like F.I.R.E., the US constitution, and our courts. You could learn something if you drop the smugness.
LikeLike
I often wonder why the libertarian right and left are not as united behind the first amendment as the NRA is united behind the second amendment.
LikeLike
This reminds me why I’m so glad that Bill De Blasio has the courage to stand up for the rights of ALL religions to worship their Gods in my children’s school. Finally, a progressive mayor!
LikeLike
No law forbids people from practicing their religion or from choosing to have no religion. Where things get dicey is when the school as a public institution pushes a particular religious position or allows staff to do so with impunity at the expense of other viewpoints, including atheism and agnosticism. My Muslim students had the right to pray at the public school where I taught from 2000-2003. Just not in class. And that’s how it should be. And if a kid were to pray silently and without doing something to draw the attention of other students as to what s/he were doing, who would know or object, after all?
LikeLike
Right, this isn’t about kids praying silently, it’s about groups actually holding religious services in schools.
LikeLike
wrong on this one Diane. this woman is islamophobic…something that is unfortunately spreading rapidly in our society….she has called for the destruction of Islam by military force.her rhetoric reinforces the wrongheaded assumption that patriarchy and violence are unique to Muslim societies and non-Western nations…there are many feminist Muslim scholars (Yes you can be both Muslim and feminist believe it or not) who have repudiated this woman’s work which according to Prof. Aliyyah Abdur-Rahman, Professor of English and Afro-American studies takes a “stance on Western modernity and cultural superiority that depends on antiquated racist logics that present people from the Middle East and Africa as culturally backward and in need of the civilizing influences of the West.” you wanna read about the effect that the civilizing influence of the West, particularly the U.S. has had on the world for the past 60 years I would suggest reading Noam Chomsky…this woman has the right to talk about her personal experiences and the effect that patriarchy and religious fanaticism has had on her life…she has taken that to whole other level in her demonization of an entire religion and call to arms against it…there are plenty of dignified and proud and beautiful Muslim women in this world who do not view their religion as a burden imposed on them by domineering men, and Brandeis made the right decision in refusing to grant this honorary degree to a perpetrator of Islamophobia. it is people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali who provide the seemingly liberal intellectual moral justification for those things called American exceptionalism and Western imperialism and we have plenty of evidence of precisely how much damage those two things have done in this world…Brandeis decided that it does not share those values…kudos to them…Islamophobia does not exist in quotes. it exists for real.
LikeLike
I’m afraid you really don’t get it. There’s not a correct position that universities are supposed to promote, and a bunch of “wrong” ones they are supposed to suppress. At least not when it comes to the humanities. Brandeis is entitled to state that it doesn’t endorse Ali’s views, but having extended an invitation to her to speak, they have hurt academic freedom and infantilized its students by withdrawing that invitation simply because they’ve decided the views are politically incorrect.
If her views are so objectionable, how would hearing them not benefit the intellectual growth of COLLEGE STUDENTS? You know – adults who are paying to learn, who are no longer children, and who represent the intellectual future of the nation. Had something like this happened at my college in the late 1960s, the student body would have been outraged. Sadly, exactly this sort of garbage did start happening there when the faculty became increasingly monotonic in its political views. Political correctness – be it left-wing, right-wing, religious, or secular, is a plague. Denying academic freedom and free speech on our college campuses is a vastly greater threat to America’s future than ANYTHING Ms. Ali could possibly say. And the sooner those who support taking away these rights realize that once you approve denying your opponent the right to be heard, you’re cutting your own throat and those of the rest of us, the better we’ll all be.
LikeLike
it’s not about being politically incorrect….her views constitute hate speech…she has issued a call to arms against the Islamic religion…that goes way beyond denouncing fgm and the oppression of women in patriarchal muslim societies….if she stopped there I would have no problem and neither would the student organizations and professors at brandeis and they have made that perfectly clear if only people would actually read what their statements instead of reading what they want to hear..the only reason there is this outcry is because it’s Islam and not another religion…if someone endorsed a call to arms against Judaism or Christianity and a university invited that person to speak, not just the university but likely the entire country spurred on by the media would be outraged and there outrage would be perfectly justified. academic freedom does not protect hate speech…i don’t care what the politics is of the person who spouts it.
LikeLike
Hate speech from where you sit. And from the person here attacking the left, it’s the people she’s criticizing who are speaking with hate. Personally, the entire concept of “Hate Speech” is one of the most infantile and useless ideas of the modern era. Who cares that someone speaks out of hatred, ignorance, and fear? What matters is what we are able to say in opposition to their claims and ideas. As soon as YOU or anyone gets to decide who is the “Hate Speech” purveyor, we’re lost. The shoe so easily goes on the other foot. The Islamists she decries also believe in suppressing the speech of “infidels.” What a wonderful world if they are allowed to rule unopposed in their part of the world, while people who would suppress the speech of their critics are allowed to rule here. Or vice versa. I couldn’t care less who is “right” and who is “wrong” in the debate: only that all sides get a fair chance to be heard. Why do you think that Michelle Rhee won’t debate Diane in a fair forum, where she can’t load the podium with all her cronies, have a moderator who will bend the rules to her advantage, and an audience packed with her supporters? Because she knows she’ll be crushed by her intellectual and scholarly superior.
If Ms. Ali is so heinous, then others should easily be able to beat her ideas in public conversation. The only reason to stop her from speaking is the fear that she is right or that university members are too weak-minded to win a fair fight in the court of academic opinion. If that’s what worries you, be honest. If not, then what have you to fear from her speaking?
LikeLike
it’s not hate speech from where I sit…it’s hate speech..I don’t decide what is hate speech…neither do you..there is a formal definition….it’s not always followed of course….because some hate is tolerated more then others especially in this country post-9/11…..islamophobic hate being one example.i was not aware that all Muslims are Osama Bin Laden. Nor was I aware that all Christians are homophobic. Nor was I aware that all Christians are just as hateful as the Westboro Baptist Church….how about inviting them to speak at your university? would they contribute to a positive discussion?..Michelle Rhee does not perpetrate hate…she may be wrong but she does not overtly perpetrate hate and intolerance.
“The only reason to stop her from speaking is the fear that she is right or that university members are too weak-minded to win a fair fight in the court of academic opinion. If that’s what worries you, be honest. If not, then what have you to fear from her speaking?”
the fear is that she will inspire others to hate all Muslims…it’s a very rational fear given her writing and rhetoric…the people who oppose her already know she’s wrong…it’s widely documented that she’s wrong…she misplaces her criticisms of patriarchal cultures in the Arab world and uses it to hate on all of Islam and anyone who practices…something that is hardly unique…plenty of people do it in America spurred on by the media and it’s been widely refuted in the scholarly literature. this has nothing to do with Academics…there is nothing particularly academic about hate speech…
LikeLike
Of course your point of view tells you what is and isn’t hate speech. How else do you decide? You certainly don’t have a hotline to God or any other ultimate authority to tell you that Ms. Ali is the hater, while those she criticizes are warm-hearted angels of goodness. You picked a side. You have the right to do so. Others disagree They, too, have the right to be heard, regardless of your characterization of their speech. The oldest rhetorical trick in the book is to cite some nebulous principle that no one else is allowed to dispute. Both left and right do it, both religious zealots and some of their opponents do it. But this isn’t math. It’s not physics. There are no proofs or experiments that you can present that demonstrate the primacy of YOUR views and judgments. So you need to do better than claim that you have objective knowledge that Ali is the hate speaker, her opponents free of guilt for doing the same thing.
Anyone who has observed the Middle East knows that neither side is free of blame or bad behavior. Some Jews, some Muslims, some Christians, some non-believers, recognize that there is NEVER going to be a settlement of these disputes founded either in “proving” who was actually “right.” Nor in silencing all sides but one. Those are the people with whom I stand. Along with those who defend free speech. No matter how you try to position yourself as having some objective lens through which you know which is the “hate speech,” you don’t. It’s a bogus concept that is used illegitimately to try to silence one’s foes. At times like these, I do understand Franklin D. Roosevelt’s comment to the steel bosses and the union leaders, “A plague on both your houses.”
