Well. It appears that Stanford’s administrators are just as shoddy thinkers as the students who are protesting my appearance (see here and here for two particularly egregious examples).
The entire premise of this article, that Muslims are “disparaged” and become the targets of hatred because of examination of the motivating ideology of jihad terrorism, is more genuinely and deeply insulting to Muslims than anything I have ever said or written. In my work, I discuss jihad terrorism, which all Muslim groups in the Western world profess to reject and abhor, and examine how jihad terrorists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and make recruits among peaceful Muslims. In saying that this “motivate[s] hatred towards Muslims” and “disparage[s] people in our community,” Susie Brubaker-Cole, Vice Provost for Student Affairs, and Jane Shaw, Dean for Religious Life, are assuming that all Muslims, and particularly Muslims in the Stanford community, are in favor of jihad terrorism — for otherwise there is no way they would feel hated or disparaged because of my work.
Also, Brubaker-Cole and Shaw claim “a track record of actions and speech that motivate hatred towards Muslims.” Is that so? Can they give even one example of this “track record”? This is just more of the unsubstantiated defamation that has accompanied the prospect of my appearance at Stanford, designed to intimidate students into thinking they should not attend the event, and that there is something wrong with it. In universities, ideas, even unpopular and unwelcome ones, should be discussed and accepted or rejected on their own merits. Brubaker-Cole and Shaw are not doing that; instead, they’re retailing propaganda. Hardly what university administrators should be doing, but nowadays universities are not institutions of higher learning, but recruitment centers for Antifa.
Brubaker-Cole and Shaw also say: “Many community members have asked why Stanford allows speakers to come to campus who espouse views that may disparage people in our community.” I ask them to provide one example of me disparaging Muslims in the aggregate. They won’t, because they can’t. They have no business being university administrators, and should immediately apologize and resign.
“On the Robert Spencer event,” by Susie Brubaker-Cole, Vice Provost for Student Affairs, and Jane Shaw, Dean for Religious Life, Notes from the Quad, November 9, 2017:
On Tuesday, November 14, Robert Spencer, a writer and blogger, will speak at Stanford at the invitation of a student organization. The students who invited Mr. Spencer have explained that they wish to hear Mr. Spencer’s perspective on terrorism, and those who attend the lecture will form their own opinions on the merits of his arguments.
We are, however, compelled to call out the fact that Mr. Spencer has a track record of actions and speech that motivate hatred towards Muslims, contradicting our university’s values of inclusion and respect for all peoples and faiths. We acknowledge the emotional impact of Mr. Spencer’s visit on university community members, and we are actively developing supports for the Muslim community before and after his visit.*
Let us be perfectly clear: No statement made next week or beyond can undercut the fact that Muslim students, staff and faculty are an integral part of our community.
Many community members have asked why Stanford allows speakers to come to campus who espouse views that may disparage people in our community. Their question goes to the heart of the issue of freedom of expression at our university: We promote the free circulation of ideas as fundamental to our intellectual work of discovery and learning, and yet we know that some ideas that we allow to circulate are counter to our values and cause members of our community to experience fear or hurt. President Tessier-Lavigne and Provost Drell addressed this tension in their blog post this week on “Advancing free speech and inclusion,” which we urge all to read.
Significantly, in relation to the talk next week, the president and provost underscore our university’s commitment to freedom of expression, which allows groups in our community to host speakers of their choice provided university policies are followed and imparts upon each of us a responsibility to ensure that speech can proceed without disruption.
However, the president and provost also emphasize that this commitment empowers each of us to exercise our own free speech, “to call out hate when we see it,” and to speak forcefully and peacefully against injustice. These are values we know Stanford community members – of all faiths and none – feel deeply about.
Here, we exercise our speech rights as university leaders and as individuals. We denounce viewpoints of intolerance and hatred as antithetical to our core belief in the dignity and value of all peoples. We also recognize that anti-Muslim racism and other forms of bigotry are systemic and require long-range and comprehensive approaches. We reaffirm our support for the Muslim community, and ask all to stand with us in speaking out for a mutually supportive society where all experience care and respect.
* For more information about Stanford’s free speech and inclusion principles, the event itself, and current and developing community support resources, see this website.
Dum Spiro says
Which Muslim majority countries may be sending kickback$ to Stanford? Colleges and universities seem more and more to be leftist indoctrination center$.
You can $ee that too?
— Spero
Keys says
Agree. Post secondary schools large and small.
Harold says
Why do Muslims always have to be portrayed as victims even when they are not? Say what you want against Christians and Jews but Muslim ears must be protected from criticism.
