Skip to comments.What Was Brandeis Thinking When It Invited Ayaan Hirsi Ali to Speak?
Posted on 04/15/2014 2:12:19 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Last week, Brandeis revoked an invitation it had offered to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born feminist and political essayist, to attend the university's commencement ceremonies, where she had been scheduled to speak and receive an honorary degree. Hirsi Ali has spent much of the last decade denouncing not just Islamist fundamentalism but Islam generally (she has described the religion as a "destructive, nihilistic cult of death"), and once Brandeis's Muslim Students Association and many others objected to her appearance, the university pretty hastily revoked her invitation. Conservatives have since denounced Brandeis for suppressing free speech, and liberals have, somewhat more tepidly, defended the university's position that Hirsi Ali's statements are incompatible with its core values of tolerance and openness and respect for others. Both arguments have some merits. But neither really addressed the more interesting question, which is what Brandeis misunderstood about Hirsi Ali and its own community when it invited her in the first place.
Brandeis must have known what it was getting into. You can't do five minutes of research on Ayaan Hirsi Ali without noticing a few basic facts: that she is a feminist who had her own genitals mutilated in Somalia when she was a child; that she has, as an adult, become an outspoken and at times furious critic of Islamist fundamentalism's repression of women in particular and human rights generally; that she served as the screenwriter for an anti-Islamist film provocative enough that its Dutch director, Theo van Gogh, was murdered; and that her condemnations of the religion have been broad and aroused significant controversy. Her exact inflammatory statements are central to each of the many magazine profiles that have been written about her, to her Wikipedia page, to her Google results. "This makes Muslim students feel very uneasy," said Joseph Lumbard, Brandeis's chairman of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies. "They feel unwelcome here." Of course they did: Hirsi Ali had suggested in a 2007 interview with Reason magazine that "Islam, period" not its radical or militant form needed to be "defeated. Once its defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful."
Pressed by the Times, Brandeis said it had not been aware of the strongest of Hirsi Ali's condemnations of Islam before a Change.org petition circulated protesting her appointment as a commencement speaker. This is just not believable. Somehow, they must not have understood what the reaction would be. Which raises the question, why not?
After the fact, Brandeis issued a statement to explain itself and defend its decision. Honorary degrees, the university said, are "a means of acknowledging outstanding accomplishments. ... Just as Brandeis does not inquire into the political opinions and beliefs of faculty or staff before appointing them, or students before offering admission, so too the University does not select honorary degree recipients on the basis of their political beliefs or opinions."
This is a more or less reasonable position to take if you are talking about, say, chemists. When it comes to political figures, it seems hard to figure out how you could disentangle their political beliefs from their accomplishments; it seems a little absurd to even try.
More revealing is the original statement Brandeis issued (since amended on their official website, but available here) announcing the honorary degree recipients. The biographies it gives of the others are fairly formal, distant affairs (Jill Abramson "was instrumental in the newsroom's effort to expand to new and varied digital and mobile platforms"). Hirsi Ali's bio is much more intimate. Brandeis explains that Hirsi Ali once "escaped an arranged marriage"; it mentions that the assassin who killed her collaborator Theo van Gogh "left a death threat for her pinned to van Gogh's chest." It asserts that when the Dutch minister for immigration revoked her citizenship, the resulting court case "led to the fall of the government." These aren't the terms you use to describe an accomplished individual whose political beliefs you haven't scrutinized especially closely. These are the terms you use to describe someone whom you believe to be a hero.
Brandeis could, of course, have taken a more cautious step with Hirsi Ali. It could have invited her to speak on campus, and arranged a speaker who represented a different view, for instance, or had her come as part of a panel interrogating the treatment of women in the Islamic world. Hirsi Ali is an important voice, and these are urgent matters: 125 million women have had their genitals mutilated, many of them in Muslim countries, and still more Muslim women have had social emancipation and education denied to them. (Women of other religious traditions have, too, of course, but still, we are talking about a great many Muslim women.) But Brandeis chose to take the much more aggressive step of granting her an honorary degree. These decisions are not taken on a whim. Brandeis must have believed what the honorary degree communicated, that she was carrying forth in the world the humanistic work that was central to the university's own mission.
I suspect that the real story of the Ayaan Hirsi Ali episode is that our liberal intellectual culture is still not very certain about whom to side with in the arguments over Muslim fundamentalism no more sure, really, than the U.S. government is about whom to side with in its tactical pursuit of allies in the Islamic world. Brandeis thought it had identified a hero, of a kind, someone whose rhetorical extremism would be understood to be in defense of humanist ends. Instead it found that, in the eyes of many of its members, she was someone animated by simplistic sectarian hate. The villains in the battles over Muslim fundamentalism are easy to identify. The heroes, Brandeis discovered, are much harder to find.
