Samantha Harris of Reason magazine for some reason thinks that my event at Stanford University on Tuesday night went off “with minimal disruption.” Somehow she missed the fact that Stanford officials kept out supporters and even sponsors of the event, made sure the hall was packed with those who were there only to deny a seat to those who wanted to hear the lecture, and then refused repeated requests to let in those who wanted to be there.
Nonetheless, Harris’ point about “dehumanizing” speech is sound. This is a new club in the Left’s arsenal of weapons to use to deny the freedom of speech and crush dissenting opinions, and is just as subjective and baseless as their other weapons. Meanwhile, Islamic jihadis are dehumanizing people all over the world by murdering them, but that kind of “dehumanization” doesn’t count.
“The Spurious Move to Stifle Speech on Campus Because it is ‘Dehumanizing,'” by Samantha Harris, Reason, November 17, 2017:
Robert Spencer — the controversial author and founder of the blog Jihad Watch — spoke Tuesday at Stanford University at the invitation of the university’s College Republicans. The event proceeded relatively peacefully, with minimal disruption.
But there were many who believed Stanford should never have allowed Spencer to speak in the first place, including a group of Stanford faculty and students who published an open letter urging the university to block Spencer’s talk.
The argument of the letter’s authors is that while they “fully support the principle of academic freedom that allows us to disagree about issues,” Spencer’s views on Islam are “not debatable” because they are “fundamentally 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.
This has quickly become one of the most common, insidious, and dangerously slippery-slope arguments against free speech on college campuses and beyond. Let’s set aside for a moment that even most truly “dehumanizing” speech is protected by the First Amendment. (Although Stanford is not a public university, California’s Leonard Law applies the protections of the First Amendment to non-sectarian private schools.) The reality on campus is that any debate over any controversial issue will, for proponents of this viewpoint, unjustly demean the value of someone’s identity.
Consider students at the University of Florida who earlier this week vandalized promotional materials for an upcoming pro-life event on campus put on by the university’s Young Americans for Freedom. In a Facebook message bragging about the vandalism, one student wrote: “just poured water on your lovely creations that are an insult to my entire major and life experiences!”
To others, an opposing view on immigration policy is an attack on the humanity of undocumented immigrants. As NYU professor and provost Ulrich Baer wrote last spring in The New York Times, “[s]ome topics, such as claims that some human beings are by definition inferior to others, or illegal or unworthy of legal standing, are not open to debate because such people cannot debate them on the same terms.”
Meanwhile, after Laura Kipnis — the feminist Northwestern professor who was twice investigated by Northwestern for Title IX violations over her criticism of campus sexual politics — spoke at Wellesley College, the faculty on the school’s Commission for Ethnicity, Race, and Equity issued a statement calling for changes to the outside speaker policy. Speakers like Kipnis, the statement said, require students to “invest time and energy in rebutting the speakers’ arguments… in order to affirm their humanity.”
When Heather Mac Donald, a vocal critic of the Black Lives Matter movement, spoke last spring at Claremont McKenna College, violent protesters attempted to shut down the event, forcing the Manhattan Institute fellow to give her talk via livestream. Three students from nearby Pomona College issued a statement saying “[t]he idea that the search for this truth involves entertaining Heather Mac Donald’s hate speech is illogical. If engaged, Heather Mac Donald would not be debating on mere difference of opinion, but the right of Black people to exist.”…
The “humanity denying” argument for censorship is not self-limiting, as these examples illustrate. If accepted, the argument can and will be used to shut down debate on a variety of issues profoundly important to us — including that “scholarly debate over affordable health care” the Stanford professors claim they would welcome….
St. Manuel II Palaiologos says
Reason magazine is as totalitarian as any politburo. They pretend to be on the Libertarian side, but their real allegiance lies with uncle Joe Stalin.
gravenimage says
A bit of an overstatement, I think.
Barry says
Standford proved a few days ago it its administrators- including its president – and its fascist liberal moronic studendbodoby is a two-bit institution….and I don’t give a god-damn if JFK once graced its halls for a semester way back when….
JawsV says
Way back when there were no Muslims and Islam apologists at Stanford. It was a real university, not a Snowflake Center and Useful Idiots Abode.
eduardo odraude says
Then Robert should be able to sue Stanford. Calling David Yerushalmi!!
