The Stanford student press has for the past week been filled with numerous baseless and hysterical attacks on my work and on my character as a human being. In hit piece after hit piece in the Stanford Daily and the Stanford Review, it has been claimed that I promote “hate” and “disinformation,” and “give license” to the “oppression” of Jews, and that Muslims at Stanford are endangered by my work. It has been charged that I have incited a mass murderer and approve of restricting the right to vote. My work has been characterized, without any specific examples, of being not only inaccurate, but also inflammatory, offensive, hateful, and dishonest.
I responded to as many of those hit pieces as time permitted, and now at least nine professors are taking that as yet another Spencer atrocity. Apparently their view is that those at Stanford may defame me freely and repeatedly, but I am not allowed to answer.
These people are professors? Is this Stalinist Russia or Mao’s Cultural Revolution, in which the accused person is to be browbeaten with false charges and given no opportunity to defend himself? Have these Stanford profs written up a “confession” to “counterrevolutionary activities” that I am to sign before my execution?
It is astonishing that professors in a major university would be so reflexively opposed to the freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas, and find the rough-and-tumble of polemical discourse to be an outrageous affront. But given today’s academic environment nationwide, it is not surprising in the least. Much more below.
“Letter from faculty and others regarding Robert Spencer,” Stanford Daily, November 14, 2017:
To President Tessier-Lavigne and Provost Drell:
Stanford University identifies “certain types of free speech [that] are not permitted under University policy — for example, threats of harm that constitute a hate crime, instances of unlawful harassment or speech that disrupts classes or other university functions.” As four brave Stanford graduate students have pointed out in their recent letter in The Daily, Robert Spencer has chosen to engage in exactly those types of speech in advance of the event planned at Stanford.
My response to their letter is here. The statute is a bit broadly written. Who decides what is a “hate crime” and what isn’t? If it is these totalitarian Leftist professors, then my response is a “hate crime,” when in reality it is a reasoned response to unreasoned and hysterical propaganda. As for “unlawful harassment,” it is not, as yet, unlawful, as far as I know, for people who aren’t Leftist academics to respond to false accusations and personal attacks. And as for disrupting “classes or other university functions,” exactly which functions or classes have I disrupted?
(The four students who wrote this letter are now receiving threatening emails for speaking out about these threats of harm.)
If true, reprehensible. But highly unlikely, and notice that no examples or quotes or proof is given. In any case, if they have received threats, that has nothing to do with me: I never called on anyone to threaten them or harm them, and if anyone does, the perpetrator should be prosecuted. The professors are implying here that I incited violence against these students by responding to their attack. Yet I called for and approve of no violence.
Carrying the professors’ logic out to its conclusion, one could never say anything at all that was critical of anyone else’s thought, for it might incite violence against the criticized person. I myself have received hundreds of death threats. Would the profs thus say that I should not be criticized, because my critics might be incited to violence?
This is not just a hypothetical question. If my critics had their way, I would have been dead in Garland, Texas in 2015, when jihadis attacked our free speech event, or in Iceland last spring, when I was poisoned by a Leftist. Should I, then, be above criticism? These professors would scoff at that idea, as would I. But where do they draw the line? If they’re using threats (although I suspect the threats are fictional in this case) to say that someone should not be criticized, where do they draw the line? Or do they really mean that only people with whom they agree should never be criticized?
Currently, Spencer’s Jihad Watch website is harassing students, staff and faculty and exposing them to further harm at the hands of “alt-right” trolls.
This is just libel. “Alt-right” has become the Left’s smear word of choice for those who are racist, anti-Semitic, and neo-fascist. I am none of those things. Nor has anyone ever committed an act of violence after attending one of my speeches. This is just more baseless and hysterical propaganda.
In addition to the student cited in the letter above, Spencer is using Jihad Watch to target Minha Khan, a Muslim student whose essay in the Stanford Review details the impact of this event on her as follows: “I was afraid. I didn’t know what this meant for me, a Pakistani Muslim girl who covers her head.”
“Target.” Right. Here is my response to Minha Khan’s attack. Where is the call for violence? Where is the targeting? I responded to her smears and to her claims that she was afraid because I am set to speak, a claim that I believe to be ridiculous, as well as giving the defamatory impression that I call for or approve of violence against innocent people. In abetting this suggestion, these professors are actually targeting me.
On its new “Free Speech” website, Stanford proclaims that “the University stands in full support of its Muslim students, faculty and staff, who are integral to the Stanford community.” Yet Muslim students (and faculty and staff) are reporting the threat created by Spencer’s speech. Who gets to speak for the Muslim community on our campus? Is it Robert Spencer? Is it the Stanford administration? Or is it people like Minha Khan — people who are living with what Islamophobia does at Stanford — and who are clear what this means, as she states: “I do want everyone to know that this event has reminded me that no matter how hard I try, I can never fully belong to the Stanford community.”
