Harvard
'Experts': Islamophobia Everywhere!
by Caleb Jephson
American Thinker
April 30, 2016
|
|
Share:
|
Be the first of
your friends to like this.
Harvard University
Shield
|
Dictatorships have an interest in magnifying minor problems in liberal
democracies in order to divert attention from their own oppression and
brutality. One wonders if this interest played a role in facilitating a recent
panel titled "Anti-Muslim Sentiment in the US: Challenges and
Perspectives." The panel was sponsored by Harvard University's
Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Islamic Studies Program (AISP), whose eponymous
founder
is an influential member of the Wahhabi Saudi regime. As every panelist
was either a current or future Harvard alumnus, the event provided
evidence of some disturbing trends in elite higher education today.
The discussion was held on a cold, rainy Monday evening in the Tsai
Auditorium, which serves Harvard's Center for Government and
International Studies, before an audience of about eighty, including a
representative from the university's Office of the President.
Moderator and AISP director Ali Asani,
a Harvard Ph.D., opened the program by arguing that anti-Muslim sentiment
is attributed to social polarization and religious illiteracy, which is
then exploited by unscrupulous politicians and terrorist organizations.
He described panelist Omar Khoshafa, a Harvard senior who, in 2015, invited
Holocaust-denying extremist preacher and Rhodes College religious studies
professor Yasir Qadhi to speak at the university as a
"superhero."
Panelist Lana Idris, a Harvard senior and campus activist, followed by
lamenting:
We harbor some academics and professors on this campus that reiterate,
sort of, ideas that help entrench anti-Muslim sentiment on campus, which
is something that we really have to work on.
She provided a single example of this alleged phenomenon: an unnamed
faculty dean declining to conclude that the 2015 Chapel Hill shooting was
a hate crime before the details of the attack became available. In fact,
the motive for that shooting remains
unknown.
Christopher Bail, a Duke University assistant professor of sociology
and Harvard Ph.D., characterized his lengthy broadside against critics of
radical Islam as social science, but his talk did not rate well in a
simple fact-check. To prove his assertion that Republican Party
presidential primary candidates are fomenting "Islamophobia,"
he attributed an inaccurate quote to Marco Rubio and confused Ben Carson
with 2012 African-American Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain.
According to Bail, Rubio called to close down "places where
Muslims gather to be inspired." This was presumably a reference to
Rubio's extemporaneous
remarks on November 19, 2015, in which he spoke of "closing down
any places where radicals are being inspired" (emphasis
added), while expressly rejecting the equation of these places with
mosques. Bail then lambasted Ben Carson for supposedly saying "that
he would hesitate to appoint Muslims to his cabinet," when it was
Herman Cain who
stated in 2011 that he would not "be comfortable appointing a
Muslim ... in [his] cabinet."
Repeatedly plugging his book, Terrified:
How Anti-Muslim Fringe Organizations Became Mainstream, Bail argued
that the "mainstreaming of anti-Muslim sentiment" in America is
due not to terrorism, ISIS, or the attacks of September 11, 2001, but to:
... [a] very well-coordinated effort by a small network of anti-Muslim
organizations who have succeeded not only in captivating the mass media
but also, increasingly, in influencing our counter-terrorism policy and
... American public opinion about Islam.
The villains in Bail's story included the Middle East Forum and its
president, Daniel Pipes; Frank Gaffney; the Middle East Media Research
Institute (MEMRI); and unnamed Christian Arabs he alleged were employed
as "pseudo-terrorism experts" by anti-Muslim organizations.
That Bail considers those who point out the all too real dangers of
Islamism "anti-Muslim" reveals the bias of his arguments.
MEMRI, for example, had allegedly engaged in "media
manipulation" for translating a line in a Palestinian children's
program as "I will shoot the Jews," when, according to Bail, it
meant "the Jews are shooting at us." Does Bail not know that
MEMRI addressed
and rebutted the alternative translation, that the context of the
statement undisputedly included directing children to
shoot "for the sake of al-Aqsa," or that incitement to kill
Jews in Palestinian Authority media is routine? If such sloppiness
reflects the quality of his research, it's little wonder he draws such
bizarre, conspiratorial conclusions.
The panel's hostility and contempt toward law enforcement, the
Republican Party, and anyone opposed to Islamic militancy were similarly
revealing. None of the speakers called for combating jihadism within the
Muslim-American community as a moral duty. Nor was there any
acknowledgement that, according to the latest FBI statistics,
anti-Jewish hate crimes are over 3.5 times more common than those against
Muslims.
Reducing such crimes to zero is a laudable goal. But the panel's – and
particularly Bail's – scapegoating, systematic use of
"Islamophobia" as a cudgel to settle partisan political scores,
demonstratively inaccurate research, and lack of objective analysis or
constructive suggestions impede rather than advance that aim. One would
hope for more from Harvard-trained students and scholars than biased data
made to serve overtly political ends. One would be disappointed.
Caleb Jephson is a member of the Harvard community. This essay was
sponsored by Campus Watch,
a project of the Middle East
Forum.
This
text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an
integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its
author, date, place of publication, and original URL.
Related Items
|
No comments:
Post a Comment