I was kid when in the early 1960s the Free Speech Movement (FSM) erupted in demonstrations on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley. FSM leaders such as Mario Savio and Bettina Aptheker became my heroes. Their goal was to secure the rights of students to engage in unhampered political speech on campus. The result of their efforts insured that right to students of both the right and the left.
Another of my heroes – or heroic group, if you prefer – is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). I spell the name out in full because I want to emphasize that the group stands for “civil liberties” period, not civil liberties for the left or the right.
I’ve sympathized with many of the ACLU’s crusades that fall on the spectrum of causes involving leftist goals. Easy to do. But what I’ve really admired is that the commitment of the ACLU has been to principle, not political identity. It’s what led the organization to stand up for the rights of a group of neo-Nazis to parade down the streets of Skokie Illinois in 1978, a city where numerous Holocaust survivors lived. Not easy to stomach, but the right thing to do if you value the freedom to speak freely.
I tell you this because I want you to know where I come from when I write about the recent free speech controversy at Truman State University and, by extension, similar occurrences at Universities around the country. US News summarized the Truman State situation:
Some students at Truman State University in northeast Missouri are circulating a petition seeking to halt a speech by an author who runs the website “Jihad Watch.” Concerns arose at the public university in Kirksville when a Republican student group arranged to bring Robert Spencer to campus Thursday night, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (http://bit.ly/2osMqZG ) reported. The Southern Poverty Law Center identifies Spencer as an anti-Muslim “propagandist,” and the school’s Muslim Student Association has responded by recruiting another speaker to appear beforehand in the same lecture hall. Truman State described allowing the event to proceed as a free speech issue, although leaders stressed the university isn’t sponsoring Spencer’s speech. “Cordial discourse on even the most contentious of topics is a fundamental tenet of a liberal arts education and a hallmark of a free society,” the university said in emails to student, faculty and staff this week. “This often includes viewpoints many people strongly oppose.”
We should be clear about the fact that Robert Spencer espouses reprehensible beliefs. But the petition drive that seeks to silence him is, to my mind, almost equally reprehensible, no matter how much its sponsors may believe in their righteous cause. They can protest his presence and I hope they do – protest is speech, after all – but making one’s own views heard through protest should not involve silencing the other guy.
Nor is repression useful to the cause of diversity. Denying Spencer the opportunity to put his views out, as repulsive as they may be, deprives us of the opportunity to expose his errors – errors that thrive and take on added power when they are not fully and openly examined. It is especially important to bring this type of ugliness into the open and show how devoid of substance such hate-mongers are now that we have a President who gives comfort to similar bigoted, white nationalist factions.
Many students who support the petition claim to make a distinction between “free” speech and “hate” speech directed at any specific individual or group. However the distinction is false. Free speech is an activity and is inclusive of even hate speech, which is a category of speech – they are not analogous entities, one of which we can endorse while prohibiting the other. (Clearly libelous speech is another matter altogether – one with which the legal system has been designed to handle.)
The only way to deal with “hate speech” is to expose its falsity with – cliche or not – more speech. Efforts to prohibit hate speech imply that those who find it disturbing are not capable of counter agument. When we further argue that we aim to spare targeted individuals or groups pain by silencing hateful speech, we need to realize aren’t helping them, but rather condescending to them by underestimating their strength and ability to defend themselves in the – forgive me for another cliche – court of ideas.
Fortunately, the Muslim Student Association at Truman seems to understand the issues and has responded by securing the inclusion of a counter-speaker to appear at the same venue prior to Spencer’s address – to the horror, needless to say of the folks who recruited Spencer. Conservative Club members who sponsored the event seem to believe that adding a dissenting voice will sully the “intellectual diversity” they believe Spencer brings to their campus. Of course, the addition of the Muslim Students’ speaker actually ensures that the event celebrates not only intellectual diversity, but introduces the element of critical argument that insures perspective in evaluating that diversity.