What does “Islamophobia” do at Stanford? In reality, the specter of “Islamophobia” makes people at Stanford think that opposing jihad terror and Sharia oppression is wrong and somehow endangers Muslim students at the university.
This intimidation is not just an individual experience — the Markaz began its most recent newsletter by noting the substantial negative impact of Spencer’s event on the entire Muslim-affiliated community on our campus: “In light of an invitation of a self-proclaimed Islamophobe to campus, many of us are feeling overwhelmed.” The Muslim Law Students Association letter in The Stanford Daily identifies several examples of Spencer “spread[ing] of inflammatory and conspiratorial views of Islam” and “target[ing] Muslims.”
Like the President and the Provost, we “worry about the experiences of vulnerable or silenced populations within our community — those who seek an environment where their identities are welcomed, not challenged by hate or ignorance.” But we see the terms of that “worry” differently. We see this “worry” as entailing a concrete responsibility. Unless we act, we are complicit in perpetuating systems of harm. As we witness Robert Spencer and his Islamophobic incitements to violence target colleagues and students, we believe that we cannot merely be worried. We actually have to enact the values that we claim to uphold.
“Robert Spencer and his Islamophobic incitements to violence.” More libel. Criticism, my dear professors, is not incitement to violence. Responding to attacks is not incitement to violence. As professors, you above all should know that. You want to see what actual incitement to violence looks like? Here: Riverside, California imam Ammar Shahin said in a sermon last summer: “The Prophet Muhammad said: ‘Judgment Day will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Jews hide behind stones and trees, and the stones and the trees say: Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah…’” Shahin never gets around to finishing the story. Here is the whole hadith, which has the trees saying: “Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him” (Sahih Muslim 6985). Does Ammar Shahin mean that Muslims should kill Jews now? He says: “Oh Allah, make this happen by our hands. Let us play a part in this.”
That’s incitement to violence. Responding to smears? Not incitement to violence.
For us, this means taking seriously the lived experience of the people most impacted by racism, bigotry, hate speech and xenophobia. It also means taking seriously the real threat posed by Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch as he continues to harass our students and colleagues. We would like to point out that Jihad Watch has publicized and mocked an announcement intended for the Stanford community about an anti-Islamophobic event “uplifting communities attacked by Robert Spencer’s Islamophobia.”
Yes, because it was eminently deserving of mockery.
On Friday, Meyer Green was tagged with anti-Muslim hate speech.
Given the large number of “anti-Muslim hate crimes” that turn out to have been faked by Muslims, I regard this claim with extreme skepticism, and expect that the perpetrator, were he or she ever found, is not a member of the College Republicans or a supporter of my work.
On Jihad Watch, Spencer writes, “I’ve just learned that while Stanford has barred non-students from the event, there is room for a small number of invited guests who are not students. If you’re in the area and would like to come, email me at director@jihadwatch.org.” Who will be drawn to campus by Spencer’s publicizing of this event? Who will find his rhetoric compelling enough to take action, knowing that Stanford has lent its credence to Spencer’s ideas?
Yeah, Hitler and Mussolini are on their way to campus now. They’re bringing Goebbels and Göring. In reality, the guests are personal friends of mine who are entirely harmless, as everyone will see tonight, unless this irresponsible farrago from the profs gets them banned, or me canceled.
And who is likely to be most impacted by Stanford’s decision to prioritize the “free speech” of Robert Spencer — which rests on toxic histories of White supremacy — over the safety of our community?
Okay. Now we see just how moronic these professors really are. Richard Spencer is the white supremacist. Not me. Islam is not a race, jihad terror is not a race, Sharia oppression of women, gays, non-Muslims, etc. is not a race. I expect they have their Spencers mixed up.
We are not talking about a scholarly debate over affordable health care; we fully support the principle of academic freedom that allows us to disagree about issues.
No, you don’t. You only support academic freedom when everyone who is speaking freely agrees with you.
We are talking about the fact that Stanford is welcoming, funding and amplifying someone whose basic premise is not debatable, because it is fundamentally dehumanizing.
More libel. What, exactly, do these professors think my basic premise is? In reality, all of my work is focused upon defending the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law. How dehumanizing!
Whenever the claim is made that an identity group is inherently less worthy of full personhood — whether that claim is made about people who are Muslim, Rohingya, Jewish, Black, trans or gender non-conforming, Bosnian, queer, immigrants, Mexican, etc. — it is always unacceptable.
I challenge these profs to substantiate their charge that I have ever said that anyone is “inherently less worthy of full personhood.” They won’t, of course, because they can’t, and because facts clearly don’t matter to them.
We call upon Stanford to recognize the harm that is being done and to take the ethical actions demanded by the Fundamental Standard and the University Code of Conduct.