LikeLike
also your statement that just because a viewpoint is objectionable means its worth being heard…well I mean white supremacy is a viewpoint…is that worth being heard? is that intellectual…does it represent just another alternative viewpoint? objectionable does not automatically equal worth being heard. take it on a case by case basis
LikeLike
Yes, white supremacy should be heard as long as there are people who believe it and others who aren’t sure that they’re wrong. I wasn’t kidding about defending the rights of American Nazis to march, gather, and speak – as long as they do so lawfully and without violence. Ditto the KKK, and a little search into Ann Arbor’s history from 20 or so years ago would reveal just what happens when political extremists from the Left decide that they have the right to prevent a group from holding a LEGAL rally. A man who had nothing to do with what was going on was nearly beaten to death by a “righteous” left wing mob until a black woman shamed them into stopping, putting her own body in harm’s way to do so. I was never prouder to live in this town then when I saw what she had done, as ashamed as I was of what a bunch of “progressives” had done up until that point.
Either you believe in the first amendment or you don’t. You can’t kind of, sort of, sometimes like it, and other times – not so much.
There is no idea so heinous that it shouldn’t be debated if there are people willing to do so. Shedding light is what keeps us strong. Forcing unpopular views to go underground is always a mistake. We need not SANCTION those ideas. We need not agree. But we do not have the right under THIS constitution to silence them. And I’m damned glad that is the case.
LikeLike
of course people have the right to express their white supremacist views…but a university also has the right to refuse to give a forum to those views…you have the right to say whatever you want…but you don’t have the right to tell me to listen….it’s really that simple…there’s a differene between freedom of expression and the freedom to be heard…the latter doesn’t exist…because people have the freedom to stop listening
LikeLike
You’d best check again. If a member of the university community wants to express those views, be it on campus, in class, or privately, where in the constitution does it state that a university, particularly a public one, can suppress that expression? And if a group of students wishes to bring a speaker to campus to discuss those views, I ask the same question?
You really should read Greg Lukianoff’s book. Or read some Nat Hentoff. Maybe start with a review of the Bill of Rights. There are conservatives on the faculty of the University of Michigan. Do they have a right to express their viewpoints on campus? There are many who would love to deny them that right. And I believe that THEY, not the conservative professors, are the true danger when they act on those desires. To the extent that you would do so as well, I have to consider you a threat to academic freedom and open intellectual discourse and debate. It’s deeply saddening that so many Americans across the political spectrum value safety over freedom and comfort over the right to hear and be heard.
LikeLike
you are right..I stand corrected..however I still maintain that her views constitute hate speech but yes it is protected…and yes reconsidering I do think it would have been productive for Brandeis to host a debate so her views on Islam would have the opportunity to be publicly skewered…she should have been able to speak in a debate format…the honorary degree is a different question all together and has nothing to do with academic freedom
LikeLike
wait a minute ..no I reverse my previous retraction….this has nothing to do with academic freedom or freedom of speech…Brandeis is not hosting her in a debate. they are not giving individuals in the university community the opportunity to engage her in discussion…they were going to honor her and let her give a speech…that’s what people at the university objected to and that is perfectly fine since after all they are representatives of the university and should have a say in who their university deems worthy of honor…I think it would be a good gesture on their part though to invite her to debate some of the professors and students on campus. there’s a difference between hosting an Islamophobe for a debate and honoring them with a degree and allowing them to give a speech espousing their views without challenge. the first is protected by academic freedom…the second has nothing to do with academic freedom..it has to do with an endorsement of a viewpoint via the honorary degree. and that determination should not just be left up to the higher-ups…it should be subject to the democratic process.
LikeLike
It won’t be the first time OR the last time a speaker will be banned from a university. While we would like to believe that a university is where all points of view are welcome, even if only as a means of debate, in reality it’s all politics.
LikeLike
We can’t forget that the same rights which protect others also protect us as well.
LikeLike
Well, Ellen, sadly, a lot of folks forget that or never understood it to begin with. Or would simply rather not deal with that inconvenient truth. Kind of maddening, isn’t it? Land of the free, home of the stifled.
LikeLike
The Jude o-Christian world is under assault, yet no alarm bells are being rung.
We are observing the transformation of a civil society that was set on a foundation of Jewish and Christian tenets. This foundation is gradually being destroyed by secularists who believe their is no place for God in “their” would.
But, a funny thing is happening on their journey to nirvana, the secularists are being derailed by GOD no less.
Unlike Jews and Christians who seek to “make nice” with secularists. this group of people of faith give no quarter.
These are Muslims, who use politics, playing the well worn “victim card” to make gains that both Jews and Christians have given up long ago.
Can it be stopped? Not with the current crop of leaders in schools and businesses of govt.
But, it will be stopped when enough people say ENOUGH.
which can’t come soon enough. ajbruno14 gmail
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s a wonderful analysis. Because we’ve never seen any Jews or Christians acting in untoward ways towards unbelievers. No Jewish country or Christian country has ever used religion as an excuse to pursue political objectives through violence, war, and conquest. And of course, EVERY Muslim monolithically accepts the most violent, radical viewpoints of Islam. You have proof, I’m sure.
As for your views on “god,” you’re quite entitled to them. As am I to think that your starkers. and to say so.
LikeLike
Michael,
Either I did a poor job making a point, or you do not see what is occurring.
Consider what is going on across Europe. The migration of Muslims is not simply a matter of people seeing a better life, as Hispanic migration in the US is. Muslims moving to Europe do not want to assimilate, they want to be govern under their own tenets, not those of whichever country to happen to move to.
And, the other problem is that host countries are more than will to accommodate such belligerence, either out of fear or the inability to clearly define acceptable norms ALL people should adhere to.
Those who continue to point to Jews and Christian past wrongs or even criticism of current conditions in Israel today, miss the large point, the majority of the Muslim world is one wrapped in poverty, little education “ruled” by an ideology which despite all the “people of peace” rhetoric still is quick to pick up the sword rather then work out differences as most other people do. ajbruno14 gmail
LikeLike
It is surprising to me that there are those who would come to this blog and defend a fanatical islamic ideology that leads to the subjugation and abuse of a large segment of the population in some middle-eastern countries. Who are you people that believe that women should be subjected to abuse and degradation? Why do you find it so necessary to defend your particular form of god belief?
I am certainly all for people being allowed to believe in any sort of god they choose to believe in, as long as that belief does not lead to the enslavement and abuse of others in the name of that god.
LikeLike
I don’t see anyone defending Ms. Ali’s alleged ideology or abusing women. That’s simply an unfounded projection on your part. Do you think that my defense of the rights of the American Nazi Party to demonstrate when it obtains legal permits to do so is founded in my support for their ideas and goals? If so, think again. It’s because once we decide that one group is just too heinous to be allowed its constitutional rights, we’re ALL screwed sooner or later. I know that’s a tough concept to wrap one’s head around, but you’d better do so. We’re rapidly devolving into a completely polarized society in which there’s a lot of screaming, a lot of maneuvering to blot out the viewpoints of our perceived enemies, and where not even our colleges and universities are places where we can expect to hear diverse ideas argued by informed people. And THAT is a national tragedy far worse than anything you imagine will happen if the “wrong” ideas are openly discussed and debated.
LikeLike
“I don’t see anyone defending Ms. Ali’s alleged ideology or abusing women.”….You completely misunderstood my point Michael. Perhaps I did not express it very well but I was not commenting on anyone here who was defending “Ms. Ali’s ideology or abusing women”. in fact I meant quite the opposite. In fact I am not in disagreement with you at all.
LikeLike
also what in the world does this have to do with the university being funded by Jewish philanthropists? playing the Muslims vs. Jews card? really?
LikeLike
You’re kidding, right?
LikeLike
i rather have this conversation without smart comments…if you are confused about what I mean then just say you are confused and we’ll talk about…i’m not going to engage with someone who asks me if I’m kidding. i’ve seen enough vitriolic comment threads on the internet and I know just a little comment like that could get things going in the wrong direction and honestly the place I lose my hope for humanity the most is on internet comment sections..so if it’s all right with you I’ll respect your intelligence if you respect mine
LikeLike
I asked a serious question. Are you kidding? Because I find it hard to imagine that you don’t see the relevance. If you really don’t, I withdraw the question and will assume we have no common basis for further conversation.
LikeLike
Reflective thinking, if you’d “rather have this conversation without smart comments”, consider avoiding sentence fragments like “playing the Muslims vs. Jews card? “.
LikeLike
ok…it’s a legitimate question though…I don’t see how it’s relevant
LikeLike
She speaks the unspoken truth, but that is obviously not the message the university wants their students to hear on their graduation day. Better that they be told platitudes rather than the bitter realities faced by women throughout the world.
Yet, how can they make the world a better place when we pretend that all is well. I guess our future generations will have to find out the hard way – but by then it will be too late to change course.
So shut out the naysayers – that’s what we now do in the United States. If you want me I’ll be up in my room, hiding under my blanket where it’s safe.
