Hamzeh Daoud vowed to”physically fight zionists on campus.” If he had been a member of the College Republicans vowing to “physically fight Leftists on campus,” or a Jewish student vowing to “physically fight Palestinians on campus,” he would have immediately been expelled without a second thought, but since his views coincide with those of the Leftist academic establishment, that isn’t even on the table at Stanford. There is some talk about his losing his position as an RA, but the budding Leftist “journalists” at the Stanford Daily are rushing to his defense and trying to paint Daoud as the victim, and those who are calling for some action to be taken to prevent the spread of fascist thuggery on the Stanford campus as the real villains.
As so we come to the estimable Hannah Smith, who confidently asserts: “The words ‘physically fight’ from an activist and peaceful member of our community will never result in harm.” How she knows this, she does not deign to explain. “The real threat to Stanford’s community,” she asserts with equal confidence, is the Stanford College Republicans, despite the fact that they have never threatened to assault anyone. They’ve committed thoughtcrime, you see, and that must not be tolerated at what she claims is Stanford’s environment of “intellectual, respectful, meaningful and welcome debate.” Stanford values respectful intellectual debate? Hannah Smith should consider a career in stand-up comedy.
A Stanford Daily op-ed would apparently not be complete these days without a new libel of me. Smith claims that the Stanford College Republicans have been “bringing speakers who challenge our worth according to our religion…” Once again, the link makes clear that she means me. Now: have I ever challenged anyone’s worth based on his or her religion? No, and Hannah Smith does not and cannot provide any evidence for her claim.
What the faculty advisers of the Stanford Daily are doing to these student “journalists” is unconscionable. Apparently without any correction or any limits, they are allowing the students (and the faculty) to spread the most egregious falsehoods about people they hate. There seems to be no commitment whatsoever to truth, accuracy, fairness, or even civil discourse. And the self-righteous fascists they’re training in “journalism” will go out to take their place in the leading “journalistic” establishments in the nation, which have a similar lack of commitment to truth, accuracy, fairness, and civil discourse.
No wonder we’re in the fix we’re in.
Much more below.
“Op-Ed: The real threat is the SCR’s tactics,” by Hannah Smith, Stanford Daily, July 26, 2018:
The targeting of rising junior Hamzeh Daoud is emblematic of an ongoing pattern of the Stanford College Republicans’ (SCR) use of bullying and fearmongering tactics in lieu of engaging in intellectual debate. I have the great fortune of calling Hamzeh a dear friend, and have for two years.
Those who know him recognize his deep passion and determination for achieving social justice. His tireless work with Students for Justice in Palestine,
No surprise that Hamzeh Daoud would be involved with the Students for Justice in Palestine: members of this group “advocate for Israel’s destruction, admire terrorists, and are making Jewish students feel unsafe on campuses across the country.”
on the ASSU Senate pushing for need-blind aid for international students and countering Islamophobia on campus earned him recognition by Stanford Politics as the fourth most influential student on our campus….
“Islamophobia”: a propaganda neologism designed to intimidate people into fearing to oppose jihad mass murder and Sharia oppression of women, gays, etc.
The SCR, upon seeing Hamzeh’s initial post threatening to “physically fight” Zionists on campus, didn’t recognize it as the impassioned hyperbole it was nor contact Hamzeh to debate this idea….
“Debate this idea”? What kind of a debate does Hannah Smith envision? “Resolved: Social Justice Warriors Should Physically Attack Supporters of Israel On Campus”? With Hamzeh Daoud arguing yes and someone from the College Republicans arguing no? How exactly does one debate with someone who has vowed to assault you physically?
It is clear to me where the real threat to Stanford’s community lies: in the SCR’s tactics. While for four hours Hamzeh’s Facebook wall read of physical fights, SCR has been engaging in vindictive and harmful targeting of Stanford community members for years. They didn’t redact Hamzeh’s name, instead blasting a portrayal of him as a violent Muslim Palestinian into the vicious world of the internet. While Hamzeh recognized the pain caused by his post, the SCR has never apologized for the students they expose to hate mail, death threats and cyberbullying. The words “physically fight” from an activist and peaceful member of our community will never result in harm.
How does Hannah Smith know that?
The SCR’s actions have emotionally and mentally harmed people of color, activists and women on our campus. The administration should recognize that the larger threat to students is not a political fist fight, but rather cyberbullying.