Norger says
The paradox is that Islamic orthodoxy “fundamentally dehumanizes” non-Muslims (e.g. Jews and Christians are the descendants of apes and pigs) but we can’t talk about THAT because such talk would “fundamentally dehumanize” Muslims.
I did notice that it’s OK to fundamentally dehumanize Robert Spencer and those who agree with him (or even listen to him); those are obvious exceptions to the rule.
Charles says
Inflammatory propaganda is the only way to describe. What a shame that a University is unable to examine or criticise a theocratic doctrine that exhorts its followers to attack unbelievers on the pretext of their disbelief. In no way has Robert ever shamed a young girl wearing a hijab as the editorial cartoon suggests. He simply points out the truth of the written doctrine, along with its imperatives, and conflates it with the actions of terrorists who act upon and reference those said imperatives. The truth is as simple as reading the Qu’ran and Hadith, unravelling the obfuscation and constructing a narrative of a theocratic warlord in the 7th century Hijaz, who openly dehumanized the unbeliever and attacked with the stated intent of ethnic cleansing:
Sahih Muslim 4366—It has been narrated by ‘Umar b. al-Khattab that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabia and will not leave any but Muslim.
Frankly I’m shocked at the level of intellectual dishonesty exhibited by stanford “university”. The faculty and administrators are either ignorant, corrupted, or cowards.
Norger says
“What shame that a University is unable to examine or criticise a theocratic doctrine that exhorts its followers to attack unbelievers on the pretext of their disbelief.”
And that the act of examining or criticizing such a doctrine “fundamentally dehumanizes” the followers of such a fundamentally inhumane doctrine. It’s cultural relativism, cultural suicide, political correctness, sophistry, absurdity—complete and utter madness.
carol says
Spot on Norger.
Luis says
I call it a strong delusion.
el Cid 2 says
All three I’m afraid.
vlparker says
I guess when you don’t have a riot like they did up the street at Berkeley, then it is minimal disruption according to Ms. Harris.
gravenimage says
Grimly true.
Emilie Green says
As Carly Simon may have put, “When it comes to dehumanizing, no body does it better than Islam.”
gfmucci says
In the world of leftist snowflakes, speaking against Hitler would have been “dehumanizing.” Let’s see, what else. Speaking ill of pedophiles is “dehumanizing.” Speaking unflatteringly about rapists is dehumanizing. Saying you don’t like mass-murderers is “dehumanizing.”
Speaking of mass murderers, Islamic doctrine encourages them. Awww shucks. I guess I just dehumanized devout Muslims.
Benedict says
“[s]ome topics, such as claims that some human beings are by definition inferior to others, or illegal or unworthy of legal standing, are not open to debate because such people cannot debate them on the same terms.” –
If that is so, maybe it would be possible – by the help of an erudite, orthodox Imam – to find some apes and pigs of Jewish descent, who could debate these unfortunate people on the same terms as theirs and on their level.
MFritz says
Just read the blurb about the author Samantha Harris:
“Samantha Harris is vice president of policy research at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).”
You don’t have to say much more. Really.
Only that there are way too many like her who poison the minds of people and infiltrate the media and the institutions of science and politics to destroy them.
gravenimage says
MFritz, why do you think defending the First Amendment and the rights of students–including conservatives–is a bad thing?
Except for her characterization of the disruption at Spencer’s appearance as “minimal”, I think she is right here.
She does not want to see speech stifled at universities. What objections do you have to what she is saying?
Samantha Harris says
Thank you 😀
gravenimage says
Stanford, Robert Spencer, and the spurious move to stifle speech by calling it “dehumanizing”
………………………..
Apparently raping children and mass murdering innocent people is not dehumanizing, but saying anything critical of it is…
Madness.
Lydia says
What is ‘dehumanizing’?
Islam!
Read the koran if you don’t believe me.
mortimer says
Yes, over 60% of the Koran is the hateful RANT that Allah hates the dirty KAFIRS and wants Muslims to hate them too and act violently towards them. That’s called JIHAD.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
The hallmarks of the Left: Arrogance and intellectual laziness. Both are on show here in their “dehumanizing” encyclical, especially the intellectual laziness. Emotional thinking, and heavy use of undefined and euphemistic terminology.
mortimer says
Exactly! “Arrogance and intellectual laziness.”