LikeLike
Diane,
I am an avid follower of your blog and your work in general, and I huge fan of your advocacy for the public school system.
But I have to tell you as a scholar in middle eastern studies, that you may want to do a little more researcher into Ayaan Hirsi Ali before you endorse her. She is widely regarded by scholars in middle eastern studies as being basically equivalent to some of the worst anti-semites around today. To call her an advocate for “gender equality” (as you do above) is about as problematic as calling the Gates and Walton Foundations as defenders of the U.S. education system.
This is not simply an issue of “free speech,” but of hate speech. I do not think that Brandeis decided to cancel their honorary degree for her because they wanted to silence her, but rather because they realized after doing more research on her (as I hope you will too) that awarding her an honorary degree would be as embarrassing to them as if they awarded an honorary degree to an anti-semite.
Matthew Thomas Miller
Washington University in St. Louis
LikeLike
One other point…there is a big difference between first amendment right to free speech (which has not been infringed in this case) and the decision to award an honorary degree to someone. Those two things should not be conflated. Brandeis has decided not to award an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. They did not cancel a speech of hers on campus. These two things are very different.
LikeLike
Matthew, no one told Brandeis to award a degree to Ms. Ali. The controversy arose because the university changed its mind and decided it did not wish to hear her speak on its campus. Under our Constitution, speech takes many forms, and in this case her very presence on campus was seen by the university as symbolic speech.
LikeLike
Diane, I understand your point about “symbolic speech.” But I would still maintain that there is a big distinction that needs to be made between (1) a university rescinding an honorary degree (which is what happened in this case), and (2) a university cancelling a regular speaking event of an individual (which was not the case here). The latter case would clearly be an infringement of 1st amendment rights.
LikeLike
Matthew,
I have no opinion of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
I do have an opinion about universities that offer someone an honorary degree and then retract it under public pressure.
Universities typically decide carefully to whom they offer this honor. It is not a decision made lightly.
When they retract the offer as Brandeis did, they dishonor themselves.
If her views were so reprehensible, why did they ask her to accept an honorary degree in the first place?
.
LikeLike
Diane, I thank you for your responses to my posts. I do not know the exact in workings of the Brandeis decision to originally award Ayaan Hirsi Ali an honorary degree. A professor who works there and spoke with the chancellor said that the chancellor was not given a balanced view of Mrs. Ali.
In some ways it is not surprising that Brandeis decided to give her an honorary degree because Mrs. Ali is regularly presented as a human rights activist (at least this is the way she has been promoted and branded). However, as I said above, this is about as accurate and unproblematic as presenting Gates, Waltons, and the billionaire corporate school reform movement as the “defenders of education in America.”
Mrs. Ali became very popular in the post-9/11 world (especially on outlets like Fox News and right-wing radio shows) because she was a perfect spokesperson for the “War on Terror” narrative. She blames a fictive and universalized “religion of Islam” for all problems, calling it essentially a disease, evil, etc. that must be eliminated. You only have to switch the words “Islam” with “Judaism” and “muslims” with “jews” in her works to understand why she is considered by scholars in middle eastern studies to be the equivalent of an “anti-semite.” In fact, she employs many of the same tropes and discursive techniques as the anti-semitism discourse. (She does have some less controversial writings, but if you look at the history of her works and statements on Islam and muslims, you will find that it is shocking similar to anti-semitism literature).
You do not have to be believe me though. There is a large body of scholarly research that has already been done on her and her work that I can direct you to if you are interested.
Let me just close by thanking you for all of your hard work on education issues. I have benefited tremendously from both your blog and recent books!
Best,
Matthew Thomas Miller
Washington University in St. Louis
LikeLike
Too many people in “the land of the free” have difficulty countenancing controversial discourse in the public sphere.
Many are those who say, “I’m all in favor of free speech. I just won’t stand for hate speech or for speech directed at groups rather than at ideas and practices.”
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
Milton nailed it when he said of Truth, in his great 1644 defense of freedom of the press, the Areopagetica:
“Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?”
I have long been an ardent activist for LBGT rights. When the late Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church kicked it, my first reaction was,
“Thank you, Reverend Phelps, for doing such outstanding work to promote the causes of tolerance and LBGT rights in the United States.”
He made himself the poster child for hateful idiocy. From him the world learned, “Don’t be like this guy.”
But note this caveat:
Legitimate curtailment of particular acts of speech occurs when rights of equal significance clash. I forget which famous jurist it was who wrote in a decision involving noise in an apartment building (I am quoting from memory and possibly inaccurately), “Every man’s home is his castle. Unfortunately, Mr. Jones’s castle is located on top of Mr. Smith’s castle.” But again, this jurist nailed it.
The courts could, I think, legitimately prevent the Westboro Baptist Church from picketing at people’s funerals, for in such cases, the church’s speech rights conflicted with the legitimate right of families not to have their private grief intruded upon.
But as hateful as the Church’s speech was, I would not have wanted that speech curtailed generally, for the Westboro Baptist Church is the most eloquent possible enemy of the Westboro Baptist Church. Allowing these cretins to speak freely and openly simply exposes them to the shock and scorn of the world.
For these reasons, I think the hate speech doctrine pernicious. It actually undermines the cause of tolerance for diversity. I say, get it out in the open, that hate, so people can see it for what it is.
Brandais has chosen to censor Ms. Ali’s speech because of the university deems some of her statements in the past to have been hate speech.
But a university must be a place where the unpopular thing can be thought and said.
Why? Because when truth and falsehood grapple, truth wins.
The university missed an opportunity for that public grappling to occur. It missed a teachable moment.
LikeLike
And if those teachable moments don’t happen at our universities, where will they happen? Is all education being whitewashed? First our public schools, next . .
However, Robert, I disagree about allowing unfettered hate speech. Even on this web site, we see how many of our “brothers and sisters” are filled with hate towards various groups for various unknown reasons. That flame does not need to be fanned.
And perhaps that is why Brandeis decided to cancel – they didn’t want to deal with the black lash of hatred and the possibility of violence which Ali’s attendance might incur. Especially on that particular campus.
LikeLike
There’s no question that there has been a great deal of anti-Islamic idiocy in the country. Millions of Americans, when they think of Iran or Iraq, don’t think of ordinary people going through their ordinary lives, of old men playing chess in the park, of kids playing soccer, of teachers teaching a room full of kids about the Pythagorean Theorem. They have their heads full of ugly, ignorant stereotypes about “them turrurists” and, insanely, think that those images are what Iran, what Iraq mean. They don’t have a clue that these are two of the oldest cultures in the world, with deep, deep roots. And they don’t recognize the people of these countries as, well, people, like you, like me. And so, yes, when prejudice is that widespread, there is that possibility, of further inflaming it. But read Ms. Ali’s speech. What I hear her doing there is standing up for voiceless women against real evils. I want to live in a country that cares deeply about eradicating those evils through education. And I still believe that the way to deal with these issues, here, is to have open debate about them, as has happened, for example, on this very page. Prejudice likes the dark, Ellen. Let there be light.
Let people see it for the ugliness it is, out in the open. If such a speech by such a speaker brings out those people, let our fellow citizens get a good look at them and heap them with shame and scorn.
My take is that we’ve been fighting the wrong war, in the wrong way. I think that Ali is correct that superstitions–savage beliefs in a segment of populations worldwide, including right here in the United States–are the real enemy. We fight those beliefs–in divinely-given male power over the bodies and lives of women, for example–through education. Malala Yousafzai’s way. We shouldn’t be dropping bombs. We should be dropping books and films and art and music. If I had been running this, that’s the war we would have fought, would be fighting–the war for the minds of the young. I realize that this will be a controversial position. So be it. I am a respecter of cultures. But not of stoning for adultery, of stoning for homosexuality, of child rape, of genital mutilation, of female disenfranchisement and slavery. Where these are practiced, we must fight, with poems and songs. Because, in the end, in the long game, it’s the ideas that matter. The way we chose to conduct our business, in these places, simply fuels such savagery–gives it cause. Incredibly stupid, in my book.
LikeLike
Robert, I am with you 100%.
And we do forget of the humanity of other cultures. These are mothers, wives, daughters, sisters – fathers, husbands, sons, brothers. When our government was waterboarding, I was the sole dissenter in the faculty room. These weren’t animals, they were someones’ son. But I see the other side. Some cultures have mistreated women for generations. Our country is a little better, but nowhere near the mark (no ERA yet). And I worry that if Hillery becomes President she will be treated even worse than Obama.