Beyond the threat that SCR poses to the Stanford community, their tactics fail to rise to the standard of intellectual, respectful, meaningful and welcome debate that Stanford espouses and requires in its Fundamental Standard.
I can’t stop laughing. Here is the kind of “intellectual, respectful, meaningful and welcome debate that Stanford espouses”: Stanford deans Nanci Howe and Snehal Naik engineered destruction of Robert Spencer event
They engage in ad hominem attacks, dodging genuine arguments and opportunities for discourse.
Just before I spoke at Stanford last year, I ran an ad in the Stanford Daily, inviting discussion and debate. All I ever got from Stanford students, faculty and administrators were ad hominem attacks, dodging of my genuine arguments and contempt for any opportunity for discourse.
…Our campus needs discourse. When the Stanford College Republicans are ready to debate us on our ideas — instead of bringing speakers who challenge our worth according to our religion or gender identity or diminish our arguments as “victimhood mentalities” — we’ll be here to listen, debate and demonstrate what free speech and intellectual vitality truly mean.
Frank Anderson says
Is there any reason for surprise? Whether they call themselves leftist, Antifa, muslim, democrats or liberals, they always lie. Lying is directed whenever advantage can be obtained over infidels. As long as teaching is left to the totalitarians in schools and many churches instead of the home this will grow. What kind of future do you want? Now is the time to start making it.
James Lincoln says
I think that I just finally realized something…
The far left practices their own version of “taqiyya” …
Amazing !!!
The Istanbulian says
It’s called bull crappiya.
mortimer says
It’s called ‘SPOUTING THE PARTY LINE’ or ‘SOLIDARITY’.
Leftist-Globalist-Fascism is a contradictory, irrational doctrine that cannot be defended logically, because the cat will be OUT OF THE BAG and people won’t follow it and drop out, as many are dropping out of the LOONY LEFT right now.
The DELUSION of Leftist-Globalist-Fascism can only be maintained if NO VALID INFORMATION is disseminated.
Leftist-Globalist-Fascism can only be defended with 1) disinformation 2) censorship and 3) violence.
mgoldberg says
bovine fertilizia
Lydia Church says
Yup.
And Robert dismantles islam, not the people that are trapped in it. And, those who carry out its mandates in its full or partial evil, deserve to be called out for it.
J D S says
Stanford university is more than gradually becoming “Stanfordistan”
and they need to apologise to Robert….
Norger says
OMG, where to begin with such nonsensical drivel. Talk about needing a reality check. Someone who publicly announces the intention to “physically fight” those of another religion on a college campus deserves to be publicly called out for that statement, full stop.
And the the suggestion that the SCR is unwilling to engage in “debate”is just so incredibly rich. Earth to Hannah: Not one person at Stanford was up to the task of engaging in a single word of dialogue with Robert Spencer on the subject of Islam, much less debate. The combined intellectual might of all of social justice warriors at Stanford would not engage with a single learned critic of Islam. You had your chance to expose Robert Spencer once and for all for the bigot you claim he is. You failed. Miserably. I know your excuse is that debating Spencer is beneath you but that’s a intellectually dishonest copout. The reality is that no one at Stanford has the substantive knowledge or intellectual capacity to engage in an open and honest discussion of Islamic theology (including the theological underpinnings of Palestinian Jew hatred) because critical examination of Islam is not allowed at Stanford.
elee says
Critical examination of Islam is not allowed in the great majority of places.
mortimer says
Critical thought requires ADULT, GROWN-UP thinking and lengthy reflection.
The profs who most oppose DISCUSSION of Islam KNOW VIRTUALLY NOTHING about Islam and are thus speaking OUTSIDE THEIR FIELD OF COMPETENCE … their opinions may be dismissed.
The profs who actually know SOMETHING VALID about Islam REFUSE TO DEBATE ROBERT SPENCER … they look into his ENCYCLOPEDIC KNOWLEDGE of Islam and then THEY REFUSE TO DEBATE HIM … after they realized they will be WHUPPED in a debate with the Counterjihad King.
Norger says
So they effectively prevent Spencer from speaking and declare victory.
Norger says
@elee
Agreed. It’s generally not allowed in the MSM, and is becoming increasingly discouraged in law enforcement and military circles. And of couse it’s generally not allowed in politics.