Sincerely,
Dr. Donna Hunter, Program in Writing and Rhetoric
Dr. Gabrielle Moyer, Program in Writing and Rhetoric
Dr. Selby Wynn Schwartz, Program in Writing and Rhetoric
Dr. Ruth Starkman, Program in Writing and Rhetoric
Dr. Maxe Crandall, Program in Feminist, Gender and Sexuality Studies
Fatima Ladha, Class of 2017
Robert Crews, Professor, Department of History
Chloé MacKinnon, Comparative Literature
Dr. Ann Watters, Program in Writing and Rhetoric
Dr. Doree Allen, Oral Communication Program
and other concerned faculty, staff and students who felt too vulnerable or too intimidated, or weren’t able to sign this letter in time for publication.
“Too vulnerable or too intimidated.” Poor lambs! I hope they have their blankies and teddies ready to hand!
WorkingClassPost says
Robert Spencer.
How dare you defend yourself, don’t you know the meaning of submission?
Signed
Programs in Writing and Rhetoric, Feminist Gender and Sexuality Studies …
Who said that Stanford doesn’t have a sense of humor?
mortimer says
So-called ‘safe spaces’ are nothing more than ECHO CHAMBERS where pseudo-intellectual snowflakes can be surrounded by likeminded people who will not challenge their unsupported claims, thereby insulating everyone inside such chambers from any thought or evidence that contradicts or disproves their claims or assertions.
A so-called ‘safe space’ is actually just a DEBATE-FREE ZONE or PROPAGANDA-INDOCTRINATION ZONE where no real education takes place. A ‘safe space’ is just an excuse for Marxists or Jihadists to indoctrinate everyone and not have to defend any proposition or claim they make.
Sandford is a university where scholars take a hard look at FACTS and test them open-mindedly. A university is not a Marxism incubator for little Marxist babies.
maghan says
Marx would scoff at those dummies in their playpens. Have any of those dimwitted so-called “professors” read anything written by Marx? Marx’s key work is Capital. One must know economics to read through those 3 volumes. Very doubtful that any of those snow-flake fools have ever read any of those volumes.
Jim says
I also doubt the have read every word of the Koran and the hadiths. For those who have, it is self-evident.
Linde Barrera says
I do wonder where these Stanford professors received their degrees. I know there are mail order print shops that print up diplomas, but these shops do not offer a college education in critical thinking that differentiates between examination of doctrines and observance of behaviors that emanate from those doctrines.
mortimer says
Linde, it seems most of the Stanford teachers attended Mao Tze Tung High School and Che Guevara College, with post-grad degrees from V.I. Lenin University.
JawsV says
Ha-Ha! Don’t forget the Ayatollah Khomeini School in Women’s Studies!
maghan says
Marx wrote that religion is the opiate of the people. Being a materialist, he had nothing but contempt for religions such as Islam. He would have seen Islam as primitive, backward and nonsensical, contrary to the Liberals’ pathetic love of Islam.
Westman says
Not one of these complaining professors is in a science or math-related discipline where illogical conclusions are quickly found and corrected by peers, using incontrovertible evidence.
This is a leftist “club” of professors that could not be bothered to actually study Islam ideology and thereby have a informed leg to stand upon. It is incredible that they believe their unstable disciplines somehow support their personal biases, as fact.
maghan says
But note that 80% of MIT all voted for Hillary.
Jim says
Westman, yeah, when I was a math teacher we used to ridicule the social science and humanities teachers. We tried to instill discipline in the class (students sitting in their chair and not on window sills), and the humanities teachers undid our work. My math professor said that math was in the center of truth because it made the least assumptions, physics was next because it used mathematics, then chemistry, then biology, then in the outer rings social science and humanities, the least reliable of sources. Having a history degree as well I can attest to its loose “methods;” lots of assumptions on partial data. It’s no wonder that so many of these “professors” are in English, in essence. Is that even a discipline?
gravenimage says
One of the problems is that too many good people have ceded the noble humanities to these thugs.
A society is in trouble when it despises philosophy and the arts.
But I can’t really blame people, given the generally appalling representatives of those discipline in these dark days.
JawsV says
I have to wonder whether these Stanford professors have all had lobotomies.
mortimer says
Yes, Jaws, they had lobotomies… called neo-Marxism and post-modernism.
JawsV says
How about multiculturalism, which means Muslims. The biggest lobotomy of all.
maghan says
Be serious now. Those Stanford protestors have never ever read at least a single volume of Capital.
MFritz says
Some people really don’t like telling the truth and naming perpetrators. Especially if they’re the ones being named and shamed.
Benedict says
– it has been claimed that I promote “hate” and “disinformation” –
The main accusation against Robert Spencer from his opponents, as I see it, is essentially his predilection for portraying the mr. Hyde face of Islam and issuing warnings against it, while largely ignoring the cultivated, erudite face of dr. Jekyll and his ubiquitous moderate, well meaning and basically indifferent choir of Muslims, who just want to get along with their lives, as the saying has it. That the best and most eloquent of them are just burning lips and wicked hearts, proverbially likened to earthen vessels overlaid with silver dross, is just out of question presumably. And if that indeed was the case why antagonize the beast?