As far as an open discussion – yes it should be open, but it can’t be – at least not yet (think Rush Limbaugh). People like you and I would recognize hate speech for what it is, but others would join in the bashing. It doesn’t take much to agitate the inner hatred found in too many people. I, too, want the light, but what’s hidden in the dark is very scary.
I don’t understand it, but I know it is there.
LikeLike
Funny you should mention hate speech, Ellen. I got something on Facebook this morning out of Australia, where there’s legislation in the works to basically do away with the very notion of “hate speech” as a legal concept. I’m fully in agreement with repealing any legal clause that depends on the impossibly nebulous notion of what is or is not “hate speech.” There are laws on the books in this country and long have been that can be used to prosecute people for harassment and worse. There was a case about 20-25 years ago that finally reached the SCOTUS involving a cross burning (I think it was on the lawn of a black family in Minnesota, of all places, but I am not sure I remember that correctly). In any event, under then-existing hate-speech laws, prosecutors wanted to give the accused “bonus penalties” (e.g., bigger fines, longer sentences) because, well, HATE SPEECH!!!! I was extremely pleased that the court threw out the law on the grounds that there were adequate statutes in the state under which the cross burning was a criminal act. And indeed, there were. And the accused had been convicted under those.
I never got and never will get why it is worse to yell at, harass, or do any other sort of criminal act against someone who fits some category under which it can be claimed that the perpetrator(s) were indulging in hate speech or a hate crime than it is to do all the same things, minus the speech or the particular designation under which the victim ostensibly falls. If someone beats the crap out of me because they THINK I’m gay, is that worse than just jumping out of their car and beating the crap out of me? I really don’t see how there is any legal grounds for that, particularly given that absent the sworn testimony of the PERPETRATOR that the sole motivation was hatred of the victim’s perceived ethnicity, skin color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, body type, or choice of gang colors – oh, wait – THAT’S no hate crime. . . – how can we legally determine beyond a reasonable doubt what was the actual motivation?
Seems to me, too, that speech is protected that suddenly some of us want unprotected if targeting the “wrong” person, group, etc. And that’s just nuts. If I walk down a block and call someone a douchebag – regardless of reason – and it turns out that the person belongs to some group – unbeknownst to me – I either have a perfect right to say that in the first place or I don’t (and frankly, while it’s rude, I believe I have that right unless I’m breaking some OTHER law, in which case I should be prosecuted for THAT other crime). The “special status” of that person or my choice of words (maybe I use a racist epithet that actually doesn’t even apply in reality to that person, or an insulting word for “homosexual” – although “queer” has apparently made a comeback in the GLBT (did I get all the letters in?) communities that actually puts me off, but I have no standing so who cares?) seems to me to be pretty much irrelevant as to whether the speech is protected. And if all I do is call someone an epithet, how is that a crime in any society that professes to value free speech? I’m not at all comfortable with the patronizing impulse to say, “These people need special protection; these people don’t.” It’s just turning the law into armchair psychology, and allowing certain people to determine who gets this special treatment. That’s exactly what’s helped build a bunch of moronic rules on campus about what can be said on college campuses. And if people who doubt that such rules are moronic would bother to look at Greg Lukianoff’s book and the F.I.R.E. website, just MAYBE their eyes would open a bit.
Of course it’s a crime to burn a cross on someone’s lawn. ANYONE’S lawn. No matter who does it or why.
LikeLike
Michael, you have a point, and I’m of the opinion that the laws that protect me (and my free speech) protect others even if I disagree with them. I’m not saying to ban hate speech, just not to encourage it. And when someone crosses the line, such as when a Right to Lifer shot Dr Slepian in his home around the corner from me because he performed abortions, the shooter was punished because he killed a man. He didn’t need to be punished for a hate crime – it was a crime, period.
I’m not a lawyer, but I assume the hate crime “rider” was due to something lacking in the already existing laws. Perhaps it was to discourage hate crimes. I know that lynchings due to racial hatred were common in the not so distant past throughout the US. Maybe the police needed a little extra way of enforcing the laws already on the books. However, I would assume that for a designation of a hate crime to stick, there would have to be extenuating circumstances, otherwise why bother.
I’m not going to obsess about it, because I really don’t have a strong opinion either way. I’m against hate crimes, I’m against crimes in general, but mostly I’m against the judicial system as a for profit organization using minor offenses as a means to make money.
LikeLike
Yes, Ellen, that very last thing you said would be a basis for a long, deep conversation. Would love to live long enough to see things changed for the better in that area.
LikeLike
We are agreed. As far as I am concerned – that is the real hate crime.
LikeLike
Now, to the particular issu: Ms. Ali has had strong things to say. One must consider those statement in their entire context. I read her book. It was one of the most moving and eloquent works I have ever read, a powerful indictment of savagery. What she has to say there is not only is worthy of people’s attention but demands it, morally.
LikeLike
Please excuse the typos there.
LikeLike
Thank you for your two comments, Bob. Pretty eloquent yourself.
LikeLike
It’s amazing that the knee jerk reaction of presumably educated people here has been to try to make this an American religious and political issue. No religion in the US has captured the market on any single worldview or political party. Many of us who are Jewish are strongly against the subjugation of women and female genital mutilation (FGM) and many of us who are genuine progressives are also against that. I would suggest the same is true for many people of other religious and political beliefs as well.
Support of women’s rights is a humanitarian issue and no one should be making assumptions about and pigeon holing supporters of women here according to religion or politics.
LikeLike
You know, everybody, it just took me 40 minutes to compose one post with one link.
If you have a lot of free time on your hands (I don’t), perhaps you could invest a little of it in thoughtful investigation, or seek deeper poetic associations with the human condition.
…instead of running on and on and back and forth with carelessly processed dryer lint from the surface of your mental laundry.
LikeLike
Chemtchr – I guess I like a little lint with my morning coffee. I, too, have limited time to read and participate in Diane’s blog, but I have found this particular discussion enlightening.
Given the opportunity, I would love to listen to Ms Ali speak. Perhaps UB will bring her to Buffalo for their Speaker Series in the near future. I know their administration is brave – we had the Dali Lama visit a few years ago (and there were death threats involved).
LikeLike
Ensconced as she is at the American Enterprise Institute, Ms. Ali has ample opportunities to have her opinions broadcast widely, and they are.
Let’s leave aside for now the coincidence that her experiences and opinions were most widely spread during a period of aggressive military intervention in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Islamic (petroleum exporting) world. Funny, that, but it’s a discussion for another time.
That minor coincidence aside, nobody is eliminating Ms. Hirsi Ali’s right to speak; what happened is that Brandeis decided not to present her with an honorary degree, which would have conferred some official validation upon her ideas and opinions.
You can argue about the rightfulness of that, but trying to turn this into a First Amendment/censorship issue is misdirection. No one is preventing her from speaking; they are questioning and protesting the “honoring” of her ideas.
As an addendum, try substituting “Judaism” for Islam in her speeches, and imagine what the response would be.
For example, what if blanket condemnations of Judaism were to follow upon the news that religious fundamentalists took over a local school district, and unscrupulously re-directed virtually all the resources toward serving its own members, to the severe detriment of everyone else.
You don’t have to look far: Michael Powell of the New York Times reported on it this week, yet there were, rightfully, no pronouncements that Judaism is a religion of corruption and exclusion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/nyregion/a-school-board-overlooks-its-obligation-to-students.html.ref=gotham
OK, now let the flaming begin…
LikeLike
No flaming from me – you have stated it beautifully. It’s a good idea to insert another ethnic group or religion into the statements of a person such as Hirst Ali to feel the effects of what she is saying on Muslims and Arabs. Blanket condemnation of any group is not productive.
LikeLike
And I must have missed any statements in which Ms. Ali offered blanket condemnation of Muslims or Arabs. Could you provide some documented quotations that do either or both? Or is this like anyone who criticizes any action by the Israeli government or any Israeli or Jew is anti-semitic by definition?
LikeLike
You missed Ms. Hirsi Ali’s condemnation of Islam?
Try reading her excerpt at the beginning of this post.
LikeLike
I have read Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s books and while I don’t agree with everything she has written, her voice needs to be heard. However, it probably would have been more appropriate to have her give a lecture at Brandeis on her subject than to award her an honorary degree at commencement. There is a time and place for everything.
William J. Oehlkers
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:50:13 +0000 To: wjo@jhu.edu
LikeLike
Ms. Ali has to have a *bodyguard* with her at all times, because she has been targeted for death by Islamisists who believe that she (like the filmmaker Van Gogh with whom she was working when he was killed by Islamisists btw) is disrespectful to Allah. She was also raised in a strict Muslim country and has had first hand experience with being harassed, shamed, and threatened, due to her questioning patriarchy there.