Custos Custodum says
What is particularly noisome is the vicarious offense-taking on behalf of “community members” by these Susies and Janes who obviously weren’t up to actual academic work.
The unspoken assumption is, of course, that “community” members should have exclusive control of any statements about their religion of Islam, and that nothing must ever be said that is not entirely complimentary of the religion of submission.
Stanford is famous for creating sinecure positions for the pretentious but less academic wives of male academics that Stanford wants to attract. Not infrequently, the now tenured prof divorces his wife to switch to a younger model who in turn will demand a Stanford job as part of the deal. Perhaps open polygyny would be more honest.
ErwinD says
“Muslim ears must be protected from criticism” –
Muslims tend to be the most explosive and easily triggered group of people around so protecting them from criticism protects the society at large. It’s called heckler’s veto.
Custos Custodum says
“It’s called HECKLER’S VETO.”
Precisely. That term deserves a lot more currency and attention than it is getting.
Benedict says
“Muslim ears must be protected from criticism.” –
Muslims tend to be the most explosive and easily triggered group of people around so protecting them from criticism protects the society at large. It’s called heckler’s veto.
Benedict says
“Muslim ears must be protected from criticism” –
Muslims tend to be the most explosive and easily triggered group of people around so protecting them from criticism protects the society at large. It’s called heckler’s veto.
Oracle McSnackers says
Muslims can be explosive. That’s for sure!
Linde Barrera says
I conclude that Muslim students who either know already or are in the on-going process of learning about the “Kill the Infidels” doctrines of their so-called religion of Islam feel really bad that their religion has these doctrines and either want to hide the facts to themselves, (denial) or they want to call out Robert Spencer for bringing awareness of these doctrines to the general public, (angst). Either way, these students are not equipped to reason logically about their religion of Islam, so they look to university officials like Brubaker-Cole and Shaw for “cover” much like cartoon characters Chip and Dale would cover for each other. ???
gravenimage says
Actually, Linde, most Muslims don’t feel bad about the brutality of Islam–they just don’t want to Infidels defending themselves against it.
mariam rove says
Muslims have one the biggest guns: victim hood. The second they don’t like you they shoot the gun and it seems to work most of the time. M
Norger says
“We are, however, compelled to call out the fact that Mr. Spencer has a track record of actions and speech that motivate hatred towards Muslims….”
Now there’s a bold statement. Care to provide an example? Spencer, on the other hand can literally cite chapter and verse, and 1400 years of history, to demonstrate Islam’s “track record of actions and speech that motivate hatred”— and inspire real life bloodshed— directed against non-Muslims. But we can’t talk about that….
Michael Copeland says
“….why Stanford allows speakers to come to campus who espouse views that may disparage people in our community.”
May disparage people?
Like…. non-muslims are “the vilest of animals” ….”apes and pigs” ….”unclean”… (Koran), “on a par with faeces, urine, blood, semen, dog and pig” (Ayatollah Sistani).
“between us and you enmity and hatred forever” – Koran 60:4, part of Islamic law.
“Let them find in you harshness” – Koran 9:123 ditto
Islam has a DOCTRINE of disparagement, of apartheid, of “them and us” – “al Walaa Wal Baraa”.
Dear Stanford, your ignorance is showing.
jihad3tracker says
THANK YOU, NORGER.
MFritz says
Deary me! Just look at those two old feminist hags. NONE of them have EVER been to a muslim country. Especially in recent years. They don’t know jack shit about what they’re talking. And they don’t WANT to know the truth because it doesn’t fit into their completely hermetic view of the world. Where nothing exists except for white guilt, white suppremacy, (white) male patriarchy – and all the feminist crap they’ve been pouring into the minds of their students.
Stanford has to get rid of these two (and their likes) ASAP before it becomes the next Evergreen.
makmorn says
If we don’t fix the universities now, we will lose.
Hugo Hackenbush says
Would naturally expect such nonsense at Berkeley but STANFORD! Oh well, it is the Bay area. We’ll see if they live up to their commitment to free speech. Note the call to disruption of the event using the euphemism of “…our own free speech…”. “However, the president and provost also emphasize that this commitment empowers each of us to exercise our own free speech, “to call out hate when we see it,” and to speak forcefully and peacefully against injustice. These are values we know Stanford community members – of all faiths and none – feel deeply about.” Sorry, this is a call to disrupt the Spencer talk by conflating “free speech” with the “heckler’s veto”.
gravenimage says
I’m afraid Stanford is not all that different from Berkeley when it comes to “political correctness”–not anymore, at least.
