On May 13, I spoke at Cal Poly — California Polytechnic State University — in San Luis Obispo, California. (In the video above, the event starts at 8:19.) The event was preceded by the usual Muslim Students Association grievance-mongering and bogus claim of victimhood status, with an article in the campus newspaper complaining about my imminent appearance, making wild claims about what would happen if I spoke, and asking that the event be canceled. Student Nate Honeycutt and the Cal Poly College Republicans stood firm, however, even under heavy pressure from a Professor of Religious Studies (who did not have the courage to attend the event, after promising to do so) to cancel.
Now Honeycutt has written a superb letter to Cal Poly’s Mustang News, about the event and how the freedom of speech is under fire where it should be most honored: in our nation’s universities.
“Letter to the editor: Free speech under attack in academia,” by Nate Honeycutt, Mustang News, May 26, 2014:
On behalf of the Cal Poly College Republicans (CPCR), I’d like to put to rest accusations made over the last couple weeks against our club and our recent speaker.
As a preface it should go without saying, but just in case there are any misconceptions, we have the utmost respect for those in the Muslim Students Association (MSA). They were critical of our speaker, but in face-to-face conversations they were respectful, civil and acted in goodwill. Our groups are on friendly terms.
On May 13, CPCR hosted Robert Spencer to present and answer questions on the topic of Radical Islam. We had a packed lecture hall of students, faculty, staff, administrators and community members present to hear and interact with Spencer. His talk was informative, captivating and enlightening (watch online). But in the wake of his visit some students and faculty waged intellectual drone warfare, remotely lobbing unsubstantiated claims, assumptions and accusations at us, then the night of the event did not attend and/or did not engage with our speaker.
Our critics claimed Spencer spews hate speech, that he is on par with the KKK, that he/our club are neo-Nazis, that he would incite violence and that because of the alleged content of his talk many individuals would fear for their mental and physical well-being. These are a few among many verbatim claims. With these claims, some students and faculty sought to pressure first us, then campus leaders above us, to cancel our event. Our club was fighting a coward’s veto — another stereotypical attempt to censor and stifle a legitimate expression and exercise of free speech.
Being offended has become the ultimate trump card for censoring individuals and groups who those offended deem as “controversial” and/or “offensive,” whatever their subjective definition of “controversial” and “offensive” may be. For our group, it typically doesn’t matter what we do, it will almost always be considered by someone to be “controversial” and/or “offensive.” We’re used to this out of necessity and just roll with it, but this becomes particularly troubling when offended individuals start calling for the censorship of our club and/or speakers and/or the cancelation of our events.
In a free society, when one is “offended,” we cannot call for less speech (censorship), but in fact must call for more speech. If people do not like what our speaker has to say, then they can plan and fund their own event. In fact, if the topic of Radical Islam is as important as many critics told us it is, why was our group the first group (in my recollection of my almost four years at Cal Poly) to hold an event addressing the topic?
But what about specifics from our critics? Following are a few salient things we were told: We were told that only “academia engenders a fair and accurate discussion,” while any rational thinker can easily recognize that the only reason we have to bring in our own speakers is precisely because academia by and large does not engender fair or accurate discussions — just ask any conservative student on campus.
We were told our speaker would “leave behind unnecessary emotional and physical dangers for people,” a claim no one could ever back up because it is blatantly false and is yet another example of a scare tactic. And “emotional danger,” what is that supposed to mean? Aren’t we all adults, able to discuss real-world problems in a grown-up manner? We were also told that Spencer’s “logic and ‘facts’ were at times laughable,” but this claim, as with many others like it, lacks specifics because specifics cannot be cited. Anyone can make generalizations, but generalizations mean nothing and are just a façade — a bag of air.
It’s almost funny how with every speaker we bring to campus, no matter what the topic of the talk, inevitably the focus will swing back to the issue of free speech and the First Amendment. Forget the diversity training Week of Welcome students and probably many faculty and other Cal Poly staff have to go through. It looks like what this campus really needs is to bring the Foundation for Individuals Rights in Education (FIRE) in again to properly train and teach students about the First Amendment, and while we’re at it, we should probably require some faculty, staff and administrators come along, too. Far too many people just don’t get it.
Our club works diligently to engage the campus in discussions on relevant political topics and to make sure people understand conservative views and values. We believe these things are what are needed to get the United States back on track and to stay on track. We are by far the most active political voice on campus, and our track record will easily show how deeply involved and invested in the campus and local community we are.
We hope that for future events, students and faculty will come and hear from our speaker and meet our club before they jump to conclusions and make false assumptions and accusations. This is the standard others hold us to, so why not extend it to everyone? The future of free speech at this university looks quite frightening should the tactics used against us continue to be used and supported. Amidst great pressure and a significant (but unwarranted) backlash we stood up for our rights, but many other groups may not be willing to do the same. What is it going to take for students and faculty to wake up?
mariam rove says
A great letter!! Need more people like Honey!!!!!!!!!!!!! M
mortimer says
An excellent letter to be sure, yet it misses the important point of WHY Muslims are offended: Sharia law forbids the hated kafirs from speaking about Islam.
