Ayaan Hirsi Ali (cc photo: Rocco Ancora)
In a USA Today op-ed (4/16/14), Fox News liberal Kirsten Powers weighs in on Brandeis University’s decision to rescind its offer to honor the anti-Muslim activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali during commencement activities.
Under the headline “Liberals Attack Female Fighting Misogyny,” Powers accuses Brandeis of caving to pressure from liberals, and dismissing Hirsi Ali’s experience as a victim of cultural misogyny:
But this life experience is no match for the “expertise” of liberal Westerners who seem to believe the problem is that Hirsi Ali just doesn’t know how to keep her mouth shut.
But the point is not that Hirsi Ali is a feminist campaigner against misogyny; it’s that she’s an Islamophobe. She subordinates a good cause to what is essentially a campaign against Islam, which she calls “a destructive, nihilistic cult of death” (London Evening Standard, 2/7/07).
She told Reason magazine (11/07) that Islam must be “defeated” by any means, including militarily. “There comes a moment when you crush your enemy,” Hirsi Ali told the magazine. Asked if she meant specifically “radical Islam,” she responded: “No. Islam, period.”
So much for the free-speech rights of Muslims.
Kirsten Powers
Powers joins a chorus of conservatives crying foul over the Brandeis reversal. The Wall Street Journal editors (4/9/14) accused Brandeis of “intolerance and the illiberal suppression of ideas.” Fox News host Megyn Kelly (e.g., 4/9/14) devoted repeated segments to the theme that activists groups opposed to Hirsi Ali’s bigotry were out to silence her. On FoxNews.com (4/10/14), Zev Chafets argued that Hirsi Ali wasn’t just subjected to censorship, she was the victim of an “honor killing, Brandeis-style.”
For giving in to Hirsi Ali’s critics, Commentary editor John Podhoretz (4/9/14) called Brandeis president Fredrick Lawrence a “gutless, spineless, simpering coward.” Mona Charen at National Review Online (4/11/14) likewise accused the university of “cowardice” in trying to silence Hirsi Ali. After all, Charen argued awkwardly, it had previously chosen to confer honorary degrees “on Harry Belafonte (1991), Andrew Young (1978) and Desmond Tutu,” who were all—wait for it—”known for intemperate comments.”
Powers is not the only liberal to criticize the Brandeis decision. Huffington Post writer Jason Linkins (4/10/14) scolded those who would applaud: “Whether they know it or not, the actions they have taken have done way more harm than good. To anyone with a liberal-minded attitude toward freedom of expression, Brandeis’ decision has done you no favors.”
Linkins seems to understand that there is a difference between silencing a person and not celebrating them with an honorary degree, but he nevertheless repeatedly raises the free-speech canard:
Now, the ripple effect of that decision will have its unintended impact, and the people who are satisfied today that she won’t be speaking at Brandeis will get to enjoy the tables being turned on them at some point down the road. And who knows how many of us non-agitants will get caught up in this turf war?
Linkins cites the fact that Brandeis previously honored playwright Tony Kushner, whose critical views of Israel—he has criticized it for ethnic cleansing and said its creation was “a mistake”—drew much criticism. He worries that the Hirsi Ali precedent will put a stop to honorees like Kushner. But there is a great deal of space between Kushner’s provocative, controversial views, which can be debated, and Hirsi Ali’s religiocidal position, which calls for the silencing or worse of more than a billion Muslims. Surely there are boundaries beyond which Linkins would not extend university honors.
Brandeis’ decision has nothing to do with free speech. In its announcement that it was withdrawing the offer to honor Hirsi Ali, it invited her back to the school to speak in another setting. If being denied an honorary degree is an infringement of free speech, then Brandeis is “silencing” billions of people every year.
Maybe we can find someone who’s made equivalent comments about Christianity or Judaism
And we’ll see whether these stalwart defenders of free speech rush to their defense.
I want an honorary degree from Brandeis.
Can the Faux liberal tell me where to apply?
The analysis is neither fair nor accurate. “Not awarding” an honour is indeed not a free speech issue, and yes, there would have been good reasons not to suggest her for one. But once a public invitation is given, all changes. Breaking your word, as Brandeis did, is dishonourable, in all cultures. Publicly attacking and humiliating your invited guest through publicly disinviting them is creating a chilling effect for free speech. It denies the victim something that by that time it was indeed entitled to – our entire contract based society is build on the notion that you can rely on other’s people promises, that contracts must be kept and promises delivered.
While Steve Rendall, like all of the FAIR writers, is mostly clear and balanced, he’s meandering here. Thus in contrast to his usual good form, it’s very difficult to know what points he’s making. I would rather focus on the woman herself, Hirsi Ali.
