Originally published at the Gatestone Institute. Republished with permission.
It is no surprise that students at Stanford University disrupted best-selling author Robert Spencer’s lecture on November 14. Given the lead-up to his talk — “Jihad and the Dangers of Radical Islam: An Honest Discussion” — the scenario was scripted in advance, with the encouragement and support of the school’s administration.
As soon as the Stanford College Republicans invited Spencer, founder of the website Jihad Watch, to speak on campus — as part of the Fred. R. Allen Freedom Lecture Series, sponsored by the Young America’s Foundation — a concerted campaign was launched to prevent him from being allowed to set foot on the premises. Stanford students, faculty members and administrators published a steady stream of articles in the student publications the Stanford Daily and Stanford Review, claiming not only that Spencer was unqualified to speak to them — despite frequently addressing FBI, Joint Terrorism Task Force, military, and other government groups for years — but also pronounced that his presence threatened Muslim students on campus; that he enabled anti-Semitism; that his message deprived Muslims of “personhood”; and that he was endangering students by replying to their attacks on his website.
When that effort failed, they employed other means to intimidate Spencer and the students who wished to hear what he had to say. Not only did hundreds of protesters cause a disturbance outside the venue, but another 150 entered the auditorium, played Arabic music loudly to drown out what Spencer was saying, and then staged a mass walk-out minutes after the event began.
Two Stanford administrators present — Nanci Howe, associate dean and director of student affairs, and Snehal Naik, assistant dean and associate director of student affairs — not only nodded approvingly at the walk-out, but actively aided it, first by denying entry to many students who actually wanted to attend the event, and then by not allowing them to enter after the walkout, despite the fact that the auditorium was largely empty. They also forbade the hosts from live-streaming the talk on the Internet.
According to one report of the event, published in the Stanford Review the following day:
“[T]he protest was a deliberate attempt to block students from engaging with Spencer in any capacity. If you personally do not wish to engage with the man, fine, power to you. But preventing others from doing so is shameful.”
Meanwhile, another event took place on campus — “Stanford Against Spencer: A Rally Against Islamophobia” — timed to coincide with Spencer’s talk. In the Facebook invitation to the rally, the “coalition of concerned students and organizations that formed in response” to Spencer’s lecture referred to him falsely as a “self-proclaimed Islamophobe and co-founder of two known hate groups,” while lambasting him for responding on his blog to the barrage of defamation to which he had been subjected by Stanford students and faculty during the past few weeks.
In “An open letter to the College Republicans regarding Robert Spencer,” printed in the Stanford Daily on November 8 — penned by a “coalition of concerned student groups” — Spencer is accused of being “an established Islamophobe, and “Islamophobia” is described as:
“more than just anti-Muslim sentiment, [but] institutionalized through U.S. foreign policy (the ongoing “war on terror”) and immigration policy (Trump’s xenophobic Muslim ban), extending its violent impact on people from and in Muslim-majority countries.”
In other words, supporting the eradication of global terrorism constitutes “Islamophobia” in the eyes of the signatories of the letter, all far-left organizations — such as Students for Justice in Palestine, Jewish Voice for Peace, Students for Queer Liberation, Students Against Militarism, Student And Labor Alliance and Students for the Liberation of All People — known for their radical views and responsible for the often violent curtailing of the free speech of anyone who disagrees with their politics at universities across the United States.
Furthermore, to justify their call on fellow students not to “engage with [Spencer], even if you are critical of [his views], because engaging in a conversation about Islam with a known Islamophobe is a contradiction,” the authors of the letter referred to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as their key source of information. The SPLC, which has been discredited widely for its left-wing bias and unreliable designation of conservative groups on its “hate list,” was also quoted by a Pakistani Muslim student at Stanford, who wrote about being “afraid” as a scarf-wearing Muslim on campus. Of course, this is ludicrous, as no Muslim has ever been harmed on the Stanford campus, while in the student’s native Pakistan, Christians are persecuted by Muslims on a daily basis.
The reason for having to smear Spencer was clear. Portraying him as someone who has led to the killing of Muslims was the way to try to have him banned from the campus, without abandoning the principle of free speech. Yet no student or faculty member produced a shred of evidence linking Spencer to violence against Muslims at Stanford or anywhere else. All they were able to produce as “proof” of Spencer’s incitement was the same libelous blurb on the Southern Poverty Law Center website.