People who are against her speaking on her background and the truth need to do some research on her, to see how she has been threatened with death, due to merely speaking up for Muslim women, and against her former religion’s treatment of them.
This is similar to a former Catholic denouncing the Church for its complicity in keeping countless abuse cases secret. The difference is that no one who did that, received death threats due to their speaking the truth.
Someone like that would probably not have to walk around with a BODYGUARD either!
She speaks for all women who are oppressed by deep patriarchy- which is in most religions, and most cultures- and she should not be silenced.
LikeLike
The comments on this thread are often confused and convoluted.
This is not a free speech issue. Period. To claim otherwise is nonsense.
The great Supreme Court jurist Louis Brandeis, after whom the university is named wrote this in a free speech case in which he dissented in 1927:
“public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.”
But Brandeis University is a private school. It gets to decide who it invites to give commencement speeches and to whom it give honorary degrees. There is no constitutional guarantee to giving speeches at private colleges or to receiving honorary degrees from them. [If Ayaan Hirsi Ali were to file a lawsuit claiming her free speech rights were violated (and she won’t), it would get quickly tossed.]
Now, people can quarrel over whether or not Brandeis should have offered up the honorary degree to someone like Ali in the first place, and they can argue over or not she should have been invited – and disinvited – to give a commencement address. But trying to turn this into a ‘free speech’ case and claiming the Bill of Rights have been violated is pure hokum. There’s just no ‘there’ there.
Brandeis administrators might be guilty of poor judgment and sloppy decision-making, but they clearly have not violated the free speech rights of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
LikeLike
No, just the rights of those campus members who wanted to hear her. Speech and the right to hear are intimately connected, and no amount of sophistry on your part is going to change the underlying ethical (and, I suspect, legal) issues here. People seem to forget that universities, public and private, almost always guarantee in their catalogs academic freedom. Then, sadly, many of them, top-heavy with self-important middle-level administrators, institute speech codes, campus “free speech zones” (meaning that there a few designated places where free speech is allowed, as opposed to the entire CAMPUS, particularly the CLASSROOMS!), and other onerous policies (the worst of which are politically correct mandatory programs before freshmen start classes, in which attempts are made to brainwash them into holding only politically correct views on every imaginable issues. One of the most heinous of these programs was instituted at the University of Delaware. Even more frighteningly, these programs have gained support from the federal government. None of them will stand up to a lawsuit, but they have to be knocked down individually (or at least in every state), and like the speech codes at places like the University of Michigan, they pop up in new forms every few years.
Freedom of speech and academic freedom must be defending repeatedly and in every generation. This generation, for all its enlightenment on many social issues, is in danger of passively selling out one of our most important freedoms for decades, if not centuries, to come. And it’s our institutions of higher learning that are convincing them to do so. My generation of academics is guilty of a terrible injustice, as it went from being the protest generation of the ’60s and ’70s, to the No Free Speech for Fascists generation of professors and university administrators.
Welcome to 1984.
LikeLike
After the student riots at UB in the ’60s against the War in Viet Nam, then Governor Rockerfeller approved a design for the new campus (now built) which was rambling and less likely to foster such student behaviors in the future.
There are numerous ways to stifle the voices which the status quo prefers not to hear.
LikeLike
Sorry, Michael.
If there’s anyone practicing sophistry on this thread it would be you.
Let me repeat. There is no free speech issue here. Do you really not grasp this?
Brandeis University is a private school. It gets to decide who it invites to give commencement speeches and to whom it give honorary degrees. There is no constitutional guarantee to giving speeches at private colleges or to receiving honorary degrees from them.
As I noted previously, if Ayaan Hirsi Ali were to file a lawsuit claiming her free speech rights were violated – and she won’t – it would get quickly tossed. Let me say that another way. If there were truly a free speech violation here, then a slew of attorneys would be lining up to take the case for Ali. But don’t hold your breath.
You may not like what Brandeis administrators did (that’s apparent). And they may be guilty of bad judgment, and even worse decision-making. I suppose you can accuse them of retarding ‘academic freedom’ (though, as others point out, Brandies DID offer Ali a venue to speak, just not a commencement address).
But Brandeis administrators clearly did not violate the free speech rights of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
LikeLike
Democracy, I agree there is no cause for legal action re Brandeis. But no one forced them to offer an honorary degree to Ali. Presumably they knew her work or they would not have invited her to accept an award. Withdrawing the award occurred because of protests by those who do not like her views. Brandeis made itself appear weak and foolish. If she did not deserve the honor, they should not have offered it.
LikeLike
Precisely. And why did they suddenly un-offer? Did they think originally she was someone else? A rock star? An actress? Someone in the administration saw her on the telly and thought she was a pro basketball player?
No, of course not. She was put in a position of honor because people at Brandeis believed she deserved it. And then the left-wing PC forces raised a stink. So the university crumbled. And she was put in a position of going from honor to international insult and humiliation.
But of course, those who don’t like her politics have NO PROBLEM with that. We see that I’m alleged to be using straw men when I make an analogy to, say, Benjamin Spock being blocked from speaking at a private university after protests from wealthy alums and donors, influential corporate contributors, or maybe some behind the scenes string pulling by government officials. That’s not like this, because Spock was on the side of the angels, the war was being pursued by the establishment, so my comparison is just off. Turns out, of course, that NO comparison I make will be good enough to satisfy those who oppose Ali’s politics (or what they allege her politics and message are). No analogy is perfect.
Elsewhere, I suggested Nelson Mandela being invited for an honorary degree and/or speech being disinvited because shadowy, powerful forces of the establishment object. Would that be a good analogy? Well, no, because see, Ms. Ali is characterized by some people here as being on the wrong side and so I would have to liken the situation to Hitler being denied an honorary degree or a chance to speak to graduating seniors. And who could object to that?
At which point, I would pipe up, “I do!” Because this isn’t about who is invited, then told to forget it, not about what his/her views are, but simply the fact that 1) you simply don’t bow to political pressure on these things if you’re an actual institution of higher learning; and 2) there are a lot of people here who clearly object to her having any platform and DON’T mind the thought of her being entirely blocked from speaking or appearing on the campus. Capisce? Or need I spell it out completely? We’re having an argument precisely because these attitudes are completely anti-democratic. And looking for cheap outs to mask that reality should be beneath us. Telling me, “Oh, she can still speak” misses the fact that there are people who weighed in here before we started nit-picking who revile her and seem sanguine about her being silenced. Further, it misses the implications of letting a majority or sufficiently vocal minority from deciding that controversial figures don’t get honorary degrees. Anyone here on the left note what happens every time Bill Ayers name is mentioned publicly on the Internet? The fact that Robert Kennedy, Jr. was able to prevent Ayers from getting the emeritus status he richly deserved because of a comment Ayers claims he had nothing to do with but which allegedly praised Sirhan Sirhan in the dedication page to one of Ayers’ books (shades of the Tweet Stephen Colbert DIDN’T send that had some PC folks calling for his show to be cancelled).
People who are finding clever ways to wiggle out of the central issue here, who want to claim this isn’t about the chilling of academic freedom and free speech on college campuses, are kidding themselves and trying to kid the rest of us. It’s NOT okay that this invitation was withdrawn. It was a cowardly example of an institution of higher learning teaching its members that unless someone is sufficiently uncontroversial, she can be made into an object of shame. Wait until someone on the left is treated that way at Brandeis or some other university and see who here is sanguine about it. And then you’ll see the hypocrisy in full flower.
LikeLike
Well, so much for academic freedom. This has always been the liberal achilles heal—the paradoxical belief that strong beliefs should not be offensive to any group. The same could be said about universities who proclaim a strong belief in religious freedom, but become uneasy when that belief is taken to its logical conclusion —which is the conversion of all unbelievers (that is the goal of all religions).
LikeLike
Say what?
Maybe you’ve never heard of ALEC.
Maybe you’ve not been paying attention to what conservative Republicans are doing in North Carolina.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-rising-sea-level/story?id=16913782
Or perhaps you are unaware of former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s persecution of scientist Michael Mann for his scientific research.
http://hamptonroads.com/2011/09/persecution-michael-mann
LikeLike
The hypocrisy operating on the Left, particularly on college campuses, these days is frightening. In SE Michigan, there has been a “radical” group operating since the late 1980s that repeatedly tries to interrupt and block the speeches at the University of Michigan and elsewhere deemed “unsuitable.” Their motto is “No free speech for fascists!” That they themselves are clearly left-wing fascists seems to elude them.
