How the Left/Islamist Alliance is Destroying Our Universities By Andrew L. Jaffee, February 26, 2004	Home   Search   Forum   Terms

I just received an email from a pro-Israel blogger, Janet Lehr, of IsraelLives. She highlighted an incident symptomatic of a phenomenon that is far too common these days: How freedom of speech is silenced by the left/Islamist/political correctness alliance at our universities. While supporters of terrorism are given carte blanche to speak on campus, anyone critical of terrorism, who holds conservative viewpoints, or for example, supports Israel, is faced with insurmountable obstacles when wishing to present an opposing viewpoint, and sometimes even completely barred from doing so.

My compatriot Janet described the unfair treatment that peaceful, pro-Israel demonstrators were given when they tried to attend a conference regarding Israel’s security fence at Pace University:

IF YOU WORE A YARMULKA YOU WERE NOT ALLOWED IN

There were about 100 protesters at Pace University this afternoon. David Tobey with Pace University Hillel worked very hard to open the conference on The Wall to all Pace Students as well as interested outsiders. When the conference was announced, there were no restrictions. As the time grew closer, David received the word that he could bring in 20 people only – I arrived at the appointed time, David was nowhere to be seen, I made my way to the Schimmel Center, David burst from within to shout in anguish – “only 10, we’ve been allowed only ten” and then he disappeared.

The weather was foul – rain and snow, cold – yet there was a crowd of pro-Jewish supporters outside –

Free speech in the University is not a conference where pro-Israel, pro-Jewish, voices are barred. Education is not exclusion of rebuttal. THE WALL took place in a space for 100 people, small considering the enormity of interest in the issue.

I saw or heard no pro-Palestinians. They were conspicuous in their absence. I could only assume they were comfortably seated in the conference hall –

I myself experienced such bias when opposing a Palestinian Solidarity Movement (PSM) conference held at Ohio State University (OSU) last year. Despite the fact that my organization, netwmd.com, LLC, presented clear and well-documented evidence of the PSM’s direct and indirect links to terrorism to the president of OSU, Karen A. Holbrook, she allowed the conference to be held on her campus. In fact, President Holbrook completely ignored our evidence in a public statement she issued:

What about allegations that the conference organizers promote violent and racist attitudes?

According to its Web site, "the 3rd Conference rejects any form of hatred or discrimination against any group based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation." The conference also "welcomes individuals of all ethnic and religious backgrounds to join in solidarity with the struggle for justice in Palestine."

There are many unfounded rumors circulating about what transpired during past conferences and extensive research has found none of them to be true.

So if a group says its not “violent and racist,” then it is, despite the evidence to the contrary? Documentation became "unfounded rumors." The truth of the matter is that Holbrook allowed the conference to take place because she didn’t want to appear politically incorrect. Since Palestinians are “oppressed,” then we have to bend over backwards for them, even if they kill innocent civilians with bombs backed with nuts, bolts, screws, and nails, right? Do you think President Holbrook would’ve allowed the KKK to meet on campus? Not a chance. Voices of peace and reason are squelched if they don’t pass the leftist/Islamist litmus test.

The two incidents described above are just a few examples of universities’ censorship of ideas that fail the leftist/Islamist litmus test. According to an article at Campus Watch,

...In September 2002, Benjamin Netanyahu, a former Likud (conservative) prime minister of Israel was to speak at Concordia University in Montreal, but he never made it. Nearly a thousand anti-Israel protestors rioted prior to the event,[1] smashing windows and hurling furniture at police, kicking and spitting on people going to the event. "By lunchtime," notes the Globe & Mail daily, "the vestibule of Concordia's main downtown building was littered with paper, upturned chairs, broken furniture and the choking aftereffects of pepper spray."[2]

In contrast, Hanan Ashrawi, a well-known Palestinian politician and activist, never faces such opposition. As she makes the rounds of American universities (such as the University of Colorado, Beloit, and Yeshiva), she speaks without interference, and what protests take place are completely non-violent. At Colorado College, students held small signs and a rebuttal was offered after the speech.[3] At the University of Pennsylvania, protesting students were so respectful, Tarek Jallad, president of the Penn Arab Student Society which sponsored her visit, commented: "I was very happy with the way the crowd showed her a lot of respect."[4] ...

David Horowitz, a founder of the New Left movement in the 1960s and now a high-profile conservative, speaks often at campuses and often faces problems. Protestors at the University of Chicago shouted at him and disrupted his talk before he uttered a word.[5] At the University of Michigan, "the university administration assigned 12 armed guards and a German Shepherd to protect the safety" of those who came to hear him speak. [6]

By comparison, Angela Davis, a former Black Panther and still today a far-leftist, enjoys the highest of esteem when visiting campuses. As she tours American colleges, she meets no protests, requires no excessive security, and is dutifully acclaimed by campus newspapers for her "wise presence."[7] ...

Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, a Harvard University Ph.D., author of twelve books, and a recent Bush appointee to U.S. Institute for Peace, needs security precautions at more than half his campus appearances. At York University in Toronto, for example, security provisions included "a 24-hour lockdown on the building beforehand, metal detectors for the audience, identification checks."[8] Multiple bodyguards escorted Pipes through a back entrance and kept him in a holding room until just before his talk. More than a hundred police, including ten mounted on horses, stood by to ensure the speaker's safety and the event not being disrupted.[9]

In contrast, John Esposito, head of Georgetown University's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, a Temple University Ph.D., the author of more than twenty books,[10] and key advisor to the Clinton State Department,[11] enjoys honor and praise at the campuses. He recently served as keynote speaker for the inauguration of Stanford University's new Islamic Studies program,[12] for example, with no hint of special security.

So what are we to do to make our universities truly “liberal” again? And when I say “liberal,” I mean open to all viewpoints, not just ones that are politically correct. According to Daniel Pipes, our universities are receiving approximately $100 million in taxpayer money for the funding of “Middle East studies.” The problem is, these same universities are controlled by people with decidedly anti-Israeli, anti-U.S., and anti-civilized world bias, like the infamous Edward Said. What’s most disturbing is that,

Middle East studies are a failed field and the academics who consume these funds also happen to allocate them — a classic case of unaccountability.

according to Pipes. Currently there is a piece of legislation, already passed by the U.S. House, entitled the "International Studies in Higher Education Act of 2003" (H.R. 3077). This bill is now under consideration in the U.S. Senate. It would create an advisory board to oversee how the $100 million is being used by universities. Hopefully this oversight would limit the amount of anti-Israeli, anti-U.S., and anti-civilized world bias being churned out on college campuses. As Pipes says,

If the advisory board is not the ideal solution, it is the best to be hoped for at the moment, given the power of the higher-education lobby. I am ready to give H.R. 3077 a chance. But should the board not come into existence or fail to make a difference, I'll advocate the better solution — defunding [of Middle East studies] — and work to spread these ideas among the public and in Congress.

I agree with Pipes. An advisory board might not be the best solution, but it is a start. Hopefully we can make some more progress before academia is woken up the hard way, for example, some campus experiences a homicide bombing. Please write to your Senators and ask them to support the "International Studies in Higher Education Act of 2003:"