This did not prevent four graduate students (three of them doctoral candidates) — Joshua De Leon, Umniya Najaer, Jason Beckman, and Jamie M. Fine – from complaining that Spencer had “endangered” the life of a student, by exposing a video of the boy tearing down posters advertising the lecture. The claim was completely nonsensical, of course. In the first place, the student was the one who shared a video of himself on Snapchat removing the posters; Spencer merely re-posted the clip. Secondly, as Spencer responded to the barrage of criticism he received for this:
“I have never called for or condoned violence against any individual. If this Stanford fascist is harmed by anyone, it would be a disgrace, and the perpetrator should be prosecuted. However, [he] is not really in any danger. The College Republicans at Stanford are not neo-Nazis, contrary to the defamation in this latest Stanford Daily piece. Nor am I…”
What De Leon, Najaer, Beckman and Fine failed to mention was that a mere few months earlier, at the end of May, the Stanford student senate voted to fund an on-campus speech by the son of Palestinian terrorist Marwan Barghouti, who is serving five life sentences in an Israeli jail for orchestrating three deadly attacks.
The May 25 event — “Dignity Hunger Strike: Aarab Barghouti on Palestinian Political Prisoners’ Demands for Dignity” — was hosted by the Stanford chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine and co-sponsored by many of the same organizations that protested Spencer’s November 14 appearance: Jewish Voice for Peace, STATIC magazine, International Socialist Organization, Students Against Militarism, Student And Labor Alliance and Students for the Liberation of All Peoples.
It is noteworthy that one Jewish student senator at the school told the Stanford Daily why he supported giving a platform to the son of a convicted terrorist, the point of whose lecture was to blame Israel for the alleged plight of hunger-striking Palestinian prisoners:
“In the interest of full transparency, I am personally very deeply concerned with the content of [Barghouti’s] speech, but I need to make sure that I afford equal access to freedom of speech to groups, even those who I deeply disagree with.”
The irony did not escape Spencer, who pointed out:
“There was no uproar when Aarab Barghouti spoke at Stanford. No calls for cancellation or boycott. No statements from administrators offering support to students who found Barghouti’s presence disturbing. No protests. No safe spaces opened. No hysterical attacks on Barghouti in the Stanford Daily. No calls by dorm staff to report students who put up posters advertising Barghouti’s event.
“Likewise, when the SJP [Students for Justice in Palestine] co-hosted an event at Stanford featuring Mads Gilbert, who supports the 9/11 jihad attacks that murdered 3,000 people, no one at Stanford got hysterical and called for cancellation, boycott, punishment of the students supporting the event, etc.”
Yet Stanford’s vice provost for student affairs, Susie Brubaker-Cole, and its dean for religious life, Jane Shaw, wrote a blog to reassure the anti-Spencer students that, in spite of the university’s “commitment to freedom of expression,” it is
“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.”
In conclusion, they said:
“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.”
It is a travesty that Stanford’s administration has no compunction about asserting that Spencer “has a track record of actions and speech that motivate hatred towards Muslims,” and that “anti-Muslim racism [is] systemic.” Spencer’s work focuses on the way in which jihadists use the Koran and other Islamic teachings to justify terrorism and incite Muslims to violence. This is something that Muslims and non-Muslims alike should at least wish to learn about, if not embrace; they certainly should not view it as an affront.
As for the claim that “anti-Muslim racism” is rampant: the only places in the world where Muslims are slaughtered for the way in which they adhere to Islam, or are deemed not to practice it properly, are dominated by Muslims. Anyone teaching or attending an institution of higher learning as illustrious as Stanford should know that.
Ruthie Blum is the author of “To Hell in a Handbasket: Carter, Obama, and the ‘Arab Spring.'”
Bronislaw Smolski says
It is shame on the university officials. They act like Islamist ‘fifth column’ – traitors to their own roots. Shame on you.
mortimer says
Nanci Howe and Snehal Naik should be sued for the costs of the event and the university should pay for a new event.
mortimer says
Thoughtless mind-babble! Quote: “…ask all to stand with us in speaking out for a mutually supportive society where all experience care and respect.”