Hey, LEFTARDS! Speaking of DEHUMANIZING…do you know about the doctrine called AL WALAA WAL BARAA??? That’s being nice to Muslims and being ‘harsh’ towards and ‘free from’ the dirty KUFAAR.
Hey, LEFTARDS! Do you even know what a KAFIR is? Did you know you are considered a KAFIR?
Luis says
The writer of this article is a good example of people who deem themselves as an authority on what words mean. Don’t bother looking up words like “dehumanize” because it means what they say it means because “they say so.” They are experts at word twisting and will insist they are knowledgeable because they went to a college or university. Being an unschooled and ordinary person, I prefer to look things up. I like to use Merriam Webster:
Definition of dehumanize
transitive verb
:to deprive of human qualities, personality, or spirit
— dehumanization play \(ˌ)dē-ˌhyü-mə-nə-ˈzā-shən, (ˌ)dē-ˌyü-\ noun
First Known Use: 1818
I have been a follower of Robert Spencer for quite some time and have found him to be a very caring and humanizing fellow personally. I hope to meet him at a book signing someday.
M says
Wait…Spencer’s “views” on Islam are not “debatable”? Firstly Mr. Spencer deals in FACTS. And how can anything not be debatable? These brainwashed snowflakes are rejecting logic, reality, sanity….it makes no sense.
They could research Islam on their own, and see what is a fact and what is a view, but they are too….lazy?
All Robert Spencer is doing is POINTING OUT what ideas are in Islam and their connection to violent jihad. He says nothing hateful whatsoever.
mortimer says
It isn’t dehumanizing IF MUSLIMS DO IT!
It isn’t discrimination IF MUSLIMS DO IT!
It isn’t apartheid IF MUSLIMS DO IT!
It isn’t misogyny IF MUSLIMS DO IT!
It isn’t wife beating IF MUSLIMS DO IT!
It isn’t deception or prevarication IF MUSLIMS DO IT!
It isn’t suicide bombing IF MUSLIMS DO IT!
It isn’t ethnic cleansing IF MUSLIMS DO IT!
It isn’t genocide IF MUSLIMS DO IT!
When will you USEFUL IDIOT LEFTARDS STOP GIVING ISLAM A MORAL FREE PASS?
Enrique says
Robert Spencer states: “Nonetheless, Harris’ point about “dehumanizing” speech is sound.” I take that to mean that he certainly believes there is such a thing as dehumanizing speech. Therefore, whoever disagrees with that disagrees with him. May I suggest that he now go further and give real or hypothetical examples of dehumanizing speech, with alternating examples of speech that is not. May I also suggest that he invite his critics (e.g. Academia, Stanford walkouts, Stanford administration) to do likewise.
…
In addition, the idea that the “left” is behind all of this is not sufficiently accurate. A case could easily be made that globalization is the principal factor. From such a perspective, Stanford’s administration (from the president down) is not really interested in the US constitution insofar as campus life is concerned. (The U.S. consitution is perhaps just a course to be taken, something to be analyzed in its law school, but, effectively, no more.) Stanford’s administration is likely more interested in a globalized campus. After all many of its students will be just as much players in the global economy, foreign political situations , research, etc. In such a case, what drives decisions in Europe, Asia, etc. is as important, or even more important in shaping Stanford’s policies and attitudes towards campus life. So Stanford perhaps sees itself, and wants to be seen. as a microcosm of global (and not U.S.) culture, or even a little France of sorts; and is fully willing to accept all that that entails. Therefore, looking at the world, or the France, of the past 5 years suggests that what happened at Stanford, and how the Stanford administration sees it, is not unusual at all. Its globalised campus life effectively trumps U.S. culture and the U.S. constitution.
If this hypothesis is correct, then Robert Spencer should consider redefining his academic audience and how he reaches it.
ronyvo says
All what I can say is, may our Lord Jesus Christ protect you Mr. Spencer. You and those who are fighting back against the most horrible enemy our country and the world are facing WILL succeed in destroying and saving our generations from that diabolical system Islam.