Many who have known her in The Netherlands and Dutch, as I have, found both her and her inflammatory anti-Muslim vitriol offensive. Not only that, she also cost the Dutch government and its taxpayers a lot of money in security measures.
Yes, she’s free to say what she wants. But I don’t know why any halfway liberal institution should be providing her with a platform for it. That in itself is a kind of endorsement.
If she wants to rant, rave and foam at the mouth, let her do it on street corners – say, in Mogadishu – like the fundamentalists of all the world’s major religions.
I agree that Brandeis University is welcome to offer and then rescind it’s honorary degrees to whomever it chooses…
but, I can’t help but feel that Steve Rendall is giving Ayaan the “short end of the stick” and being a bit hasty in labeling her an “Islamophobe”… and, just a paragraph later, implying she doesn’t advocate for the “free speech” rights of muslims?…
Perhaps I just need a clearer definition of “Islamophobe”?
and, perhaps I need to better acquaint myself with Ms. Ali’s work… My impression of her has always been that she is critical of islam (but, not irrationally so) and all religions which use their dogma to suppress the rights of human beings. [After reading Steve’s article I’m left with the impression that Ayaan is on par with Ann Coulter!?]
I am an avid listener, and supporter, of FAIR… but, for the first time in perhaps a decade, I find myself wanting to scrape off a bit of the “mud” thrown at Ms. Ali…
In usual fashion, Fox erroneously conflates two completely different things. Kushner condemns **the country of Israel’s political leaders.** Not the Jewish religion and not its followers. By stark contrast, Ali condemns **the entire Islamic religion and all of its followers.** Not the least bit surprising coming from a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, who also (and unsurprisingly) supports Israel and condemns Palestine.
@Aaron- Then you need to do more research on her.
In August 2013, the University of Michigan invited Alice Walker, author of “The Color Purple” to speak at the 50th anniversary event of the Center for the Education for Women. The donors objected to this invitation because of her outspoken views on the Israel-Palestine conflict. The University promplty rescinded the invitation.
@AaronChioino:
This is from the Reason interview, linked above. Enjoy!
“Reason: Should we acknowledge that organized religion has sometimes sparked precisely the kinds of emancipation movements that could lift Islam into modern times? Slavery in the United States ended in part because of opposition by prominent church members and the communities they galvanized. The Polish Catholic Church helped defeat the Jaruzelski puppet regime. Do you think Islam could bring about similar social and political changes?
Hirsi Ali: Only if Islam is defeated. Because right now, the political side of Islam, the power-hungry expansionist side of Islam, has become superior to the Sufis and the Ismailis and the peace-seeking Muslims.
Reason: Don’t you mean defeating radical Islam?
Hirsi Ali: No. Islam, period. Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace.
Reason: We have to crush the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims under our boot? In concrete terms, what does that mean, “defeat Islam”?
Hirsi Ali: I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and they’re the most fanatical sometimes. There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, “This is a warning. We won’t accept this anymore.” There comes a moment when you crush your enemy.
Reason: Militarily?
Hirsi Ali: In all forms, and if you don’t do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed.”
There you have it. Hirsi Ali is recommending genocide. She is as mad as a hatter. I hope that clears things up.
Badly written by the way…..Confusing.That said ,we are living in a time when Radical Islam has taken its mandate of terror killings to the world over.It is not hard to understand gnashing of teeth, and anger, directed in knee jerk fashion toward the guilty parties, and anyone who shares a smidgen of their beliefs..Its understandable.But we cant continence it.
At issue is not Ms Ali ( real name Hirsi Magaan ) and her right to express odious views, but the right of American and other universities to distance themselves from them. Brandeis University is not under any contractual obligation to dole out degrees to people whose values it does not share.
@Donald Pruden, Jr.,
Curious how you feel about Malcolm X?
Was he also not an outspoken critic of a belief system which harmed other humans… and even called for change with violence when necessary?
After listening to many talks by Ms. Ali over the last few days… I believe she is not an irrational “islamophobe” calling for the eradication of people, but rather someone calling for the change in, what many agree, is a belief system that is harming women.
Though I would agree that her “Reason” interview is alarming, which gives me great pause…
It is my impression, after listening to hours of her talks, that she is NOT an advocate of violence unless, to prevent the domination of an oppressive belief system, when NO OTHER option presents itself.
I will continue to seek out more info on her, other than the ONE source cited by all, it seems, to condemn her.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/04/30/islamophobia-vs-dislike-of-islam/