Do we respect and support pedophilia? No. Do we respect and support vigilante murders of apostates? No. Do we respect and support jihad warfare against disbelievers? No. Do we respect and support hatred of disbelievers ‘for the sake of Allah’? No. Do we respect and support the extortion of money from disbelievers (K.9.29)? No. Do we respect and support FGM? No. Do we respect and support forced child marriage? No. Do we respect and support the removal of the freedom of speech of disbelievers? No.
What can we actually ‘respect and support’ in Islam, then?
Vyx says
Islam has many of the same goals as the Left– the destruction of America, and not only the silencing, but the elimination, of other (aka conservative) opinions.
That’s they want us to “respect.”
The fact that islam is their ally, and has many of the same beliefs.
Won’t they be surprised when islam goes after their gays, their “transgenders”, their women and their children?
But maybe they won’ care. Perhaps they are all ok with killing gays, as well as raping women, raping children and killing those who don’t agree with them.
gravenimage says
Fine post, Mortimer.
mortimer says
More mindless babble… ““We also recognize that anti-Muslim racism and other forms of bigotry are systemic…”
Let’s just insert ‘Arab’ and ‘Islam’ into the same sentence…
“We also recognize that Arab racial supremacism and other forms of ANTI-KAFIR bigotry are systemic within Islam and require long-range and comprehensive approaches.”
mortimer says
LOGICAL FALLACY ALERT! “…anti-Muslim racism”.
Please what exactly is the RACE of Islam??? Caucasian? Asian? African? Indian? Indonesian?
Or is the phrase “..anti-Muslim racism” merely STUPIDITY?
Luis says
mortimer, you are right on!
Wellington says
I find it refreshing that the leftist attempt at Stanford to thwart Robert Spencer, one who speaks only the truth about Islam, is becoming, it seems, more and more widely known and written about. Good. This is the silver lining in this dark cloud.
And once again, shame on you, Stanford. You stood against free speech by way of that Orwellian distinction between free speech and hate speech. Besides, what Spencer writes and says isn’t hate but truth, but even those who do spew hate (e.g., the KKK) should be allowed to be heard. Only by protecting true hate speech (minus direct threats, of course, which are not protected by the First Amendment) can free speech be fully protected. Many at Stanford just don’t get this.
Benedict says
Yes, the protest will turn out to be counterproductive; the chicken will come home to roost and S. O. and SS, who chickened out by walking out, will feel the heat while being grilled.
PRCS says
The flyer announcing Robert Spencer’s upcoming presentation read:
“Jihad and the Dangers of Radical Islam: An Honest Discussion”
Correct me if you can point to relative posts, but I don’t believe Robert Spencer uses the term “radical Islam”.
Who created that flyer? Robert Spencer? The Stanford College Republicans? Someone else?
George says
The correct term should be orthodox Islam.
George says
Islam is by nature radical when compared with other religions because it is bitterly hostile towards all.
PRCS says
Thanks, but–as I don’t think RS uses the term “radical Islam”–I’m wondering who created the flyer.
gravenimage says
My guess would be the Campus Republicans who invited him and set up the event.
I take your point–but they are still much closer to the truth than most at Stanford.
PRCS says
GI/JB–they may be closer to the truth, and the CR most likely did create that flyer to avoid bubble-bursting reality, but:
Hey! Hey!
Ho! Ho!
That term “Radical Islam”
Has got to go!
Hey! Hey!
Ho! Ho!
KRJ says
You would think with all the outrage about Weinstein & Co’s degradation of women that the Left would be out in droves condemning Islam’s institutionalized abuse of women, but not a peep. Our “leaders,” judges, media support them all the way, knowing full well Islam’s atrocities regarding women, gays, children (it’s ok to rape young boys – even expected) etc.
Mattel Inc. just produced a Barbie doll wearing a burqa – a burqa! – the embodiment of female subservience. (Wonder if it comes with stones?) Where are the feminists???
Wellington says
I think it was Barbie in an hijab, not a burqa, but still more than bad enough. As I wrote at JW many days ago, might as well have Barbie wearing a swastika because both Islam and Nazism single out groups of people (Islam with non-believers; Nazism with particular ethnic groups) for second-class status or death.
As for the feminists, they’re simply not prepared to go after non-Western oppression of women. What makes this all bitterly ironic is that Western Civilization pioneered more rights for women (by far) than any other civilization in history, but feminists, useless and foolish as they are, can only see wrong done to women by Westerners, and many of these wrongs are just supposed wrongs and not even real. And there’s no end in sight to this foolhardiness. Indeed, it’s still waxing on college campuses (and elsewhere) across America.