I still believe strongly that 9/11was a wake up call, which truly woke up a huge number of westerners to inform and educate themselves about this most dangerous system and go around spreading the word to warn those who are stubborn and extremely lazy populous. Those courageous soldiers who are facing extreme danger like you Mr. Spencer will get their PROMISED reward “… rejoice and be exceedingly glad for great is your reward in heaven”.
Holo says
I wrote to the President of Stanford University as follows:
Dear President Tessier-Lavigne, Stanford University
I am still traumatised and under shock at the shameful, scandalous treatment given to Robert Spencer, an outstanding intellectual and writer and great connaisseur of Islam and jihadism when he came to speak to your students a few days ago.
Freedom of speech was sabotaged. I am also Canadian although living in Switzerland at the moment, but this is the kind of thing I can’t imagine happening in Canada, and so I am incredulous that you allowed it. Stanford’s reputation is ruined.
I am a writer, translator and activist who has been working for years on the burning issue of the massive Islamic invasion of Christian countries and the consequent terrorism. In fact, I have worked out a solution to terrorism, which I suggest to people concerned in many many letters. I can tell you that every word Robert Spencer writes is the truth. There is something dangerous happening: authorities and the European Union, the UN and the Churches want to ignore the dangers Musim migrants represent, and consequently the media hide the facts. In Europe, over 350 innocent people have been murdered by Muslims since mid November 2015, besides Muslims commit the majority of crimes, including many rapes. The Koran commands over 100 times to “kill the infidels”, and that is what the terrorists are doing. Besides, Islam commands to islamise the world, which is happening.
Mr. Spencer is brave enough to tell the truth and we must be grateful to him and support him.
Sincerely,
Warren Raymond says
Dehumanising? But of course! Only Muslims are human. No kafir must be allowed to criticise them. That is dehumanising. Can’t you speak Islamic?
WPM says
Robert Spencer is not dehumanizing anyone he is debating ideas and ideology .That what Islam is it is not white, black, Asian or middle eastern people it is an ideology .An ideology is open for debate ,may it be capitalism , socialism ,Fascism, all are open for debate. If someone thinks something is good and they believe it they can defend it with words or debate and above all else facts. If I state the worlds is flat and people debate me with reason and facts am I dehumanized because they hurt my feelings when they proven me wrong? The trouble is the progressives feel their feelings trump facts instead of debate they resort violence and threats of violence.
Norger says
The “humanity denying” argument for censorship really boils down to this: “regardless of the merits, there are some topics that are not acceptable subjects for discussion or debate, because the discussion of those topics hurts certain people’s feelings too much.” Completely ridiculous, particularly at an American university.
762x51FMJ says
“If you know your enemies and yourself you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; If you do not know your enemies but do know yourself you will win one and lose one; If you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.” Sun Tsu.
One Millennia later Islam was born, And new battle plan to defeat it.
When studying intensively as to the mindset of your opponent always be careful never to become your own worst enemy.
Norger says
And a conscious decision to prohibit discussion of a self declared enemy’s stated threat doctrine is absolute suicidal madness. That is the current state of play at our universities. Even more frightening, that is also the current state of play in our military and law enforcement as well.
Mysterex says
“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.”
Uh huh. Paedophiles would be acceptable using that logic. But then the left back Islam; and with countries like Iraq pushing to allow girls as young as nine to get married (wonder where they got that idea from), it seems that the left probably support paedophiles too.
What they seem incapable of understanding, is that except in the countries where the ideology they support is dominant, religion is a CHOICE. If you CHOOSE to be a part of a revolting ideology, you deserve criticism, or should at least expect to face hard questions about your choices.
terry says
If presenting the facts of islam through their own scripture is dehumanizing, that must mean that islam is a dehumanizing ideology.
They just shot themselves in the foot.
Samantha Harris says
In the original version of the article, I used a block quote from the Stanford profs’ article that was inadvertently printed as if it were part of my article. I did not write this, the Stanford professors did, and it was this argument that I was actually criticizing: “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.”
This has been corrected on Reason’s site now — I hope it makes things clearer.