Mirren10 says
http://www.returnofkings.com/66303/4-reasons-why-liberals-are-clinically-insane
So true.
And this silly girl is even more manipulative, in her nauseating attempt to twist ”physically fight”, into ‘passionate hyperbole’.. I wonder if I sent her an email (not that I’m going to) telling her I wanted to physically fight her because she’s a brain dead leftard and her politics offend me, would she respond that this was just ‘passionate hyperbole’ ?
No. She’d be running snivelling and whimpering to the faculty that her ‘safe space’ had been invaded, and demanding my arrest. These morons make me feel actually physically ill.
mortimer says
Good post, Mirren.
Mirren10 says
Thank you mortimer.
gravenimage says
Agreed.
Wellington says
Apt post, MIrren. Hope you are doing well. Britain sure isn’t, which is a tragedy of the first dimension and a tragedy that didn’t have to happen.
melek-ric says
…“intellectual, respectful, meaningful and welcome debate.” This means, agree with us or else.
mortimer says
It means freedom of expression for PARTY MEMBERS as long as they have not become heretical.
mortimer says
STANFORD NEEDS TO ADOPT THE CHICAGO PRINCIPLES …
THE CHICAGO PRINCIPLES
The University of Chicago has published its support for the freedom of expression on campus. Everyone at STANFORD should learn about it.
The Chicago Principles: 1) ongoing intellectual challenge, 2) rigorous questioning, 3) discourse, 4) argument, and 5) lack of deference
“I have been asked regularly in my many subsequent trips to China, “What is the magic UChicago sauce?”
“I replied that its key ingredient was ongoing intellectual challenge and rigorous questioning. So many leading economists, physicists, chemists, and other scholars have prospered at UChicago because of the strong cultural commitment on campus to discourse, argument, and lack of deference. ”
– Robert J. Zimmer, 13th President of the University of Chicago.
Read more here:
http://president.uchicago.edu/page/address-colgate-university
Statement:
“From its very founding, the University of Chicago has dedicated itself to the
preservation and celebration of the freedom of expression as an essential element of
the University’s culture. In 1902, in his address marking the University’s decennial,
President William Rainey Harper declared that “the principle of complete freedom of
speech on all subjects has from the beginning been regarded as fundamental in the
University of Chicago” and that “this principle can neither now nor at any future time
be called in question.”
https://freeexpression.uchicago.edu/sites/freeexpression.uchicago.edu/files/FOECommitteeReport.pdf
https://freeexpression.uchicago.edu/page/statements-and-messages
https://studentmanual.uchicago.edu/university#Civil
Montedoro44 says
“. . . we’ll be here to listen, debate and demonstrate what free speech and intellectual vitality truly mean.”
The word “truly” jumps off the page as indicative of a hollow argument, not that there aren’t more obvious targets in Hannah’s ball of words. What is the difference between what something means, and what something truly means? IMO, it means that the speaker has just taken control of the language so that the understood definition of the word is cancelled by the not-obvious imposition of their own ad hoc definition. And that means the end of communication — the discourse may look like English, but it isn’t English anymore. In this case, the expression of conservative views may fall under the definition of “free speech”, but not “truly free speech”. It’s fallacial, it’s BS, but pretty subtle.
Watch for that word; in conversation stop the speaker at that point to indicate the necessity of speaking understandable English — they will be very annoyed with you, and truly wrongly so. If culprits are side-lined like this from time to time, they may begin to notice tears in the fabric of their own world-view, and that may help them to eventually #walkaway. Right, fat chance.
“Intellectual vitality”?! Haha — Hannah’s got the corner on that one too.
Norger says
What “free speech” truly means to this student and her ilk is “free speech for me but not for thee.”
LB says
Mr. Spencer, if I may inquire: are you planning to sue (or are you already suing) Stanford University? This amount of blatant libel (dating back from your appearance in November 2017, or maybe even before that?) should be a slam dunk even for a rookie lawyer. If you are, than please drain them to the last cent because we need these indoctrination plantations (which dare to call themselves places of higher learning) gone!
gravenimage says
How can physical assault be non-violent?
So physically attacking someone is non-violent, but being perfectly peaceful–as Robert Spencer is–is somehow a “death threat’.