PRCS says
Have to wonder if this foolhardiness will ever reach its zenith and begin to wane?
And–if it will be too late.
But, on a good note: Happy T-day.
Wellington says
Rather hope it reaches its zenith (or perhaps we should say “nadir”) soon. Better have. And a Happy Thanksgiving to you too, PRCS
gravenimage says
Happy Thanksgiving to you both!
overman says
Yeah CNN gave about half an hour to this hijab barbie crap and Paul Joseph Watson brilliantly tears it apart [funny too] in the vid below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dz-kgD6sbs
Richard Paulsen says
Stones for stoning included in the purchase? The plague of islam infecting all the civilized world. Terrible.
overman says
When Stanford awards muslim apologists like Sahar Habib Ghazi, nothing can ever be surprising –
“Sahar warns that powerful privileged people build structural Islamophobia. As the mother of a 4-year-old daughter and a former Stanford Knight Fellow, Ghazi says it is time to change the conversation about what it means to be Muslim today”
This is probably the worst case of self-pitying victimhood l’ve yet seen by a muslim apologist.
The Muslims You Cannot See | Sahar Habib Ghazi | TEDxStanford:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05ZwgjQjnI0
PRCS says
Right off the bat: “we practice different”
Which is simultaneously irrelevant and relevant.
Irrelevant in that the ideology remains as it’s written–amputations and all.
Relevant in that it leads the uninformed to believe Qur’an and Sunna permit that.
Voytek Gagalka says
Perhaps it is in order to remind readers about from where Stanford University came from. It is named after its founder, Leland Stanford, primary shareholder of so called Big Four (a.k.a. “Associates” as they preferred to call themselves) of the Central Pacific (Railroad), men who used government pull and resources to obtain vast lands for their project, which caused massive economic dislocations, farmers expatriation, even bloody riots during creation of their railroad. Mr. Stanford eventually become influential US politician (senator) using his wealth and influences build under such morally dubious conditions. And now how we could expect anything good coming from such institution he created by using such methods? Should we even be surprised that moral corruption is at its very core and it is casting as big and sinister shadow as that infamous “Big Gang” was registered forever in history? I think not. Boycott Stanford University!
Lydia says
Accusing Jihad Watch of ‘anti-Semitism’ is like accusing muslims of ‘islamophobia’! What an oxymoron from a group of morons!
By their actions, they are sealing their own coffins and digging their own graves.
gravenimage says
Stanford University’s Duplicitous Morality Police
…………………….
Yes–the administration orchestrated this whole thing, then pretended that it was a spontaneous act of student activism. Just shameful.
scherado says
The part after “and” is, obviously, false; The part preceding “and” is most certainly eligible for reasonable dispute. I cite as evidence the title of Mr. Spencer’s new book.
peter pettigrew says
the reference to oxymorons by Lydia puts me in mind of the most ridiculous oxymoron purveyed by left wing islamophiles today when they label as nazis those whom they accuse of islamophobia. If anyone is genuinely a nazi then they must be an islamophile because Hitler, Himmler et al declared that Islam is the natural ally of National Socialism to give its correct name. Moreover, National Socialism as its name implies is a left wing political ideology.
OPOVV says
Sorry (pretend) to bust everyone’s bubble, but…
Islam is not a religion.
Islam is a political philosophy that rules by draconian methods, such as sleep deprivation, terror and threats. Islam is a Totalitarian form of government: and that’s it. The Imams and Ayatollahs live the ‘Life of Riley’ while everyone else suffers: a Socialist Paradise (if you happen to be on top).
The “religion” part is just PR to fool the fools.
henner720 says
it can not be more sura 3 vers 28 than this.the administation present themselves as 2. class movieactors.
tgusa says
In the USA demrats and the emotional wrecks at Stanford are looking for a few new faces with fresh ideas for the 2020 election. I guess this is in opposition to the same old faces with stale ideas that they can’t seem to shake off. Stanford didn’t appear to get the message. No surprise there.
More Ham Ed says
Over the past 40 years leftist professors have invaded most or all universities across the U.S. and they are conducting psychological warfare and language warfare. One way they practice this is: if you disagree you have a “racist” or “hate” or “phobia” or “monger” problem of some kind.