LikeLike
Stop characterizing this as a “Left” issue. It is not and you are throwing a lot of genuine progressives under the bus, as well as feeding into the impulses of right-wingers who typically characterize everything they oppose as “Left.”
These are the actions of one college and people from all walks of life have varying opinions about it. As most Democrats have learned by now, the Democratic party and its leadership today is center-right and they have alienated their base. It’s going to take a major uprising from true humanitarian progressives to change that, but you are making anyone left-of-center appear like the lunatic fringe.
LikeLike
Oh, please. If you’ve followed my comments on this thread from the beginning, you can’t make those comment to me with a straight face. Go back and read what I wrote. I’m not going to waste my time making clear to you what I’ve already made completely clear. You’re simply mischaracterizing the overall thrust of what I’ve been saying.
I am happy to criticize idiocy no matter which “side” is purveying it. Left-wing political correctness is no worse than right-wing orthodoxy and censoriousness. But which side currently dominates faculties in higher education these days, particularly in public universities? Speech codes, free speech zones, “sensitivity” brainwashing programs for new students, are NOT pushing right wing views or ideologies. Suggesting otherwise is just pure fantasy.
Of course, the right wing dominates in most venues, particularly in media coverage and paid political advertising. But that changes nothing about what’s happening on many once-progressive college and university campuses.
If people on the left (or right) don’t want their dirty laundry washed in public because “the other side” will pounce on the opportunity to point fingers, than those folks had best do a better job of keep things a hell of a lot cleaner on their own. There are always going to be people who couldn’t care less about which side gets embarrassed when that side is trying to silence the opposition or mandate people’s beliefs in the name of “goodness.” I am so sick to death of people who only care about free speech when it’s speech they approve of.
By the way, I wonder how many critics of Ms. Ali have actually read her books.
LikeLike
Oh please yourself. You have repeatedly blamed people on the “left” and “progressives” for the issue on this blog. Which people do you think truly believe in and advocate for human rights? “Humanitarian” and “social justice” are dirty words for right-wingers, not the left, but you’ve got a warped sense of who your adversaries are, so you are attacking many who are allies.
LikeLike
It is one thing to be ignorant. It is quite another to be willfully so.
LikeLike
Right back at your head in the sand.
LikeLike
You clearly didn’t bother to read the whole set of comments I made here. Or if you did, you subscribe to the philosophy that ANY criticism of your side is an utter betrayal. Either way, you’re not unusual: fanatics are a dime a dozen. People like Diane Ravitch, who can critique their own viewpoints, learn from their mistakes, and modify their thinking based on reality, are the gems. I had my fill of fanatics at 19 and have never feared taking flack from such people since I came to my senses. No epithets, no accusations, and no vapid rhetoric will frighten me into being silent when I see hypocrisy in action. You have said nothing that convinces me you think truth is more important than politics.
LikeLike
Keep living on that island where you’re alright and everyone else on the left and right are all wrong.
LikeLike
Of course neither said nor implied anything of the kind. Just the extremists and the ideologues, along with the clueless illiterates like you.
LikeLike
Funny, yet another example of how you have absolutely no clue who your adversaries and allies are, because your targets are everyone who does not live in isolation with you on your remote island.
You don’t know what my views are since I have not shared them, and I happen to agree that this was an inappropriate decision by Brandeis. But you were more interested in attacking what you have deemed to be my political affiliations and perspectives than finding out what my opinions actually are on this matter, because you are on a mission to pigeon hole and attack the “left” and “progressives.” I happen to vote third party, but I know who my most like-minded allies are and I appreciate them. Good luck on fighting a revolution in total isolation.
LikeLike
I have no interest in revolutions. And my island seems to have quite a sizeable population of people of various political persuasions who are able to deal with nuance, something that seems to elude you in your constant battering at me personally. I would apologize for irritating you so much, but I’m not actually sorry. If you say anything that actually sounds like you’re speaking to me, I’ll be sure to explain my thoughts on it, but thus far you just keep misfiring. And quite badly. You jumped in here without knowing the shot, cracked out of turn, and now accuse me of being isolated and out of touch? That tack must win friends and influence people wherever you go.
The fact that there are stupid people who hold just about any position you care to name is not a judgment on the positions but on those people. I don’t need to accept someone as an “ally” just because we seem to hold similar beliefs. The arguments over the Common Core have really clarified that people can conclude that CCSSI is bad news for some rather remarkably dense reasons. I’m under NO obligation to link arms with such people just because I, too, oppose CCSSI, because when the dust settles, those people will still have very screwy ideas about mathematics and literacy education. And as a professional mathematics educator, I have spent the last quarter century seeing the results of many such bad ideas and trying to counter them with better ones.
Meanwhile, I’m starting to read Ms. Ali’s books, waiting for the third one through my library. She’s a provocative person. I tend to like such people when they strike me as well-grounded. And I suspect that given what she has experienced, she’s quite well-grounded. I may conclude upon further review that I’ve misjudged her, given her too much credit because of her position on female rights and her experiences in Amsterdam, the fact that she’s become an atheist, and her self-professed progressivism (I know, I know: she’s politically incorrect and must be shunned, but still. . . ). That these thoughts and opinions cost me your support and earn me your ire is just part of the price of playing poker, I’m afraid. Win some, lose some. Try to add those together and get the better of things over the long haul. If you’re as much of a potential ally as you seem to think, or if I’m alienating wonderful people, I think I’m capable of learning from my errors and winning back the support of many such people of good will. If, of course, I’m not so far wrong after all. . .
LikeLike
Michael, you have spoken eloquently and passionately about this topic. I thank you for your perspective. I, too, feel the need for individuals to speak out against the abuse perpetrated against women worldwide, most of it a form of slavery, and often a part of the human trafficking which occurs more frequently than we realize in this country.
Brandeis has made their choice. Our views on this issue are simply rhetorical at this point. We have discussed the details to infinity. Time to move on. If there are further developments we can reopen the discussion at a later date.
On a personal note, I thought her speech was inspiring and was glad to have the opportunity to read it. I hope to one day hear her speak in person. I’ve put her name on my bucket list of authors.
LikeLike
Thanks, Ellen, even though I live on an island and have no supporters here or anywhere else, I’m hallucinating that you and I are basically in agreement. I began reading Ali’s INFIDEL last night. Really fascinating so far, and not a single call for the extermination of all Arabs, all Muslims, or anyone else, for that matter. But it’s early days yet. I’m sure her bloodthirsty racism and Islamophobia is still in its nascent stages. I’m tempted to skip ahead to the chapter, “Bring Me the Heads of All the Muslims and Arabs.”
LikeLike
Keep me posted. My daughter is seriously dating a boy whose father is from Turkey and mother is from Morocco. I have warned her that, even though he is from the US, his parents’ influence on his upbringing might temper his views towards women. If they were to marry, we worry about his family’s reaction to her ( she is 1/4 Jewish). Although he claims to have no faith, his mom is Muslim. It will be interesting to see what develops.
(Living near a university, I have seen quite a few Middle East/American relationships. Many began well, but ended badly due to distorted attitudes towards women. Of course, the same could be said of most failed marriages.)
LikeLike
I have no interest in reading any more of the long-winded rants, projections and ad hominem attacks that you dish out but defensively recoil against when shown a mirror. Enjoy your agenda to complain about but not rectify injustices, as well as your imagined cronies –whom I see very few of, if any, here –probably because they’ve learned that “with friends like you, who needs enemies.”
LikeLike
Oh, my. So sad to lose someone who posts anonymously, came out on the attack against me based on a bunch of distorted fantasy, and seems to have missed that my viewpoint on this issue corresponds with that of the person who wrote the blog post. Of course, I don’t claim that Diane Ravitch and I agree on everything. We don’t. Nor would I expect to find anyone who agrees with me on everything. I don’t even agree with MYSELF on everything.
You are going to disengage? I wish I could say I’ll suffer a sense of loss.
LikeLike
“conversion of all unbelievers… is the goal of all religions” That might be the goal of your religion, but it is not the aim of every religion. For example, Jews do not recruit.
LikeLike
I think it is worth pointing out that Brandeis has in no way stopped a dialogue from occurring- in fact they extended an open invitation to Ali to come back to campus for a discussion/lecture.
It is also important to note that this decision was made after a huge outcry from students and professors on campus, including a petition signed by thousands of students/professors. In many ways, this school is participating in a democratic process by engaging with these members of their community. Many colleges would not make a decision based on petitions/student outcry.