When kafirs speak about Islam, they must be executed.
kikorikid says
When a Islamist wakes in the morning he
already knows his, “raison d’ete”, his reason
to go through the day with. That “reason”
is Shariah Compliance. He is Shariah Compliant
and he has been given the mandate to
force Shariah Compliance on everyone else.
Already, in the UK, Islamist field, “shariah Compliance”
Patrols to enforce Shariah Law. Islamist will
soon start “Compliance Patrols” in the U.S.
but they are going to get their heads jammed
up their ass for doing so. OK Islamist, get your “Patrol”
together, 6 to 60, and patrol the Main street in
say, Anniston Alabama. You will discover the
reverse of the medal,”Southern Hospitality”.
When they finish with your sorry ass you will
think, Rub al-Khali, looks like a good place
to immigrate to. Waiting.
Frank Scarn says
And what about all the wild claims about what would happen if Spencer spoke,
nothing,
nada,
pssst,
zilch,
None of the dark forebodings occurred. What did occur was the presentation of truthful information about Islam. Information which Muslims would prefer to be remain hidden and unspoken.
Further, if what Spencer says is untruthful, then dismissing his claims should be a cakewalk for Muslims. Doing that would put Spencer in his place once and for all. But oddly Muslims never engage Spencer. Now why do you suppose they fail to engage since it would, if they’re in possession of the truth, most definitely be in their favor to do so.
kikorikid says
The “Truth” to a Islamist is irrelevant.
Just as there is no assimilation because they
are not here to assimilate but, rather, to Conquer-Submit-
Convert or Kill. ANYTHING, true or not, said about Islam
by a non-believer is “Blasphemy” and must be punished
by Death. Robert S., Geert W., Pamela G., et al know this
truth and must maintain an active “Bodyguard” pretty much
at all times.
Angemon says
“On May 13, I spoke at Cal Poly — California Polytechnic State University — in San Luis Obispo, California. (In the video above, the event starts at 8:19.) The event was preceded by the usual Muslim Students Association grievance-mongering and bogus claim of victimhood status, with an article in the campus newspaper complaining about my imminent appearance, making wild claims about what would happen if I spoke, and asking that the event be canceled.”
I suspect that if mr. Spencer were to talk somewhere and there were no sort of the usual leftist silencing tactics he’d stop and wonder if he was doing something wrong XD
Anyway, kudos for California Polytechnic State University for standing their ground and refusing to be bullied into silence. Kudos to them.
Tradewinds says
“As a preface it should go without saying, but just in case there are any misconceptions, we have the utmost respect for those in the Muslim Students Association (MSA). They were critical of our speaker, but in face-to-face conversations they were respectful, civil and acted in goodwill. Our groups are on friendly terms.”
The above was unnecessary groveling and kowtowing. He should have left it out. After all, the whole reason this letter was written is because of them.
Mirren10 says
”The above was unnecessary groveling and kowtowing. He should have left it out. After all, the whole reason this letter was written is because of them”
That’s absolutely the first thing that occurred to me, as well ! This sort of thing would appear to be obligatory now. Perhaps they wouldn’t have published his letter without it ?
Anyway, apart from that, an excellent letter. It’s good to see that not **all** the American young have been successfully brainwashed.
Tradewinds says
Yes, could have done without the “utmost respect” groveling preface.
I mean, who are the “Our critics?” I’ll tell you who – Muslims.
“Our critics claimed Spencer spews hate speech, that he is on par with the KKK, that he/our club are neo-Nazis, that he would incite violence and that because of the alleged content of his talk many individuals would fear for their mental and physical well-being. These are a few among many verbatim claims.”
Yep, sounds like the perpetually-offended Mohammedans to me. And of course the leftist faculty otherwise known as useful idiots.
Brian Hoff says
Have you have hater of Islam ever think not veryone hate Islam that many respect Islam.
Tradewinds says
Hi Abdullah, how you doing? You’re missing a few misplaced “than’s” in your comment, defenderof islam!
Joginder Singh says
The only people who respect pisslam and peado muhammad are intellectual deficients like you and pisslam’s deluded useful idiots on the left the MSM and government all sane educated treat pisslam with the contempt pisslam deserves
Mirren10 says
defenderofislam, this article is about **free speech**, which islam denies.
Ever thought about why that might be ?
Because islam cannot stand up under critical inquiry, so therefore deserves *no* respect.
And the only people that ‘respect’ your foul cult are lefttards, useful idiots, tools, and illiterate morons like yourself.
IQ al Rassooli says
AL LAST! A great STAND!