Tomorrow I hope to read that the event at Truman this evening (Thursday, April 13) came off without anything more untoward than a relatively noisy protest – I won’t be disturbed if I learn that Spencer got an earful of the contempt he deserves – but I will be very saddened if he leaves Missouri armed with more ammunition that he can use to tar all progressives as self-righteous, authoritarian enemies of all speech but their own.
“…We should be clear about the fact that Robert Spencer espouses reprehensible beliefs.”
That’s absolutely false, and reprehensible for you to assert. You make such an assertion without any proof of any kind except to accept it without any discussion.
The opposite is truth. He is a very respectable researcher of Islam and Jihad and he has published some 13 books that can be reviewed for ‘hateful’ comments, versus theologically factual and historically factual content and context.
The fact that he is more than willing to debate the slew of muslim ‘supporters’ leftist supporters of Sharia, Islam et al, and has been repeatededly refused such fair and open discussion, has shown the state of Jihad, and what it means in the west and the middle east. That Mr Spencer offered others to debate him at Truman, and was refused, gives a hint as to how deep the self deception disorder is that you demonstrate with your false assertion about his ‘reprehensible views’.
Shame on you, and shame on the people of the college who allow the appeasement of
tyranny in the name of progressive multiculturalism.
First – Spencer has no credentials that would lead one to consider him an authority on Islam. He holds no degrees in religion, Islamic studies or any other related discipline, is not published in peer-reviewed journals and in no way deserves respect as a serious scholar. He is a polemicist and as a decent human being I am revolted by the uninformed polemics he spews in his books and in the numerous debates in which he has participated. He has made many claims that are not only inflammatory, but which have been demonstrated to be untrue.
If labeling bigotry masquerading as scholarship reprehensible makes me reprehensible as well, so be it.
Second – Truman State did not cancel or impede his address; them simply offered those who are disagree with his polemics a chance to present their views as well – an appropriate step when there is controversy and when, as I have been informed, student activities funds went into bringing Spencer to Truman.
According to another comment here, there was a lively exchange at the end of his talk. If he and his supporters are as invested in “fair and open” discussion as you assert, you should have been delighted with that response. The fact that you are so outraged suggests otherwise.
Hello Willykay —
I commend your remarks defending Robert Spencer’s appearance at TSU, but why did you assume that the SPLC is a neutral assessor? Here is a link to Ashley Jost’s SL-PD article:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/truman-state-grapples-with-controversial-anti-muslim-speaker/article_138f0acd-bd84-59e1-890e-d921a1ec6ee2.html?mode=comments
Go to the comment stream, starting with Brianne Bannon and my response to her. I recommended 4 websites, one specific piece (“The Terrifying Brilliance of Islam”) and 2 videos by Dr. David Wood.
Now that Easter weekend is here, perhaps, if you are not already familiar with what those 7 resources contain, some unobligated time will appear on your calendar, and you can get back to me with citations of errors and/or lies they contain.
Looking forward to a reply & with best regards,
Stefan
I have made no assumptions that the SPLC is “neutral.” The Center makes its point of view very clear and it is one with which I agree wholeheartedly.
I took a quick look at your comment on the PD article, and since your source is Jihadwatch and polemical videos found on websites, I question your concern about using “neutral” resources. We evaluate, pick and choose and the choices always reflect our values as well as the depth of our frame of reference.
As for Spencer’s – and others – ability to cite Hadith, the Quran, etc., while I’m not an Islamic scholar or a student of religion at all, I am aware that just as folks can cherry pick Bible quotations to serve any political or social point of view, the Hadith are susceptible to the same kind of selective interpretation. Which is why we relay on real scholars rather than polemicists such as Spencer to put these bits and pieces into the correct perspective.
Thanks for your comments.
You’ll be really proud and happy to know that all students who disagreed with Spencer were able to organize under short notice and decided the most productive course of action was to actually attend both talks and intellectually engage Spencer following his talk. We didn’t “walk out” or refuse to listen, we realized that shutting down Spencer would just silence the Islamaphobic hate we have going on in our country when really, we need to call attention to how much of an issue it is. Spencer did that FOR us, repeatedly calling himself a wicked villain. Our protest was an incredible success and refusing to clap for a man spewing hate speech spoke louder than trying to silence his words. We let him speak for himself.