LikeLike
So if there were sufficiently large of an outcry on a college campus against letting someone speak out against, say, the Vietnam War, c. 1966, the speaker should be disinvited, because it reflects a democratic process? How little you understand about academic freedom, free speech, and the need for dialog on college campuses. What about the rights of those who signed counter-petitions? Majority rules, minorities can suck eggs?
Just consider what your position would be if this were the early 1950s, in the McCarthy Era, when people were rushing to rat one another out as Communists, and anyone suspected of being “a little pink” was in danger of losing his/her job.
It’s truly frightening how much rationalizing alleged progressives will do when it comes to shut off the speech of those with whom they disagree. I once thought that was strictly the province of the far right. How wrong I was.
LikeLike
What you are missing is the difference between an honorary degree and an invitation to engage in dialogue. If Brandeis had said “we do not support her beliefs, and ban any conversation with her,” I too, would be upset. However, that is simply not the case.
I still don’t understand why you insist that Brandeis choosing not to give her an honorary doctorate (and therefore saying she is line with their universities values) is akin to stopping the democratic process. Brandeis DOES want her to come to campus, they do not want to give her an award saying she stands for their campus’ beliefs. In fact, the outcry shows she does not stand for their belief.
Brandeis should have a right to make their own decisions on who represents their colleges values, don’t you think?
LikeLike
Explain what you believe the process was that caused them to invite her and then disinvite her. Try to keep the stench of politically-correct righteousness out of your nostrils.
Then, create the same scenario for an invitation offered to and then withdrawn from Nelson Mandela. Or Mother Teresa (students and faculty suddenly realize she’s a nun). Or any figure you might admire who would draw fire from the far right, or some influential alumni/donors, or the current majority political views of students or faculty.
That doesn’t worry you? You’re more concerned with the right to discriminate, I suppose.
LikeLike
Michael, you’re using the straw man phrase of “political correctness” to paper over an invalid analogy: prohibiting opponents of the Vietnam War from speaking on campus is entirely different from choosing to not award an honorary degree to someone whose beliefs were used to justify the actions of the state.
You’re also overlooking the power dynamics at play: those who opposed the war in Vietnam were, at least from 1965-70, going against the grain of US power and empire. Ms. Hirsi Ali, on the other hand, was expounding “ideas” that reinforced US military aggression in the Middle East and Islamic countries.
Should she be able to speak at any US university without fear of censorship? Absolutely.
Is deciding against “honoring” her service – intentional or not – to US military hegemony and anti-Islamic paranoia an act of censorship? Absolutely not.
LikeLike
“I have always found discussions on democracy in the U.S. curious and at times hilarious. While I have always been impressed by the skillful way elites construct a narrative of democratic values and practice in a country that is, in reality, the antithesis of a democracy, the fervor with which that fairytale is embraced, even by intellectuals, has always been a source of curiosity for me.”…
.AJAMU BARAKA
LikeLike
“The Citizens United case, the gutting of the Voting Rights Act last year, the rash of state-level laws passed to suppress democratic participation, felony disenfranchisement, and now the McCutcheon ruling—they all signal that the democratic zombie apocalypse is upon us now. ”
Ajamu Baraka
LikeLike
An honest take on this situation, though it doesn’t seem to take a clear-cut stance: http://bit.ly/QfgiEj
LikeLike
I agree that Ms. Ali has a right to express her views. Part of the issue, as others have indicated above, is whether she warrants an honorary degree. But more germanely, having been offered that degree, should it have been withdrawn? We do not know what went into that decision. However, just to speculate, if those who reversed the decision did so due to pressure from either inappropriate intimidation or from those with political or financial influence (as appeared to be the case with Tony Kushner a couple of years ago), that would be wrong. But, if the reversal was due to actually listening to those protesting the honor, researching the issue, and concluding that the award was a mistake based on that research, then I feel the decision would be totally appropriate. I totally agree with Diane that educational institutions should not bow to “political correctness”. On the other hand, who but Diane can appreciate those who self critically recognize a mistake, and courageously and publicly reverse course?
LikeLike
Update: It appears, at least from this article (http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/04/11/3425762/brandeis-ayaan-hirsi-ali/) that in fact the University’s change of heart was likely due to the latter of the possibilities I discussed above, and that a major factor was an online petition at change.org, and evidence that in fact Ms. Ali holds some very incendiary views. The school pairs this decision with an invitation to speak at the University at another time.
As an aside, one also has to wonder, if the Ali situation had not monopolized people’s attention, whether any controversy would have developed over having Geoffrey Canada as the commencement speaker.
LikeLike
Just wondering which books of Ms. Ali her critics here have read and why I’ve yet to see a single quotation from anything she’s written that supports the scurrilous attacks made against her here. You’d think that with all the vitriol being spewed, a supporting source or two would be a piece of cake to produce. You’d think.
LikeLike
Michael,
For a quick reference, I would suggest taking a look at the excerpt from an interview she did with “Reason” below ( http://reason.com/archives/2007/10/10/the-trouble-is-the-west ). This short excerpt is broadly representative of her attitude and position towards Islam generally, which she has advocated in a number of works and innumerable interviews and conferences. Just try replacing “Islam” and “muslims” with “Judaism” and “jews” in the interview below and you will see why she is considered by her critics as the equivalent of an anti-semite.
Reason: Don’t you mean defeating radical Islam?
Hirsi Ali: No. Islam, period. Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace.
Reason: We have to crush the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims under our boot? In concrete terms, what does that mean, “defeat Islam”?
Hirsi Ali: I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and they’re the most fanatical sometimes. There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, “This is a warning. We won’t accept this anymore.” There comes a moment when you crush your enemy.
Reason: Militarily?
Hirsi Ali: In all forms, and if you don’t do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed.
Reason: Are we really heading toward anything so ominous?
Hirsi Ali: I think that’s where we’re heading. We’re heading there because the West has been in denial for a long time. It did not respond to the signals that were smaller and easier to take care of. Now we have some choices to make. This is a dilemma: Western civilization is a celebration of life—everybody’s life, even your enemy’s life. So how can you be true to that morality and at the same time defend yourself against a very powerful enemy that seeks to destroy you?
Reason: George Bush, not the most conciliatory person in the world, has said on plenty of occasions that we are not at war with Islam.
Hirsi Ali: If the most powerful man in the West talks like that, then, without intending to, he’s making radical Muslims think they’ve already won. There is no moderate Islam. There are Muslims who are passive, who don’t all follow the rules of Islam, but there’s really only one Islam, defined as submission to the will of God. There’s nothing moderate about it.
Reason: So when even a hard-line critic of Islam such as Daniel Pipes says, “Radical Islam is the problem, but moderate Islam is the solution,” he’s wrong?
Hirsi Ali: He’s wrong. Sorry about that.
LikeLike
Good interview. Unsurprising from someone who has seen from the inside some of the horrors perpetrated by fanatic/extremist elements of a particular religious-political philosophy both in countries where it rules and in countries where it has led people to commit heinous crimes. No one tends to be more vehemently opposed to a radical philosophy than someone who was part of the group and chose to leave.
Not seeing the blanket anti-Arab position claimed by several people here, and that’s because I doubt such a “racist” viewpoint would be consonant with her thinking. But maybe I missed it or you have other sources.
While some of her statements are extreme on the surface, she’s calling for the defeat of a religio-political movement. She seems fine with the idea that Sufism and other non-violent viewpoints within Islam would regain control of Islam after the geo-political defeat of what she sees Islam as having become. If her analysis is correct, I wouldn’t disagree with her basic solution. But it is truly twisting her words to suggest she’s looking for a holocaust or anything of the sort against Islam (and to remind people, that would go far beyond the Middle East, given that there are many non-Arab Muslims. And there are, of course, non-Muslim Arabs).
Given her experiences in Amsterdam, I find it quite easy to understand her perspective. Similarly, her work to protect the rights of women in the Islamic world makes her a very sympathetic figure to me as a progressive and humanist. I think she recognizes the great achievements of Islamic civilization, as did, ironically, proto-Libertarian Rose Wilder Lane , who wrote a book that would have many of today’s conservatives and libertarians calling for her head on a platter. I wonder what a conversation between Lane and Ali would have sounded like.