There’s a Muslim Student Organization at Brandeis?
Tell the truth about islam, and you get speaking dates revoked.
This article deftly illustrates why and how we are losing a war with a 7th Century tribal cult.
Brandeis rejected her because they were afraid that they would end up like Van Gogh...they didn’t want to be on the list of 1000 jihadis, marked for death...It was cowardice, pure and simple...
A feminist who trashes Christianity would never be “disinvited” because the Bradeis president wouldn’t be living in mortal fear for letting her speak.
It really is that simple.
It’s not that “we’re losing” but rather exposes the collaborators with the other side.
I’ll bet there’s one at every major, minor and pissant college in North and South America and Europe. As a matter of fact, I’ll bet every cosmetology, truck driving, court reporter, medical technician and cooking school will have one before the decade is out. Just for giggles I searched the two closest to me, UNT and TWU:
Leftists everywhere are like that about everything...they hate truth.
Franklin Graham, the Pentagon, and National Day of Prayer
April 24, 2010 by strengthenedbygrace
Simple but good commentary by Crosstalk:
Rev. Franklin Graham has been uninvited to the Pentagon prayer service because of his true and biblical statements about Islam. Two points:
1. The US military is increasingly going on record as hostile to historic Christianity. They want an American civil religion that passes politically correct muster. That civil religion would include most of the other religions of the world except Christianity. Not surprisingly, an Islamic cleric, known for his anti-Christian hate speech, is attending the Pentagon prayer service in good standing with our military.
2. The outrageous double standard aside, Franklin Graham should take it as a compliment that he was uninvited to the American pantheon of idols to offer up a prayer along with the pagans. God is not honored by these heathen American solemn assemblies where they pray to the moon god, or the thousands of gods of Hinduism or any other counterfeit god of mankinds imagination and then intone the name of the Almighty as though He is just one of many. Its an insult to the One True and Living God to participate in such an event.
MS. Ali is a hero. The author is a coward.
That's like not accepting Dr. Martin Luther King because the KKK said he was motivated by simplistic racial hate.
Aayan is the VICTIM of Muslim hate, and Brandeis is rubbing salt deep into the wound, while encouraging Muslims to continue what they've done to her and other women to come.
Brandeis made the mistake, briefly, of thinking that standing up for women is in the leftist agenda and so they would be safe. They quickly learned it’s fine to mutilate any woman who would criticize any of the other pillars of radical leftism. One of those is support for fanatical Islamists.
Where are the liberal voices? Where are the feminist voices? Where are the voices of the free speech advocates, the civil liberties defenders? These are people who pride themselves on fighting for human rights, but in practice they only fight people who don't fight back.
Not sure about that, but it is certain that their board has given CAIR veto power over any decisions they make.
This struck me.
Hirsi Ali had suggested in a 2007 interview with Reason magazine that "Islam, period" not its radical or militant form needed to be "defeated. Once its defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful."
Since "Islam -period," not its radical or militant form, proclaims the need to fight until all others have accepted the rule of Islam, why can't the rest of us recognize the need to fight till "Islam - period" is defeated?
Isn't Ali's position just the inverse of that of "Islam-period?"
“that she served as the screenwriter for an anti-Islamist film provocative enough that its Dutch director, Theo van Gogh, was murdered”
This is a reprehensible and disgusting statement by the author of this.
Islam “destructive, nihilistic cult of death”
So I’m not getting an honorary degree for speakin on “Islam, the Gay Pedophile Death Cult”?
Hey I still can’t figure out how come Brandeis invited a Jew Hater to the campus and gave that person an honorary degree..oh yeah, NOW I remember, because like all libs, they despise Jews
So Benjamin Wallace-Wells bottom line is that his acknowledged as legitimate Muslim genital mutilation data of 125 million women (read that again), does NOT undermine Brandeis denial of an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali for her pointing out, as a woman genitally mutilated by Muslims, that Muslims are the ones genitally mutilating milions and millions and millions and millions and millions of women - and that these atrocities come from an evil cult BY DEFINITION.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the perfect summation of the abject, blazing evil of liberalism, perfectly expressed by Benjamin Wallace-Wells.
I would also quote some feminist support of this article, but feminist silence IS the support of this article. In fact, all feminist commentary is still unavailable, since the feminists are still kneeling in front of both Clintons and their mouths are still not available for words, and apparently won’t be for the foreseeable future.
or maybe just not admit so damned many Muslims to Brandeis and our other “competitive” universities? Oh, perhaps tell them “when in America, do as the Americans do?” It is beyond absurd for our institutions to cave to the demands of these people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.