Sorry about the spelling. When people make hateful and often false assertions about Islam I call it Islamophobia a label might appropriately apply to your post. Nor will I reply to further posts. It’s no fun talking to people who can’t control themselves.
If you’re interested in finding experts in Islam, there are numerous universities with departments of religious studies, Islamic Studies, Arabic studies or History and Political Science Departments with competent Arabists who have the linguistic and historical chops necessary to parse Islamic religious writings in the context of their societies. A little research should turn up a large list of citations. Wide reading doesn’t hurt any of us.
Willykay while I admire your spirited defense of free speech I am appalled at some of your comments which have no basis in fact. Your statement that “Robert Spencer espouses reprehensible beliefs” is missing the point. Robert Spencer espouses the reprehensible beliefs of islam, would be much more correct. I have studied and followed the “reprehensible” behaviour of islam for many years and listened to and read the dissertations by Mr. Spencer and others comprehensively and have never heard one iota of hate speech from Robert Spencer. He lays out the facts of the vile religion of islam and always with supportive text and quotes in a moderate and mild manner. Never ever have I heard him make any hateful, racist, bigotted or, if you like to use the made up muslim word designed to close down any comments on islam, “islamophobic” statements.
Your obvious lack of knowledge of islam is, unfortunately, only to common these days as people find it much easier to just go along with the rubbish that dozens of the taqiyya spouting muslim organisations, and most of the world’s leaders like to espouse such as “islam is a religion of peace” rather than open the koran and hadiths and read the apalling hatred that permeates these so called, laughably, so called religious texts. There is 1400 hundred years of history that gives denial to that nonsense that is irrefutable.
For your information the SPLC is is actually a bigoted, racial organization of disinformation, lies and smears that attacks anyone that dares to try and educate the slumbering masses on the danger that islam represents. To be on their lists should be an honor and a declaration of the integrity of the person named.
A quick look around the world for anyone with their eyes open should be enough to elicit some alarm as to the aims of islam. Denmark, Sweden, France, England, Germany, Italy, Spain, even America, and many other countries are experiencing horrific problems from their, never integrating, muslim invaders, (whose ideology and tenets are totally incompatible with the beliefs and laws of the West), and who are on the verge of losing their culture, their beliefs and soon their countries which will become 3rd world hell holes like most of the 58 muslim countries (most of which were once Christian, Bhuddist or Brahman). Since 9/11 there has been some 30,600 muslim terrorist attacks around the world. I couldn’t find any stats for any other religion despite your trying to equate violence in the Bible to the constantly demanded violence dictated by the koran and hadiths.
If you are indeed such a warrior in the defense of freedom of speech then it is time you took a good look around your country. The Organization of Islamic Co-operation has been pushing the UN for years to make any speech on islam illegal. Many countries have introduced laws of one sort or another to that end. The draconian R103 vote in Canada recently is a good example. Of course once you are forbidden to criticise or question something then it can proceed with its agenda without constraint. Free speech in England is staggering under the PC idiocy of the government and the never ending chipping away at the edifice of English belief and tradition by islamic forces. When a country closes its eyes to the rape, torture, and prostitution of hundred of thousands of their defenseless 10 – 15 year old girls for 30 years because they are frightened they will be called racist (what race is islam again?) or islamaphobes then it is a country in decline.
Free speech on most college or university campuses in America is now virtually impossible because of all the brain-washed little snowflake lefties who have no comprehension of the free and interactive sharing of ideas and ideals anymore. They are also infested with muslim brother hate groups like the MSA and the SJP who stifle all dissent or debate about anything not overtly positive about islam and spread fear and disinformation to all who will listen.