eduardo odraude says
Freedom of speech is a very difficult thing for many Muslims, in part because of canonical hadiths like this:
Muhammad says there is to be no punishment for murdering someone who insults him
For example, in Sunan Abu-Dawud, a canonical hadith collection:
Book 38, Number 4348:
Another canonical hadith:
Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 39, Number 4349:
http://www.quotingislam.blogspot.com
gravenimage says
Yes–and under Shari’ah no Infidel is allowed to criticize Islam or any Muslim–nor are they allowed to teach the Qur’an to their children, because they might do so critically.
mortimer says
Sharia law says kafirs must not ‘MENTION SOMETHING IMPERMISSIBLE’ about Islam or its prophet.
The MULLAHS DECIDE what is ‘impermissible’ and then send out a fatwa to sentence the blasphemer.
The normal sentence for a sane blasphemer is death at the hands of Muslims. Any Muslim is authorized by Sharia to murder a blasphemer.
A Muslim may kill a blasphemer without a fatwa, and the mullahs will justify the killing afterwards. Very convenient.
This shows that VIGILANTISM is built into Islam.
gravenimage says
Exactly, Mortimer.
RCCA says
IOW Robert Spencer openly discussing the ideological sources of terrorism within Islam is a lot like telling a child that Santa Claus doesn’t exist.
The Muslim children at Stanford may be traumatized. They may even have to question their grasp of their religion and what they might do as adults to reform the religion. Really that’s all this is; there is no basis in the claim that Spencer indulges in hate speech or any chance that Muslims will be harassed or ostracized on the Stanford campus.
Norger says
“IOW Robert Spencer openly discussing the ideological sources of terrorism within Islam is a lot like telling a child that Santa Claus doesn’t exist.”
That’s a great analogy.
The ideology—and Islam is an ideology—has to be exposed for the totalitarian threat that it is. To paraphrase Sam Harris, we have to be able to criticize bad ideas. What really galls me is that these people pretend that Robert Spencer is beneath contempt, to avoid what they know would be their own embarrassment if they were to actually engage in a substantive dialogue with him. If you can’t have this discussion on a college campus, where can you have it? What they are really saying is that Spencer should not be allowed to speak honestly about the obvious theological underpinnings of Islamic terrorism (yeah I know “terrorism is redundant). It’s shameful.
gravenimage says
At least children who learn there is no Santa Claus are not apt to violently attack those who tell them the truth…
Fred H says
Will the comedy never end??
gravenimage says
Kabuki theater…
eduardo odraude says
If they want to “support” the Muslim students, why don’t they debate Robert Spencer? That would be the grown up thing, instead of indulging the snowflakes’ need for “therapeutic” shelter from arguments and facts. Oh. Wait. That’s right, there are no good arguments against 99% of what Spencer says. So all they can do is shelter the snowflakes, put their views in a freezer where snowflakes live forever like Puff the Magic Dragon.
Norger says
That would be both the grown up and intellectually honest thing to do, since Spencer is so obviously ignorant about “true Islam” and lacking in proper academic credentials. It should be a piece of cake to expose him as a fraud, for all of Stanford to see. What are you people so afraid of?
Lydia says
Christians are persecuted all over the landscape, but no support group for us! But oh, poor babies! Cry me a river and get out the violin quartet… quickly! We will need lots of kleenex also! Next thing they will open up a victim cry center for muslims on each campus where Robert shared the truth of the threats of jihad terrorism!!! You wait.
gravenimage says
Stanford admins “acknowledge emotional impact” of Robert Spencer event, are “actively developing supports” for Muslims
……………………………
What? From the “emotional impact” of hearing anyone say something negative about pious Muslims waging violent Jihad in the name of their faith?
Benedict says
?
gravenimage says
Thanks.
St. Manuel II Palaiologos says
Translation: “I exist, therefore accommodate me.” It’s basically like babies crying for their mother’s milk.
gravenimage says
But it is much less innocent…
mortimer says
They are imitating Mohammed who murdered everyone who disagreed with him. They are DEVIOUSLY imposing Sharia blasphemy law by another route.
gravenimage says
Yes–more stealth Jihad.
Steve's nephew says
The Muslims are, as we sometimes forget, totalitarian. The have NO tolerance for any opposition when their numbers within the population are large enough.
I prefer the term “opposition speech” to “hate speech.” Any reasonable, freedom loving person is opposed to Muslim ideology. When the authorities threaten to arrest or suppress any opponent to Islam, the question should be “is it ok to oppose the Muslim religion?”
mortimer says
Muslims are entirely unused to critical thought and when exposed to it, they have an emotional breakdown.