Muslims NEVER stop whining that they are being victimized when any decent human being with two brain cells of logic who reads Muhammad’s Quran and watches the news would know that 99.99% of all acts of terror, death, destruction, kidnapping, ransoming, raping and plundering against NONE Muslim INFIDELS (currently 80% of humanity) are committed by Muslims all over the world.
That the most PERSECUTED people on planet Earth today are Christians by Muslims
It is precisely because they want to silence Mr Spencer (and ALL those who reveal the FACTS about the CULT belief system of Muhammadan Islam) that they call them RACISTS or Islamophobes
Just in case there are readers with any doubt about the so called ‘religion’ of Islam, let me enlighten you~
Muhammad’s Quran, his Sunna, Sharia and all his believing followers are Hate-mongering Warmongering Duplicitous Racist Misogynist Disloyal Intolerant & hence totally Ungodly
Sounds outrageous? Not at all; just read Muhammad’s Quran and try to disprove a single adjective I have showered upon them
The internet is the worst nightmare of Muhammadan Islam because hundreds of millions of people are able to investigate these subjects at the click of a mouse and find to their horror and disgust that Islam does NOT mean PEACE but SUBMISSION and that fearing Islam which wants all none Muslims to Convert or Submit to Sharia in Humiliation & Degradation for ever and failing these two, be EXTERMINATED
Hence fearing Islam is totally RATIONAL and NOT fearing Islam is totally IRRATIONALmaking Islamophobia an OXYMORON!
IQ al Rassooli
Kafir & Proud!
John C. Barile says
Bravo! Face down these Islamofascist bullies.
jewdog says
Well, I have to pat myself on the back for my courage. I actually watched the video of Robert’s address the whole way through without shrieking, crying out for my Mommy, or ripping my clothes off in a frenzy and then curling up in a corner to suck my thumb while sobbing hysterically, like I did when I watched Hillary testify about Benghazi.
Kepha says
Well, jewdog, my reposnse to Shrillary Shroooooooooooo’s “testimony” was to throw a shoe into my TV. Horrible admission to come from a guy who makes a point of honoring the Almighty, and for whom a certain amount of humility is a mitzvah. Boy, is my wife ever mad at me!
Wellington says
Often it’s a tough call whether modern leftists are sillier than Muslims are deadly. Well, both need to be mocked—–and mocked with regularity since both are enemies of liberty, though both pose as champions of it (whether sincerely or deceptively is of secondary account).
Damn them for this hypocrisy, as both should be damned for enormous ignorance of what freedom really means. Sick of Islam. Sick too of modern leftists making excuses for Islam. Combined, their ignorance is staggering and a mortal threat to a still somnambulistic West.
Kephaq says
With you all the way there, Wellington. Maybe both of those ideologies are ultimately nihilistic?
Tradewinds says
I watched the video. It’s excellent. Robert could be a college professor, no doubt about it. The impression I got was those students were deeply engrossed in what Robert had to say. They learned a lot, that’s for sure. I learned some stuff, too, in addition to things I already know. Those students are the better for having attended Robert’s lecture and Q & A.
dumbledoresarmy says
Maybe every person among the jihadwatch regulars – whether poster or lurker – who happens to be an alumnus of a university *anywhere* in the world (and I’d say there are quite a lot of us: Gravenimage and I, Wellington and Kepha, are all tertiary graduates and I am sure there are many, many others) should write to their alma maters recommending that a certain Mr Robert Spencer be granted an honorary doctorate for “Studies in Comparative Religion”. Me, I’d have to write to *two* institutions: the University that awarded me my Bachelor’s degree (First Class Honors) and the University that awarded me my PhD.
I bet Professor Hans Jansen, retired, formerly teacher of Islamic studies at the famous University of Leiden, could be got to sign off on the referral letters!
It could get interesting, if universities in Australia, Canada, USA, UK, across continental Europe, in Israel and in India, were to start getting letters from their alumni, to the tune of thousands, all singing the praises of Mr Spencer.
The man is a born teacher. He really ought to be “scholar in residence” or “visiting lecturer” somewhere. Somewhere well fortified.
Jay says
I watched the video for the discussion at Cal Poly, and I must say I felt sorry for the young woman who was debating hate speech vs free speech towards the very end. The correct answer Robert Spencer gave absolutely shredded her points hammering at exactly who is the arbitrator of determining hate speech. The background provided by the founding fathers intentions in securing free speech was well done…………
Tradewinds says
I didn’t feel sorry for her. She was being educated by Robert Spencer, and in a pleasant, respectful, way. Right – “Who decides?” Her IQ went up about 2 points during that exchange.
EYESOPEN says
Bravo to Robert Spencer, California Polytechnic State University AND Nate Honeycutt!
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
… we have the utmost respect for those in the Muslim Students Association (MSA).
The have the utmost respect for them because they fear for their lives, and reputations.
This is a poor letter receiving unthinking praise. There must be no such thing as a half-assed principle of free speech. Innocent students who read this letter could be hookwinked into thinking that the MSA deserves respect when it deserves the utmost disrespect.