"The problem stems from the fact that extremists and extremist recruiters have seen universities as safe spaces from which to recruit students." Has anyone looked into the possibility that the "extremists and extremist recruiters" find universities safe spaces because the academic establishment finds their views in harmony with its own?
"Brit universities are terror hotbeds," from Reuters (thanks to Sr. Soph):
British universities are coming under the spotlight in the country's fight against terrorism, with critics calling them a hotbed of extremism while lecturers say any clampdown threatens their freedom of speech. Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently highlighted universities as one of the key areas where authorities needed to act against extremist influences. However, a row is brewing over how officials can clamp down on radical groups recruiting students for militant causes without infringing on genuine academic debate. The issue of campus extremism came to the fore in the aftermath of the London suicide bombings by four young British Islamists which left 52 people dead in 2005. That was followed by a report by Professor Anthony Glees, director of Brunel University's Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, which suggested campuses were a breeding ground for extremists. Glees caused a stir across the academic community by estimating that dozens of British universities had been infiltrated by fundamentalists, based on historical terrorism cases which had involved students or former students. He now says the situation is even worse. "What we have seen since 2005 has been an increase in the number of students and former students involved in terrorist crimes," he said. [...]"The problem stems from the fact that extremists and extremist recruiters have seen universities as safe spaces from which to recruit students," Glees said.
"The universities are not properly supervising what goes on at campuses, they weren't and they're still not, and it is clear they don't intend to do so in the future."
Part of the problem is that the anti-Israel message that these Jihadi groups preach has lot lot of credibility with some (not all) of the Grauniad-reading, lentil-sucking lecturers that infest our universities.
Very avant-garde of them.
Yes, it has to do with ideological agreement. This goes back to the Frankfurt school and the desire to find a source of revolution outside of the proletariate. This led to the discovery of hegemony and the idea that all are oppressed and need a studies department for restitution.
YOu can learn more at http://www.freecongress.org/PC_Essays/B_Intro_and_chapter_one.pdf
Culturism holds that cultures have a right to protect and promote themeselves. During the 1950s HUAC look for un-American activities. None who, rightly, refused to cooperate said they were anti-American.
Today campuses have many anti-Americans on them. MeCHA, for example. Free speech means they have a right to exist. Culturism means that we have a right to not fund it. It would be a small, but symbolically important, statement for us to say, yes you have free speech, but you cannot use government servers for your website or our campuses for your meetings. The same goes with pro-Jihad groups. For free speech to be sustained we have to disallow government support of Jihad recruitment.
This would show that we cherish and will protect our culture and teach that we do not support multiculturalism to the extent that it involves hating us. It would pressure Jihadi groups to say they are pro-Western. If they wanted to debate, we could show they are connected with terrorism, or in MeChAs case, racist Mexican nationalism.
www.culturism.us
islamicommies...the unholy alliance, it's a no-brainer conclusion.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=BBD66F69-31AF-40AB-8D14-E565EEACC055
...birds of a feather.
But the Muslims are the underdogs!
Yeah, that's the ticket.
1.2 billion underdogs.
(Intolerant, misogynistic, homophobic, imperialistic
underdogs, sure, but those little quirks will be easily corrected when the anarcho-socialists give them remedial courses once they assist the Muslims in gaining power.)
you forgot "rabid psychopaths".
lol
archbishop of Canterbury calls USA the worst imperialist country ever, indicates that he admires Arab Muslim cultures since they pray 5 times a day.
read it here: www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2937068.ece
Tell the archbishop to take his Bible to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, Pakistan, Indonesia, or fill in the blank.. and start praying aloud in public. See if he maintains the same awe and respect.
Our dear Rowan proves yet again how dim he is,also a very good sort of Dhimmi for Muslims...Notice he has NOTHING to say about Female genital mutilation,'honour killings' or rabidly anti Jewish and hate inspired literature against Infidels .
Indeed, England's Archbishop PRAISES MUSLIMS FOR PRAYING 5 TIMES A DAY. Wow !Exactly WHAT does this prove? That any well trained parrot can perform tricks.
And that is why the Saudi's are funding thousands of students educations in Canada and the US also.
There is a missing component to many discussions of how universities operate. David Horowitz also seems to largely miss this. While it is certainly true that many faculty, particularly in the humanities and social sciences, are liberal, and some radical, this may miss the main explanation for why radical politics are so prevalent on university campuses. It is that faculty and administration are deathly afraid of offending any "minority" group. The faculty and administration of universities are often craven and live in deathly fear of being portrayed by MSA/CAIR and other identity groups as "something-ist," so the cave in to demands, letting cheating slide, allow demonstrations and propaganda on campus. They are simply afraid and not necessarily sympathetic. They are dhimmis. So they let these radicals, especially Islamist radicals, operate without any constraints.