'Islamophobia
Studies' Are Coming To A College Near You, And There Won't Be Any Debate
About It
by Cinnamon Stillwell
Independent Journal Review
May 18, 2016
|
|
Share:
|
Be the first of
your friends to like this.
"Before I get started, I just wanted to say that we are meeting
on stolen indigenous people's land. That's really important to
acknowledge." So declared San Francisco State University race and
resistance studies professor Rabab Abdulhadi, at the University of California,
Berkeley's Seventh Annual International Islamophobia Conference
in April.
Abdulhadi's seemingly disjointed declaration was typical of the
post-colonial, "intersectionality"-driven jargon of the
entire conference, which sought to link the mythical plight of America's
prosperous, content Muslim population, with the
struggles of every oppressed minority known to man. It was also an
opportunity for two academic centers at opposite ends of the country to
join forces and promote what was euphemistically referred to at the 2015
UC Berkeley conference as "Islamophobia
studies."
While UC Berkeley Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project (IRDP)
director and conference convener Hatem
Bazian gave the opening remarks, John Esposito, founding director of
Georgetown University's Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for
Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU) and project director of ACMCU's Bridge
Initiative, "a multi-year research project that connects the
academic study of Islamophobia with the public square," was the
undisputed star.
Esposito was introduced by Munir Jiwa, director of the Center for
Islamic Studies at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, who, after
noting that one of the scheduled speakers on the same panel was unable to
attend, added with a smile, "I'm sure Dr. Esposito will be happy to
take up the time." Esposito did not disappoint, delivering a long, rambling
talk filled with humorous asides and one-liners to which the audience
responded with hearty laughter. He clearly reveled in being the center of
attention and joked at the outset about his family, "They think I'm
a humble person; my wife will tell you that I'm faking it."
Musing on his experiences in academe regarding Iran's 1979 Islamic
revolution, Esposito claimed that prior to that, "there was no Islam
unit in the American academy" and thus, "no jobs when I
finished my degree." He later returned to the subject: "The
first half of my career, people treated me like an academic, which means
they ignore you. You're in the Ivory Tower, who cares? The Iranian
revolution changed that."
Esposito lamented that the "lens through which Islam and Muslims
came to be seen was people chanting, 'Death to America,'" and,
blaming the U.S. instead of Iran's bellicose theocracy, concluded,
"The danger was that we're looking for a new global threat" and
"Islam was the only global ideology."
Presenting "Islamophobia" as an empirical fact, Esposito
wondered aloud that there are "still those who want to say it does
not exist." He criticized "the mainstream media" for
promulgating this alleged bigotry beginning with the Ground Zero Mosque controversy
and, after announcing that "media coverage of Islam hit an all-time
high" in 2015, conceded that "the causes are fairly obvious and
some of them are good reasons to be concerned: international terrorist
attacks." Yet, he accused the media of "hyping the threat in
America and Europe" and insisted, referencing to the April 19
anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, that the "main terrorist
threat is from white, anti-government, also often Christian-identity type
movements. That has to come out."
Turning to the "anti-Islamophobia" movement, Esposito
praised reports from biased, complicit
sources such as the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR)—a
conference cosponsor—and the Center for American Progress for exposing a
"cottage industry" and funding "for these kinds of
things," before directing the audience to the Bridge Initiative
website. He said nothing about the conflict of interest in Bridge's
substantial Saudi funding, instead focusing on the initiative's
efforts to "set up alternative narratives," "penetrate
social media," and achieve "search engine optimization,"
before deducing, "It's the storytelling."
Clearly, that "storytelling" has had its intended effect in
Western academe, for, in a revealing statement, Esposito pointed out
that, "As someone who speaks at a lot of conference and
universities, the last few years, ninety percent of my invitations [in
the U.S. and UK] have to do with Islamophobia."
It's little wonder that "Islamophobia studies" appears to be
proliferating. IRDP is certainly doing its part with its politicized
bi-annual publication, the Islamophobia Studies Journal,
and by linking this year's conference with the Bridge Initiative and by
extension, the East Coast with the West.
"Islamophobia studies" may be in its infancy, but the
growing number of national and international conferences
devoted
to the subject indicate a disturbingly bright future for
this anti-intellectual endeavor. And why not? Given the politicized,
pro-Islamist nature of Middle East studies and victimology's pride of place in contemporary academe,
it's a Faustian bargain for our time.
Cinnamon Stillwell is the West Coast representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. She can be reached
at stillwell@meforum.org.
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