Through his bias and bigotry Robert Spencer, intentionally or unintentionally, just helps radicalize ignorant and indifferent Muslims, who are not as well-versed in the Koran as he is, and who often take offense, when he points out the appalling and embarrassing verses of hate and bigotry in their holy writ, since they can attest from their own practices and trivial lives that it is impossible that words from their beloved prophet could be understood that way: the words are evidently taken out of context, since they themselves as benevolent Muslims demonstrably have not been taken into this context.
And the progressive Left nods their own collective dr. Jekyll head in agreement thus making allowances and excuses for the mr. Hyde face of the ideologies *they* sympathize with.
RonaldB says
Lol.
So, your claim is that Spencer creates raving jihadis out of mild-mannered Muslim Clark Kents by selectively displaying the aggressive Koran. The gushing anger at Spencer’s unfair selection rips the suit off the Muslim Clark Kent and Muslim Clark emerges with tights and cape to wreak terror on non-Muslims.
So, Benedict, taking your conjecture as the complete truth, do you really want to live next door to a mild-mannered Muslim who can be set off on a murderous rampage if you merely say the wrong thing?
Benedict says
No RB. I am trying to understand the logic of those who accuse RS of promoting hate and disinformation, and I don’t agree with them. It is as if they believe that RS pointing out the violence in the Koran actualizes it and turns it into a self-fulfilling prophecy, and that he therefore better be silent or silenced:
Don’t mention the Jihad, it’s embarrassing, it belongs to history and we moderate, modern Muslims have forgotten all about it anyhow.
gravenimage says
I take your point, Benedict.
The most insane thing is this, which you do indeed hear all the time:
“Through his bias and bigotry Robert Spencer, intentionally or unintentionally, just helps radicalize ignorant and indifferent Muslims, who are not as well-versed in the Koran as he is, and who often take offense…”
Of course, if such Muslims were really so “moderate”, they would not embrace Jihad as soon as anyone says something critical of Jihad.
This “reasoning”–such as it is–is just appalling.
Green infidel says
Sure – Spencer has this magical power to make terrorists out of those who were peaceful bunnies who wouldn’t hurt a fly… this despite most people, including Muslims and (I suspect) terrorists having never heard of him.
Jim says
Benedict, before you charge Mr Spencer, take the time to read every single word of the Koran and hadiths — read it several times, then come back. You just sound foolish.
gravenimage says
Jim, read Benedict’s second post–he is being sarcastic here.
Norger says
“Spencer is using Jihad Watch to target Minha Khan”.
Say what?! Let me get this straight. So it’s OK for Stanford students ((and you) to make all sorts of false, defamatory and inflammatory statements about Spencer, but when he responds it’s harassment?! OMG will you listen to yourselves?! It is truly frightening that the likes of you are entrusted with teaching some of the best and brightest among us.
Here’s my challenge to you. I note that about a dozen of you signed this letter and several reportedly teach writing and rhetoric (I’ll withhold further sarcasm). How about putting your heads together and figuring out how to best engage with Spencer and expose him at this event for the dangerous bigot you claim he is? I am calling 1000% BS on your claim that it’s beneath you to engage with Spencer. The reason you won’t engage with him is because you lack the substantive knowledge and intellectual capacity to do so,
mortimer says
Agree with Norger. They obviously do not want a debate at all. They want a public stoning.
Westman says
Exactly right. They are completely out of their depth and have no prepared lecture notes for Islam. Any debate would lead to embarassment and name calling in place of knowledge – something they cannot afford in front of students and maintain the “cachet” of Stanford. That would be as detrimental to their careers as not publishing books that few will read.
LeftisruiningCanada says
That’s how it seems to me: They ‘know’ (feel) Mr Spencer is ‘just wrong’, and want him to be silenced.
All the other stuff is just puffing smoke
RonaldB says
I was going to bring this out somewhere on this thread, and it might as well be here.
The protests by Minha and the girly-boy comparative literature professors has a strong flavor of Venus in the Mars versus Venus dichotomy. That is, these adherents of Venus view the world as an emotional stage, where their feelings and reactions are important, and facts are irrelevant and beneath notice.
There is zero chance that Minha or the girly-boy professors will read, let alone respond to, Spencer’s replies. The reason is that the Venus (feminine) mindset demands emotional validation, rather than reasoned analysis. The people to whom Minha looks for validation are much more interested in her feelings than in any actual quotes from the Koran or Muslims. So, the whole leftist coven is simply a self-perpetuating, self-amplifying echo chamber where nothing is lost and nothing is added. The objective facts on Islam (or anything else) are irrelevant to these people.