I feel that you are somewhat naive about tireless warriors like Robert Spencer, Pamela Gellar, Ayan Hirsi Aly, Nonie Dawish, Geert Wilders and a host of other brave people who dare the threats, hatred and disruption of their lives to try and educate the comatose masses to what is taking place around the world and why. Your comment regarding religious experts at universities etc is laughable. These are the whitewashing, taqiyya spouting, disinformation front for islam. Your hope of getting any sort of truth from them is virtually nil. They only exist because most seats of learning get huge amounts of money from muslim countries with the condition that such departments are set up to continue the stealth jihad of islamist disinformation. The net is riddled with such crap sites spouting their nonsense.You also seem to have little idea of what is happening in yours and other countries with this scourge and the rapidly dwindling freedoms that decades of brave people fought and died for, and which the current generation in their blind slothfullness is simply handing away. Once gone, they will not return!
Peace!
So Spencer “lays out the vile facts” about Islam. No hate there, nosiree. And as for your careful verification of his statements in the canonical texts of Islam – I assume that you’re not only an accomplished speaker of Arabic, but an expert in classical Arabic philology? And History. And Religious systems. If you can’t – don’t bother me with your claims of expertise
Why is bringing the “vile” content, of a so called religious tome that one and a half billion people follow and that continually calls for the death of all those that choose not to believe in the moon god allah, to the attention of those that are threatened, hateful? If there is any logic in your comment it defies me.
As is constantly iterated by muslims the koran is supposed to be the perfect book, unassailable in its content, perfect in every way, logical, clear in understanding, and with no need to question or argue or be critical about anything in it. If you do of course the punishment is death as in just about everything else to do with islam. As a matter of fact it is probably the worst example of a book ever written even though none less than a perfect god is supposed to have authored it. It has no chronological order, being written from the longest verse to the shortest. It is full of foreign words, stories plagiarised and mutilated from the Bible and the Torah, so called scientific facts from the so called creator that are beyond pathetic and nonsensical, verses that are complete gibberish and have no meaning, and a never ending tirade of verses extolling the faithful to have nothing to do with any one outside the cult and to kill them wherever possible until allah is the only recognized deity.
Why is mentioning a hate-filled book calling for the death of all those you love, your countrymen and a fair portion of the rest of the world hateful?
The common whining excuse made by muslims whenever anyone dares to criticise this execrable tome is that you have to be able to read arabic to fully comprehend it and of course as is often the case death follows from some offended fanatic and another chip is peeled away from the freedom of speech.
But, but it is supposed to be easily and fully comprehended by anyone because it is perfect! The fact is it was written decades after the thug Muhammad’s death and in an arabic that did not have the modern diacritical markings to give proper translation to words means that very few scholars today can read the original form anyway. A large percentage of muslims do not speak or read arabic but quote stuff verbatim and rely on the iman to tell them what it means and whitewash what he does tell them.
However verses such as the following need no expertise to decipher. They are perfectly clear in any language :
“Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.” Qur’an 2:191
“Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.” Qur’an 9:123
“When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them.” Qur’an 9:5
“Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable.” Qur’an 3:85
“The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them.” Qur’an 9:30
“Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam” Qur’an 5:33
“The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque.” Qur’an 9:28
“Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies.” Qur’an 22:19
“Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them.” Qur’an 47:4
“The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them.” Qur’an 8:65
“Muslims must not take the infidels as friends.” Qur’an 3:28
“Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an.” Qur’an 8:12
“Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels.” Qur’an 8:60
“Be terrified that Allah will replace you and put others in your place, and, inflict you with a painful doom” (Quran 9:38 and 39)….
So many people these days like to feel warm and fuzzy about themselves and their dangerous liberal ideas based on nothing but ignorance and it is becoming a very dangerous thing. I nowhere claimed expertise on this subject, but i do claim to have read extensively on it. Robert Spencer, whom you so enjoy denigrating (probably relying on nothing but that warm fuzzy feeling) is an expert. So much so that very few of those muslims you mention who are “accomplished speakers of Arabic, expert in classical Arabic philology? And History. And Religious systems.” dare to debate with him because he makes complete idiots of them. Which of course they are!