I understand why some people need to reject Ali out of hand. I don’t. I guess that makes me a racist, Islamophobe, etc., regardless of my actual positions on such matters and public statements about American conservative Islamophobia, anti-Arab racism, etc. It’s tougher to see multiple perspectives on complex issues than to assign simplistic angel or demon labels on people. And Ali is right to suggest that there is a terrorist element operating globally on behalf of the Islamic political movement that is causing speech to be silenced in many western countries. That doesn’t make America a land of saints or its geopolitics exemplary by any means. But it does force us to look carefully at various attempts to undermine OUR freedoms, by forces foreign AND domestic. Looking at only one or the other is shortsighted. And I sense a lot of very selective judgment going on surrounding the Brandeis situation and Ms. Ali. That is unfortunate.
LikeLike
Brandeis has not silenced Ayaan Hirsi Ali…She has already been invited back by the university to expound on her views in a neutral forum that does not confer upon her any honor. Anyone who claims now that this is a “free speech” issue is being intellectually dishonest.
LikeLike
I think you’ve made that argument more than once. But it evades several key points that Diane and others have raised. In light of the notion that the invitation was withdrawn because of a petition, I have to ask: if a speaker with whom you agreed was first invited to address the university at commencement and then that invitation was withdrawn because of a petition, would you just accept it, or would you question that decision? Are there “good” controversial speakers who deserve to be honored no matter who protests, and “bad” controversial speakers who deserve nothing but rejection, contempt, humiliation?
Is the job of a university to filter out objectionable commencement speakers, even those it has first chosen to honor before getting pressured to renege? Or is it to challenge the sensibilities of different groups in the interest of debate, academic freedom, and public discourse?
I fear that the university forces of political correctness on the left and right these days want a monotone to prevail, be it one blessed by the angels of “liberalism” or “conservatism.” And I say that is just paternalistic bull.
LikeLike
I don’t know why you keep repeating rhetoric about debate, academic freedom, and public discourse. They invited her back to speak in a neutral forum. what more do you want them to do, to adhere to the basic principles which you and I both hold dear. Refusing to honor her her has nothing to do with those principles. It is the right of the university to decide who it wants to honor and who it does not…they also have the right to change their mind in that regard….take your argument to a logical extreme and your basically saying that a university is obligated to honor everyone and anyone who has an opinion about some important issue. that makes no sense…..the very act of giving an honorary degree represents an act of picking and choosing this person as opposed to that person…. that decision should be made democratically….and the input of students and professors should be taken into consideration…they are constituents in the university and their opinions should be valued. a petition is a democratic form whereby those constituents are able to make their voice heard when their voices are not initially consulted…it is mind-boggling to me that you would oppose that and at the same time advocate for a decison that was obviously made undemocratically by a bunch of higher-ups in the university drop the rhetoric about academic freedom, public discourse, and debate…it’s no longer relevant in this case.
LikeLike
Again, until you get it: they invited her, and there’s nothing in the way colleges and universities are generally organized or run that requires a vote or poll for every or any such decision. Then, under pressure, they buckled. I think that’s classless. All you need to do is tell me that if the invitee had been someone you respect that you’d be sanguine about the reverse invitation/honor and I’ll stop pushing that point with you. I may not believe the reply, but it would be pointless to keep arguing it: I just can’t imagine feeling fine about that sort of thing.
You simply don’t want to admit that you’re okay about this because you’re NOT okay with Ms. Ali. And that’s what’s troubling. That you can’t see it is why we have to keep debating this in terms of academic freedom. Because I think that if we change the names/ideologies of the players, your position would change. Mine wouldn’t.
LikeLike
this is my final comment…I don’t appreciate you making comments implicating my character and my integrity…I have not done that to you and I don’t why you are doing it to me…although usually it tends to happen when people see their arguments falling apart and see no other path to take…i have already admitted one of my arguments wrong to you and apologized…I would think that would have already expressed my desire to have an honest discussion but apparently not…usually people are very averse to changing positions on certain issues especially on the internet…i am not…i am not dogmatic and I do not appreciate your implication that I am. these are rational arguments that I have made and you have not logically refuted one of them, instead choosing to assassinate my character and presume some dark motivation as a way of avoiding my central argument….. my politics and the fact that I don’t like the speaker has no bearing on this issue. I don’t care that this is not the way universities are usually run. most universities have speech codes and demonstration codes that restrict student’s freedom of expression and speech…are you going to defend those codes on the basis of the argument “this is the way universities are usually run.” Given your committment to freedom of expression and speech, I don’t think you are. I am part of a student org on my campus…if there was a group that was having a counter-demonstration I would happily defend their right to have that demonstration….universities may not be run in a democratic fashion…but you can’t just pick and choose where you want to apply the principles of democracy… you want freedom of speech and expression to be honored..well guess what…I do to. an honorary degree is an endorsement of a viewpoint..it’s not a free speech issue…not letting someone speak at your university is a free speech/academic freedom issue….that’s why universities make it clear that just because they are hosting a speaker does not mean they endorse that speaker’s viewpoint..just like an individual has the right to change their opinion on an issue so does an entity made up of individuals…unfortunately, in this case, the majority of people representing that entity, Brandeis university, were not consulted, regarding whether they wanted to embrace that viewpoint or not….that’s not democracy…I want universities to be run in a democratic fashion and if that requires reversing a decision on whether or not to honor someone with a degree…well then what in the world is the big deal? what is meant by your use of the word “classless” I have no idea. I would say that pressure brought upon centers of power by their constituents is legitimate pressure in a democratic society…I would say “classless” would describe the decision of the university higher-ups not to consult their constituents before making such an important decision. would it be classless for some of our own politicians in government to reverse their decisions on issues like…oh I don’t know…the privatization of public education…based on pressure from us…their constituents….no it wouldn’t…we would all welcome it…and guess what..they would be expressing a certain politics in doing so…every act is a political act…the initial decision by Brandeis was a political act…the reversal was a political act…i support the reversal because it was in line with priniciples of democracy…i don’t support it because I don’t like Ms Ali’s views…get that through your head cause I’m not repeating myself
LikeLike
So majority rules except when it doesn’t. Democracy is a little more complex than simplistic ideas about how a community should act based on polls and straw votes. There was no vote here, just a vocal protest that cowed the university into insulting someone to avoid flack from someone else.
When Obama was invited to give a commencement speech at U of Michigan, the conservatives on campus raised a huge outcry. They were vocal, and yet the university likely never seriously considered withdrawing the invitation. After all, the POTUS had won a national election, and U of M would have looked like asshats to bow to this vocal minority.
So was the problem: A) too small of a protest? B) too big of a guest? C) democracy only rules when the administration fears not changing more than it fears changing? D) there’s no problem because as an institution, you don’t reverse offering an honor to someone because some folks, even a very vocal bunch of members of your community, don’t care for that person?
I have to go with the last option. Universities have honored a lot of people I personally consider to have bad politics. Gee, what a tragedy for everyone. I don’t assume that the entire community, including alumni, endorses that person or his/her work, politics, etc. If my university honors a writer whose work I personally dislike, why is that any skin off my nose? Why would it be in my interest to raise a stink about it? I’m sure Henry Kissinger has gotten a hell of a lot more honorary degrees than Ms. Ali. He is a clear-cut war criminal. Ditto George W. Bush and many members of his staff. I might disagree with such honors, but I’m a hell of a lot more worried about the fact that these monsters are running around with impunity than that some group or other chooses to honor them. That comes as no surprise. I could choose not to attend, or to attend and turn my back or to protest. But I wouldn’t expect the institution to withdraw its invitation.
Speech codes and other unconstitutional policies get instituted because too many American college students, faculty members, and citizens seem willing to abrogate their first amendment rights to petty administrators with too much time on their hands. When these idiotic policies are challenged in the courts, they are almost always overturned. It doesn’t matter how the policies get implemented: only that they are successfully resisted and overturned. In this case, no matter how you slice it, officials at Brandeis either made a serious error in judgment in extending an honor or in bowing to pressure to withdraw that honor and publicly humiliate someone because some portion of the community protested. The protest, of course, was legitimate. But on my view, the behavior of the officials was shameful.
As for your integrity, Harry Truman’s advice was to leave the cooking area if the temperature is too high for your liking. I would suggest that you can’t start insulting a public figure with controversial views without expecting to find that some people dislike what you say and might tread on your delicate sensibilities as a result. Ms. Ali isn’t here to defend herself. I have found, if anyone at all is paying attention, that some of her critics here and some of those who seem to support her are saying things that need further interrogation. For my trouble, I’ve been accused of all sorts of things. I’m pretty sure I’ll live, nonetheless. Arguments against “tone” no longer bother me much.
LikeLike
“Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” –Mark Twain
LikeLike