NEVER CHALLENGE MUSLIMS WITH CRITICAL THOUGHT BECAUSE THEY SOON NEED PSYCHIATRISTS.
Bindon Blood says
Yes . When they come to west it is the first time they have heard Islam criticised. In their family ,in their circle of friends no one criticises Islam. Then they hear the truth and their world view starts to crack.
Bindon Blood says
Yes . When they come to west it is the first time they have heard Islam criticised. In their family ,in their circle of friends no one criticises Islam. Then they hear the truth and their world view starts to crack.
gravenimage says
Sometimes it does crack. More often, though, they just demand that the West censor such criticism, and threaten violence if they do not.
Bindon Blood says
If we knew absolutely nothing about these 2 cretins just one look at their smug,simpering,self righteous faces reveals all. They just have to be squishy ,squashy Marxist enablers.
Patriot911 says
Would they be talking about an anti-Israel BDS speaker promoting hatred against Israelis or Jews? I think not.
gravenimage says
Of course not.
Jacqueleen says
Stanford is taking week old smelly fish and trying to make a gourmet meal out of it! This is typical of the left….who vent emotion and not logic and facts. If I had college level kids, Sanford would never be their destination. Period!
Norger says
Ms. Brubaker-Cole and Ms. Shaw, another poster on this site, Saturnine, posted the following in response to Ms. Khan’s whine that she will never be accepted at Stanford. Although I understand that neither of you are Muslim, this observation is in many ways equally applicable to you and all of those at Stanford who are railing at Spencer:
“She claims to perceive violent potential from a speaker who doesn’t endorse violence or practice it, yet is suspiciously incapable of perceiving it in her religion’s prophet, teachings, clerics, and followers.”
gravenimage says
Spot on.
Randall Anderson says
I had intended to write to these two ignorant women… I obtained their emails through their website, but after reading the comments above I realize all the people commenting here have said just about everything I would have said… Unfortunately these women being typical liberals/ progressives / socialists are nothing but collaborators with Islam in their abysmal ignorance of Islam… they will not read any of the emails posted here or sent directly to them because they enjoy their stupidity and ignorance, and their students suffer from the same disease. I pity the parents who have paid for their worthless education…
UNCLE VLADDI says
Pretending that the global crime-gang called islam is a “race” of poor swarthy animal-people, oppressed by the mentally superior whites, in order to slander everyone who notices it’s a crime-gang as a hatefully bigoted “racist” – is to deliberately enable that crime-gang’s crimes by hiding and destroying the evidence of same, and thus to be a willing accessory to those crimes. Since islam is a murder-gang, and the penalty for committing and enabling the commission of murder is DEATH, anyone and everyone who calls an opponent of muslims, islam, and their global jihad, a “racist!” should be lawfully put to death.
Everyone who defends islam and muslims endorses crime.
Endorsing crime IS a crime, so those doing it are criminals.
Right in the Qur’an is: the obligation to murder Jews and Christians (Surah 9:29), to terrorize all non-Muslims (8:12), to rape young girls (65:4), to enslave people for sex (4:3), to lie about one’s true goals (3:54), and the command to make war on all the infidels (9:123) and subjugate the entire world to Allah (9:33).
Are death-threats legal? NO.
Is extortion legal? NO.
Is slavery legal? NO.
Is murder legal? NO.
Is rape legal? NO.
THEN ISLAM IS ILLEGAL!
Rape, slavery, robbery, extortion and murder are never OK!
Everything muslims pretend to see as “holy” is already a crime!
So nobody has a legal right to practice islam anywhere on earth!
IN TRYING TO MAKE CRITICISM OF THE GLOBAL CRIME GANG CALLED “ISLAM” INTO A CRIME, TO PROTECT THAT CRIME GANG BY HIDING THE EVIDENCE OF ITS CRIMES, SUCH PEOPLE ARE CRIMINALS AND TRAITORS TO RATIONALITY, CIVILIZATION, AND HUMANITY ITSELF.
But hadn’t you heard?! Being angry at (“hateful” towards) criminals is now the most vile sin, while pitying (“tolerating”) them all as “fellow victims,” is to be deemed the highest moral virtue, these days!
So much so, that the only advice we hear from “our” hypocrite governments, their pet media, and the corporazi globalist banksters who own them all, seems to invariably be:
“Anyone who doesn’t automatically pity all criminals as fellow victims should be hated!”
Which is why hurting the feelings of criminals by accusing them of their crimes, is now a “hateful” crime itself!