I used to think a college education was at worst neutral, but I’m now of the opinion that it’s positively harmful, even without taking into account the years lost and the debt incurred by the student.
LeftisruiningCanada says
I don’t know about Mars/Venus……it’s just post modernism and a retreat from reason into the realm of the subjective, imho
TheBuffster says
That’s it, LeftisruiningCanada.
I don’t think the men from Mars, women from Venus framework is very helpful. Lord knows we don’t need to pit men and women against each other any more than they’re pitted already.
Both males and females are capable of being rational or irrational. In fact, most of the destructive philosophies that have ravaged the world have been created by males (which is because most of the influential philosophers in history have been males. But now that women are getting in on the act, they’re also perpetuating claptrap. The human race is now an equal-opportunity-for-claptrap race.) Of course, most of the best philosophies have been created by males as well. But one of the most pro-reason, pro-capitalist, pro-liberty philosophies was created by a woman in the 20th century, Ayn Rand.
The thinkers who brought us Post Modernism were male. Derrida, Foucault, etc. At least the classic Marxists claimed to be rational, objective, scientific. They didn’t openly disparage those virtues of mind. But Post Modernism claims that objectivity is impossible and brings us to a full-blown identity politics where evidence and reason are considered to be oppressive and thus feelings and “narratives” prevail – narratives that are hermetically sealed against anything that could rebut them.
The Post Modern mind also views reason and objectivity as masculine and oppressive, and so they punish the rational *and the masculine*, and thus further entrench the view that to be female is to be irrational and subjective. They approve of the “feminine” and disparage the “masculine”. We should not help them perpetuate their irrationality by agreeing with their stupid premise that male=objectivity, female=subjectivity.
That’s also a premise shared by Islam, by the way.
It’s a profound insult to rational women everywhere to claim that rationality is the province of the masculine. Rationality is the province of any mind that is able and willing to achieve it and live by it. It’s a proper *human* value necessary to a civilised society.
gravenimage says
Ronald, not all women are emotional basket-cases, nor do they all use this to try to silence those who do not agree with them.
Just look at brave Anti-Jihadists like Pamela Geller.
TheBuffster says
You tell him, Graven! 🙂
gravenimage says
Thank you, Buffster.
Jørgen Hansen says
Very well written and reasoned, Spencer! These professors are a disgrace to their sciences.
mortimer says
Agree with JH. It’s a trendy lynch mob. Disgraceful. They do not wish to have a substantive debate. Shouting someone down is NOT debate.
Westman says
That’s not quite accurate. None of those who signed are in the real sciences; they are in the social consensus “sciences”, with the exception of one history professor, in which nothing can be proven for certain. And, as their students will discover, outside of Universities, they don’t provide a good income. Not that a university should have any moral resonsibility in that regard….
Jørgen Hansen says
Thank you so much for pointing to this important fact. I actually considered noting that this kind of scentists have relatively little to compromise and that the most embarrasing subscribtion was the one delivered by the historian. This whole issue has a lot to do with the humanities pre and post the sixties.
Patrick says
Mr Spencer,
your shoulders must be so tired from carrying the burden of spreading Truth to those who have an almost impossible time hearing it. Hope you are able to stay the course…stay strong brother…there are many of us who believe in you and your fight.
JawsV says
So right.
gravenimage says
Hear, hear!
John S. Obeda says
And, therefore, many of us are praying for you Mr. Spencer. Your work is so very hard on the nerves. God help you. God is for freedom and you are for freedom.
Diane Harvey says
“Whenever the claim is made that an identity group is inherently less worthy of full personhood . . . it is always unacceptable.”
Just wait until these guys actually read the Qur’an and find out what Muslims think, and how they treat, the non-Muslim. Boy, are they in for a shock.
Norger says
Touche.
Frank Scarn says
Is reading source materials (Quran; hadith, Sira, Islam’s core texts) still important on colleges campuses?
I know Spencer’s read that stuff. I’d place bets that these people haven’t. And by that I mean all of material, being able to understand how the Medina verses (later in time) abrogated the earlier Meccan verses.
Norger says
“I know Spencer’s read that stuff. I’d place bets that these people haven’t.”
And yet they have the gall to assert that it’s beneath them to even engage with him. The reason Spencer is in demand is because he’s a learned, compelling speaker. Mortimer had it exactly right in one of his posts when he said the entire strategy has been to construct a Spencer straw man, destroy him and declare victory. Shameful.
mortimer says
Agree with Diane. They are exploiting the neo-Marxist VICTIMOLOGY narrative to MILK THE MELODRAMA FROM IT.
They intentionally avoid debating the ISSUES OF POLITICAL SUPREMACISM AND VIOLENCE which are clearly promoted by Islam’s primary texts: Koran, Sira and hadiths.