What we have here is the very inversion of reality, where violence is peaceful and peacefulness is violent…
Norger says
Yes it’s an inversion/denial of reality, a bizarre form of projection (as Jayell notes below), just an utterly twisted mindset and world view. I continue to be dumbfounded by the left’s alliance with Islam, but really don’t get it how anyone, particularly a Jewish student at Stanford, could actually mount a defense of someone who openly threatens physical violence Jews on campus, in writing. If the shoe were on the other foot and a Jewish student threatened to “physically fight” Palestinian nationalists on campus, Stanford’s social justice warriors would be howling for expulsion. I can’t believe Stanford would even consider leaving this budding young terrorist in a position of authority.
jayell says
When these people manifest such clear symptoms of blatant irrationality by failing to recognise and respond correctly to Daoud’s patently near-criminal behaviour and then to maliciously fantasise about Mr. Spencer in this ridiculous way by transparently transferring Daoud’s criminality onto him without an an ounce of evidence, one has to ask if some form of collective hysteria has taken hold here to the extent that they’ve all now seriously got a screw loose. Is this the cumulative effect of excessive exposure to islam?
George Williams says
To Hannah, with love, as submitted to the Stanford Daily:
You remind me of the Rabbis of Berlin in 1933 who didn’t conceive that Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” would lead to Krystal Nachts. To them, Germany was too sophisticated and open to become the anti-semitic nightmare that would come to pass. It’s the same today, where this country’s left is opening its arms to Islam. They ignore the hundred or so horrific verses of the Quran, the immutable and indesputable word of Allah, as told to Mohammed his prophet. Gee, what could go wrong if Muslims were actually serious about their religion? These verses condemn the Jew, the Christian and other unbelievers to death or enslavement if they do not convert. They also describe the submission of the female to the male and condemn the homosexual to death, among a host of Muslim supremacist beliefs anathema to modern progressive Western thought. Again, what could go wrong? If you cannot believe what I say then do your own intellectual due dilligence and pick up a copy of Muhammed Marmaduke Pickthall’s translation of the Quran. Or better yet, it may be found on the internet for free. Pickthall was a 19th century Islamic scholar whose work is considered accurate by mainstream Muslims. His full name tells you that he was a convert to Islam and that he had no axe to grind when he wrote his translation. Be careful of other translations meant to whitewash Islam, because they were written for unbelievers, as all modern English translations are. However, true believers only accept the original Arabic version as having fidelity with Allah’s word. Fortunately, for the openminded, Pickthall’s version is as exact a translation in its fidelity to the god of Mohammed as may be found. Unlike Pickthall’s, “The Study Quran,” a new translation by so-called Islamic scholars, one written for unbelievers, and referred to in Garry Wills book, “What the Qur’an Meant And Why It Matters”, is thoroughly misleading. It was intended to be so, for If the truth was widely known, Islam would open itself up for very close scrutiny indeed, something Muslim leaders rabidly take affront with, for Islam violently condemns criticism. I suggest comparing this translation with Pickthall’s. It will truly be a revelation. I pity the fact that Wills has been deceived, having fallen into a trap, for this man is a widely read historian and otherwise highly respected for his popular books, some of which I own. And when you’ve read Pickthall, ask your Muslim friends about those numerous verses that you shall undoubtedly object to yourself. See if they can defend them. It’s a sad fact that many Muslims are not very well read of the Quran, so you may be educating them. Cheers!
DJM says
If Daoud tomorrow strapped on a suicide vest and killed countless innocent people, Hannah would be writing about how the SCR pushed him into committing such violence. These social justice warriors have the mentality of 5-year-olds. They will invent excuses and then believe it with all their ignorant, irrational hearts.
Lydia Church says
The nazi leftist propaganda spin doctors are at it again, in high gear.
They must take their cues from Joseph Goebbels instruction manuals!
Richard says
What this story does is point out something very important!
This shows that places like this (I cannot in good conscience call it a school or an institute of learning) needs to be deeply investigated and quite possibly shut down permanently! This place is actively supporting acts of violent threats and possibly even supporting acts of threats of terrorism by ‘students’ of this place against people of another race!!! Intolerable and far past time for places like this to be investigated thoroughly and shut down if this is true. Which this story strongly shows this is true!!!