Article doesn't go far enough
Reader comment on item: Controversy on Campus over Sharia Lecture

Submitted by Whittier Law Student, Sep 23, 2009 16:29

It appears there is growing controversy surrounding both the event and now this particular article. From what I have gathered, this article and its author(s) are under attack by the Whittier school officials discussed in this article, accused of not seeking the proper avenue to voice their dissatisfaction and not showing due respect to the officials involved. While it's mind boggling to consider how exactly quoting the exact words that the school officials stated is offensive to them, let's consider their argument both in regards to the speaker and the article and see how it measures up.

The discussion between the school officials and the organizing group largely revolved around the issue of offensiveness. The idea that no one should be offended ever by anything is a silly rule that has permeated so-called schools of higher learning. It is a ridiculous task ask someone to consider everyone else's sensitivities toward certain issues and base our every action upon what could possibly be construed as offensive. This creates a situation where the mere proposition of talking to people becomes a nightmare as we must neurotically self-censor ourselves on any opinion that could be construed as offensive. However, for some this is less of a problem than others.

It is quickly becomes apparent to anyone who expresses a thought that goes against the majority that only a person whose ideas align closely with the common ideals will be immunized from the label offensive. For the rest of us, few as we are, our ideas must stay trapped within the confines of our minds. To express them is to be countered with condemnation not a rational argument. Hello Orwell's doublethink, goodbye free thought.

The article directly quotes Yildirim as deeming the message to be one of hate speech. This term is tossed around so loosely these days that has degenerated into a demonizing tactic used to vilify and condemn any critique of opposing thought. There is a world of difference between actual hate speech and the alleged hate speech within this speakers message. Hate speech must necessarily have no logical basis. It must be a purely emotional argument, the operant word "HATE" being the label for an emotion. Blacks are evil and scary because they have dark skin is completely different than saying because Sharia law was the operating law in the country where Dawrish's alleged atrocities took place and were sanctioned, a country so focused on human rights like ours should be rightfully critical of it. The first is an emotional argument based upon irrational fears, the second a critique of a popular but damaging belief system. It may be said that this woman is participating in hate speech toward a certain group of people that believe a certain way. But if that is true then no one would ever have any basis to be critical about ANYTHING someone else believed in without also participating in hate speech. If the school officials are promoting their feminist agenda (or merely ANY agenda, however wrong or right), and that agenda offensive to the beliefs of another group, then by their own very definition they are hate speakers.

The effect of this policy against offensiveness is to the detriment of society at large. It is not ideas that should be demonized, but rather it is the prevention of critical scrutiny that is necessary to expose hypocrisy and inconsistencies. And that is exactly what the school officials in this case are prohibiting when they make the claim that this article is in some way a violation of the Whittier honor code. They are afraid of having their hypocrisy exposed and shown for what it is, a blatant attempt at promoting their own agendas while subduing any that oppose.

While I care little for the speaker's message ultimately, the circumstances surrounding her appearance are telling about the intentions of the school officials and reflects a pattern in society that is undermining the rights of everyone.

Last, I do not agree with Mahlstedt's view that the school officials in question should have to support Darwish's message simply because of their affiliation with Feminism. I also think it is the wrong argument to pursue. It is obvious that their Feminist agenda is not about making perfect sense, let's not try to hold them to that as their entire foundation would crumble beneath them in result. Let's only hold them to moderating all group speaking engagements in similar regard, irrespective of their particular message and who it may "offend."

Note: IPT will moderate reader comments. We reserve the right to edit or remove any comment we determine to be inappropriate. This includes, but is not limited to, comments that include swearing, name calling, or offensive language involving race, religion or ethnicity. All comments must include an email address for verification.