Because the Leftards have NOT read the Islamic ‘trilogy’, they cannot debate the issues substantively, so they retreat into neo-Marxist VICTIMOLOGY narratives.
Westman says
“Whenever the claim is made that an identity group is inherently less worthy of full personhood . . . it is always unacceptable.”
LIKE THIS???:
“O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination”
“Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve”
“And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah… Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they! ”
“Say (O Muhammad to the people of the Scripture): ‘Shall I inform you of something worse than that, regarding the recompense from Allah: those (Jews) who incurred the Curse of Allah and His Wrath, those of whom (some) He transformed into monkeys and swines, those who worshipped Taghut (false deities); such are worse in rank (on the Day of Resurrection in the Hell-fire), and far more astray from the Right Path (in the life of this world).'”
“But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads; Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron” – this is Islam’s intent for professors.
THIS IS THE QUR’AN!
Obviously there are religious illiterates on the Stanford faculty or they would know that Islam and Muslims declare non-believers to have no more value than animals. What narrow educations are now in vogue on campus…
gravenimage says
Spot on.
Benedict says
– “whose basic premise is not debatable, because it is fundamentally dehumanizing.” –
Finally apologists and facilitators for Islam penned and pinned themselves with a true, valid statement about the prophet who invented Islam.
Shmoovie says
Bada-BING, Benedict.
Writers at JW and other sites regularly report on the ‘fundamental dehumanization’ of muslims by fellow followers.
mortimer says
Agree. Mohammedans is DEHUMANIZING (‘kafirs are the worst of creatures’-Koran 98:6 and they should be ‘greatly hated’ by Muslims 40:35).
This hatred is irrefutably in the Koran.
mortimer says
correction: Mohammedanism
Shmoovie says
Everyone is expected to just take their word that “(four students are now being threatened..)”. RS points out that no examples of or quotes from these threats is offered.
Wouldn’t you think the school would be EAGER to share examples of any threats, as proof of just what sort of ‘damage’ the spectre of Robert Spencer and his visit is inflicting?!
Do these dhimmi officials really consider students being referred to as ‘crybabies’ or ‘snowflakes’ as BIGOTRY from the ‘trolls’ at JW? That’s about as tough on these students as I’ve seen in Stanford comments here. If they’re offended to the point of Fear For Their Safety by remarks such as these, they deserve that derision.
It would be interesting to see some real concern, over genuine hatred, expressed by these same officials the next time an MSA member or guest imam writes an op-ed or gives a speech promoting BDS or the ‘genocide of Palestinians’. But of course there’ll be none.
All best wishes and hopes that you will be allowed to be heard, Mr. Spencer.
Benedict says
– “Wouldn’t you think the school would be EAGER to share examples of any threats, as proof of just what sort of ‘damage’ the spectre of Robert Spencer and his visit is inflicting?!” –
The FroSoCo Staff provides a link to an official reporting protocol for acts of intolerance.
(“If you witness an act of intolerance, we encourage you to report it to the university. The official reporting protocol can be found at this link.”)
Surely the four students being threatened have reported their plights to the official reporting protocol. It might though add to their discomfort if unauthorized investigators ask for a copy of the protocol so be discreet in case.
Norger says
“Currently, Spencer’s Jihad Watch website is harassing students, staff and faculty and exposing them to further harm at the hands of “alt-right” trolls.”
What sophomoric trash. Something similar happened at Brandeis University when a conservative student reporter called out another student who applauded the murder of police officers and was accused of exposing her to white supremacists. “Free speech for me but not for thee.” The hypocrisy is just mind boggling,
https://www.change.org/p/brandeis-university-president-frederick-m-lawrence-brandeis-community-students-alumni-and-friends-stand-in-support-of-khadijah-lynch
mortimer says
Agree with Norger: this is indeed sophomoric rubbish! To respond to a slander is NOT harassment, but self-defense to which every person in our society is entitled.
What? Do they think they can simply tie Robert Spencer up and throw stones at him? That IS sophomoric. In a DEBATE, one side speaks and the other side responds with a COUNTERARGUMENT.
Why are Sanford teachers not TEACHING these sophomores about the protocol of DEBATE?
This is a DEBATE, rather than a public hanging or stoning, ISN’T IT?
TheBuffster says
All excellent and true points, Mortimer.
gravenimage says
Now you can preach murder, then claim you yourself are being threatened if anyone objects.
Hideous kabuki theater.
mortimer says
To try to defend oneself against the Sanford kangaroo court is called ‘harrassment’. Apparently, the Sanford kangaroo court does not need to provide any proof for its accusations and defense arguments by Robert Spencer should not be heard, but shouted down. That is the very definition of government-run propaganda. The main issue is that the accredited Young Republicans organization is being denied its right to schedule a lecture and a discussion of political issues. What Sanford Leftards are doing is a breech of the American first amendment rights.
