A University, Self-Cancels …Will it Short-Circuit? By James Reed
Here is another story from the crazy US university scene, where what happens there today, happens in Australia tomorrow, on your tax dollars. Ever wonder why you are poor! Anyway, the story told by Robert Spencer is that at the American University in Washington, “a petition that began circulating in late February on social media sparked a conversation among American University students and staff members alike — whether or not Islamophobia is rooted in the School of International Service.” And, you guessed it, it is. Robert Spencer takes this nonsense apart.
“Self-incrimination was a common feature of the “struggle sessions” of Communist China’s Cultural Revolution: someone who was accused of ideological deviation broke down, under intense browbeating and often torture, and accused himself or herself of all manner of wrongdoing, amid tearful repentance and vows never to deviate from the party’s line again. Now that America is beginning its own Cultural Revolution, it is no surprise that these “struggle sessions” are coming here. We already see entirely innocent people, such as (most recently) Ellie Kemper, breaking down and confessing to sins they did not commit, and much, much more of this is coming. At American University in Washington, they’re getting a jump on the mob by accusing themselves before anyone else has accused them.
The university’s newspaper, The Eagle Online, reported Thursday that “a petition that began circulating in late February on social media sparked a conversation among American University students and staff members alike — whether or not Islamophobia is rooted in the School of International Service.”
Why, of course it is, just as “racism” is everywhere these days, just under four-and-a-half years after the first black president left the White House after eight years in office. “Islamophobia” has risen in the consciousness of Americans along with this new ubiquitous racism, and is a particularly pernicious example of Leftist propaganda: the word is used to refer both to attacks on innocent Muslims, which are never justified, and to any criticism of Islam, however mild, and even to opposition to jihad violence and Sharia oppression of women.
The Eagle Online, however, asserts: “Islamophobia engenders negative stereotypes that continue to discriminate against Muslim- Americans. These Islamophobic tropes are often portrayed in political discourse, everyday media and education. Terms like ‘Islamic menace’ or ‘violent foreigner’ lead to an association between Islam and terrorism which is biased, harmful and many times untrue.”
Oh, come on. “Islamophobic tropes” are “often portrayed in political discourse, everyday media and education,” including “terms like ‘Islamic menace’ or ‘violent foreigner’”? On what planet? I just did a search for the term “Islamic menace,” and the overwhelming majority of results were for articles scoffing at the idea that there is such a thing. Likewise with “violent foreigner.” The idea that these are everyday terms is a product of Leftist paranoia, and has nothing to do with reality.
Speaking of paranoia, School of International Studies student Momal Rizvi was asked if Islamophobia was rooted in the SIS, and she “would say yes. ‘I feel like it’s definitely mixed between some professors,’ Rizvi said. ‘I think that the ones who have touched on [Islam have] tried to do so in a critical way.’”
This is poorly written. Apparently by “critical” she means “disapproving,” not “analytical,” since this is presented as her explanation of why SIS is “Islamophobic,” but it isn’t entirely certain. In any case, Rizvi objected to a class that taught that “Islam can be compatible with feminism”: “Even though my professor took a somewhat positive angle, it was still a weird scenario because I think I was the only Muslim student in that classroom.” Apparently even raising the question opened up the suggestion that Islam might not be compatible with feminism is off-limits. No student should even get the slightest impression that there might be anything negative about Islam.
Meanwhile, Chris Edelson, an assistant professor in the Department of Government, manifests the intellectual laziness that is ubiquitous today. “We talk about the history of terrorism to show that terrorism is not specific to one group; there are all kinds of terrorist groups. We talk about coverage issues involving terrorism. Unfortunately, we’ve had terrorism in the U.S. recently, carried out by people who are not Muslim: the Jan. 6 Capitol attacks. When Al-Qaeda carries out a terrorist attack, or ISIS does, it doesn’t mean all Muslims are responsible. When the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers and QAnon supporters carried out the Jan. 6 attacks, it doesn’t mean that all white people are responsible, or all Christians are responsible.”
The January 6 “attacks,” in which the only person who was killed was a Trump supporter, are not remotely comparable to the 9/11 attacks, in which nearly 3,000 people were murdered. Nor were “they” carried out by “white supremacists” or Christians.” But most egregious is Edelson’s assumption that people hold “all Muslims” responsible for jihad attacks. Who actually does that? I myself am routinely accused of doing so, and yet the accusers have never and can never produce even a single statement from me to this effect. But claiming this serves to inhibit honest investigation of the motives and goals of jihad terrorists, because such investigations are “Islamophobic.”
Comments