The purpose of the Sanford kangaroo court is transparently that of creating an Echo Chamber for neo-Marxists and Jihadists at Sanford. Again, that is the definition of ‘propaganda’. Propaganda loses its supremacy when there is full debate and airing of issues. The Leftists want to prevent debate… any debate.
The neo-Marxist kangaroo court at Sandford believe they need only make an assertion without evidence or corroboration or references, and then proceed immediately to sentencing. No defense will be heard.
A ‘kangaroo court’ is defined as “a self-appointed or mob-operated tribunal that disregards or parodies existing principles of law or human rights or a court in which the outcome is pre-determined by the reputation of the defendant”.
The Sanford kangaroo court’s sentencing has already been done, even before Robert Spencer’s speech has been delivered. The kangaroo court has decided what people should think. Case closed.
The Leftists at Sanford have set themselves up as a kangaroo court, but they will not get away with it.
Those who fund Sanford will have to be thinking ‘DO I WANT TO FUND A MARXIST ECHO CHAMBER?’
Many past contributors to Sanford will say, ‘NO, I DO NOT WANT TO CONTINUE TO FUND SANFORD’S MARXIST ECHO CHAMBER.’
WorkingClassPost says
Yes indeed.
“the outcome is pre-determined by the reputation of the defendant”.
That pretty much sums up their entire thought process, such as it is.
TheBuffster says
And in this case, even the reputation of the defendant has been based false reporting of his views and his character.
Voytek Gagalka says
Oh, this is truly rich! “Harassment” is now anything you say in your defense!
LeftisruiningCanada says
Sorry, i must have lost the thread here….is that what someone at stanford said, or was it a muslim engaging in taqqiya?
gravenimage says
Stanford professors.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Ah, thanks. It’s getting hard to tell these days.
JOSEPH says
Obviously these “people of higher education” never heard the tale of the scorpion and the frog crossing the river.
In the end the stung dying frog says to the scorpion “But why did you sting me? Now we are both going to die.”
The scorpion says, “Stupid silly frog, you knew all along that this is my nature”
mortimer says
Jihadists are 100% supremacists, Joe.
Questions for Sanford students: WHAT IS IT THAT A ‘SUPREMACIST’ WANTS?
How far are the jihad-supremacists willing go to get what they want?
JOSEPH says
They love death more than life;. That is how far they are willing to go.
They use our love of life against us. We have to learn NOT to give them a ride across the river on our backs.
This is from the “school of hard knocks” 101.
Not taught at Stanford obviously.
Voytek Gagalka says
Lo and behold! According to Stanford professors, “announcement intended for the Stanford community about an anti-Islamophobic event” is apparently from now on a part of Qur’an and like Qur’an must be guarded absolutely protected from mockery: if you oppose what it says, mock it in any way, Hell’s Fire those professors proscribe for you for doing so! Oh, woe!
thomas says
Standford allegedly has some of the world’s best teachers and students.
When in high school English, I was told that when you are trying to convince someone of your position, you needed to state facts clearly that support your position. Your facts were suppose to have your reader agree with your conclusions.
One should never state conclusions, without factual support.
Standford’s snowflakes rarely have facts that support their conclusions. .
What writing letter grade do these snowflakes deserve?
Norger says
Lawyers have a word for it:conclusory. Pretty much all we’ve heard from Spencer’s critics all week; not a shred of substance, lots of weak or faulty logic, appeal to emotion, false statements, defamatory statements and conclusory statements that are offered as self-evidently true.
Norger says
Eloquent commentary from Georg, a poster on another thread:
“Many of their positions rest on specious reasoning, sophistry, and even bigotry; these are the true grounds of this fear even if they’ve long since convinced themselves otherwise. They veil their fear of debate as virtue. They avoid debate with any particular opponent with accusations that amount to defamation. They will talk about anything but what we’re talking about. It cannot be reasonably argued that Islam is a defensible doctrine, so their only choice is to not defend it by not ever talking about it.”
Jim says
Bingo, Norger
Georg says
Thank you, Norger, for speaking about a view that I think many of us have come to see as plain but which has not yet reached the mainstream.
Norger says
“Who gets to speak for the Muslim community on our campus?”
Gee professors, it seems like there are lots of people speaking for Muslim community on your campus, you included. And in case you missed the announcement, all are invited to tonight’s event. There will time for Q &A….
mgoldberg says
It is remarkable just how much nuttery was expressed by that group of ‘professors.’
Seriously…. the whole letter by them was so easily overturned, as to demonstrate their lack of
intellectual honesty, let alone a cohesive moral and ethical code worth mentioning.
It is as if they’ve gotten drunk on correctness, forgotten how to drill and make an argument, and understand their own or anothers ideas, and have gotten themselves into a place where self deception
is the only reasonable explanation for their essentially libelous, and shallow pronouncements.
I hope Robert will follow up and mention this absurd, foolish, and ultimately destructively bit on the part of the nitwits who call themseves professors, because this kind of misdirection drivel, on their parts, deserves the kind of drubbing and ridicule that will expose they and the students to the fact that they’ve wasted a huge chunk of money to get an ‘education’ that represents brainwashing much more than any kind of learning. Remember: a liberal education 75 yrs ago, meant learning rhetoric, logic, and other ‘liberal’ subjects, that helped one to formulate arguments, ideas, and learn how to engage different ideas in order to sift and winnow out what one would choose to believe.
These ‘professors’ with their made up vicitmization playhouse melodrama, have not a leg to stand on, and that should be shown, and shown and shown, until the laughter and derision for the destruction these prof’s and their institutions have brought, do indeed come to light.
Green infidel says
You know that your education system’s gone crazy when one of the most prestigious universities offers a study program in “Feminist, gender and sexuality studies” …
Jim says
Remember, when liberals make accusations, it is all projection. Also, if you want to know what liberals are up to, just find out what they are accusing the other side of, and that is what they are doing.
Lydia says
Classic!
He’s “harassing” them… by defending himself against their ATTACKS!
Typical Stanford brain-drain in action.
Also typical nazi propaganda tactics of twisting the truth.
Lydia says
Stanford University identifies “certain types of free speech [that] are not permitted under University policy — for example, threats of harm that constitute a hate crime, instances of unlawful harassment or speech that disrupts classes or other university functions.”
But… they’re okay with inviting the terrorist speakers?
Just not those who expose terrorism then?
Lydia says
If they are not violent terrorists, they have nothing to fear. If they are truly the innocent doves they pretend to be, then what do they have to be afraid of by his speech? But, if they are not so innocent???
And this inciting to violence… now there they might have a point.
Here is the potential scene:
Robert shows up and gives his cool, calm, and collected speech based on facts, historical evidence, information, proof from the koran, etc. All he does is present the facts.
Then, all of a sudden with a puff of smoke from one of the side exits emerge…. the mutant terrorist ninja turtles of… jihad! Fully equipped with swords, guns, and all manner of mayhem, ‘incited’ to violence because someone dared to speak the truth about islamic jihad terrorism, and of course that is enough for these wild-eyed irrational hotheads to attack and massacre not only the speaker but all in attendance… ironically… proving the speakers point!!! Just one more historical case in point on top of a huge pile of them! Which, of course, is why Robert was there to speak to begin with… sigh.
But alas, the educational establishment continues to be ignorant of the facts… once again.
gravenimage says
Stanford profs claim Robert Spencer is “harassing” students, staff and faculty by responding to attacks
…………………….
Ludicrous fake victimhood.
gravenimage says
Here’s more ugliness from the Stanford Daily, from a student who claims to have been for freedom of speech at some time in the past:
“So I’d like to pose a question to the administration: What matters more? Stanford’s abstract commitment to unrestricted expression in every instance, or the safety and well-being of Muslim students and other marginalized populations on campus?
“I know what my answer is. I may have spent years insisting on hearing both sides of every issue, but I will proudly be the first to say that some ideas are simply not worth debating.”
“Debate and its discontents: Robert Spencer and the limits of free speech”
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/11/13/debate-and-its-discontents-robert-spencer-and-the-limits-of-free-speech/
She does not say, of course, how the well-being of Muslims is harmed by someone saying that they are against violent Jihad–unless Jasmine Sun believes that all Muslims support violent Jihad?
The only good thing is the comments section.
Norger says
“ I will proudly be the first to say that some ideas are simply not worth debating.”
And precisely what are those ideas that you proudly announce are beneath contempt and cannot be debated at Stanford? Notwithstanding the fact that Islamic terrorists consistently self-identify as devout Muslims, and consistently (and accurately) cite Islamic scriptures in justification of their actions, whether Islamic theology plausibly justifies terrorism is a subject that cannot be discussed at Stanford. (I’m going out on a limb and assuming that most Stanford students lack the most basic knowledge of Islamic theology to actually “debate” this subject). Orwellian. Absolute totalitarian madness.
Angemon says
All the same for them. It’s the same MO used in pretty much every other issue: if the person they’re opposing is white, bring up “white supremacy”. Heck, even if they’re not white:
http://www.theroot.com/charles-barkley-is-a-great-example-of-a-black-white-su-1798149722
Tim says
Of all the important issues being discussed, there is one issue that is not.
The issue is about the students who are saying to themselves “what is this all about?
How is that to be dealt with?
St. Croix says
It sounds like they have totally imbibed the poison drink of the modern age, that cocktail of narcissism and victimhood extant in media, schools, and entertainment, and epitomised by the Muslim mindset (fully endorsed by the Koran–nay!–commanded in the Koran).
Bree says
Robert, I’ve listened and read from you for well over 10 years. Nowhere have you ever suggested any harm be on any person. Three words. Saudi oil money.