Monthly Archives: February 2017

At UCLA Law School last week, a squad of student "thought police" tried to ban my book, Failing to Confront Islamic Totalitarianism: From George W. Bush to Barack Obama and Beyond. They don't want you to know the book even exists, let alone what's inside it. And the UCLA administration enabled them. This ominous episode underlines how students are learning to be contemptuous of intellectual freedom.

The story of what happened at UCLA is laced with ironies. On Feb. 1, the UCLA chapter of the Federalist Society and the Ayn Rand Institute co-sponsored a panel discussion at UCLA Law School on the vital importance of freedom of speech and the threats to it. My book shows how certain philosophic ideas undercut America's response to the jihadist movement, including notably its attacks on freedom of speech.

During the reception, however, a group of UCLA students assembled in front of the book table and objected to mine. Why? Had they read the book, weighed the evidence, and found it lacking? Had they formed a considered evaluation of the book's argument?

No: They felt the book was "offensive" and "insulting." They had "issues" with the views that I and my co-author, Onkar Ghate, put forward. Our views, it seems, were "Islamophobic." Based on what? Apparently, for some of them, it was the book's title.

Yet another irony here is that in the book we disentangle the notion of "Islamophobia." We show that it's an illegitimate term, one that clouds thinking, because it mashes together at least two fundamentally different things. The term blends, on the one hand, serious analysis and critique of the ideas of Islamic totalitarianism, the cause animating the jihadists, which is vitally important (and the purpose of my book); and, on the other hand, racist and tribalist bigotry against people who espouse the religion of Islam. Obviously, racism and bigotry have no place in a civilized society.

Moreover, the book makes clear that while all jihadists are self-identified Muslims, it is blatantly false that all Muslims are jihadists. (It should go without saying, though sadly it must be said, that countless Muslims are law abiding, peaceful, productive Americans.) Ignorant of the book's full scope and substance, the students felt it had no place on campus.

The students demanded that my book be removed from display. My colleagues who manned the display table declined to remove the book.

So the students enforced their own brand of thought control. They turned their backs to the table, forming a blockade around it, so no one could see or buy the books. Then they started aggressively leaning back on the table, pushing against the book displays. By blocking access to the book, they were essentially trying to ban it.

At this point, you might hope the UCLA administration would step in to re-assert the principle of intellectual freedom that is so crucial to education, a free society, and the advancement of human knowledge. Finally a rep from UCLA did step into abet the student protestors. My book was "inflammatory." It had to go.

Thus: at a panel about freedom of speech and growing threats to it not least from Islamists UCLA students and school administrators tried to ban a book that highlights the importance of free speech, the persistent failure to confront Islamic totalitarianism, and that movement's global assaults on free speech.

This shameful incident reflects a wider phenomenon on American campuses. At university, students should learn to think, to engage with different views, and thus to grow intellectually. But increasingly, students learn to put their feelings above facts. Some students demand to be protected from what they merely believe, without evidence, are uncongenial views. They demand that non-orthodox views be silenced. And such universities as UCLA willingly coddle and appease them.

The universities, observes Steve Simpson in Defending Free Speech, are a bellwether of the future of freedom of speech. If today's students are increasingly hostile to intellectual freedom, can we really expect tomorrow's voters, lawyers, judges, politicians to uphold free speech? To champion that principle, you have to value dialogue, knowledge, and, ultimately, the reasoning mind. Yet reason is precisely what those student agitators subordinated to their emotions.

Elan Journo (@elanjourno) is the director of policy research at the Ayn Rand Institute, co-author of Failing to Confront Islamic Totalitarianism: From George W. Bush to Barack Obama and Beyond, and author of Winning the Unwinnable War: America's Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Read more from the original source:
UCLA banned my book on Islam from a free speech event - The Hill (blog)

Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos and other controversial figures would be welcomed to speak at colleges in Tennessee if the state legislature approves a bill proposed by Republican lawmakers this week.

State Rep. Martin Daniel and Sen. Joey Hensley introduced the Tennessee Freedom of Speech on College Campus Bill on Thursday in an effort to prevent schools from adopting policies that shield individuals from ideas and opinions considered unwelcome, disagreeable or even deeply offensive.

Campus free speech is being challenged by restrictive speech codes; speaker bans and disinvites; safe spaces and trigger warnings; and administrators who feel pressured to placate demonstrators, Mr. Daniel said at a press conference Thursday where he introduced the bill, The Huffington Post reported.

We just want to ensure that our public universities give all students the right to free expression, Mr. Hensleysaid, according to Breitbart.

Dubbed the Milo bill, the proposal was introduced after Mr. Yiannopoulos recent college speaking engagements were plagued by protests some which descended into riots and cancellations.

An event at the University of California, Davis, last month wascanceledover safety concerns just moments before he was slated to take the stage, and protests held in response to a similar event scheduled for UC Berkeley this month erupted into a fiery rampage.

Organizers of the canceled Berkeley event claimed afterwards their right to free speech was silenced by criminals and thugs, and President Trump responded on Twitter by threatening to withhold federal funds from the school.

We dont want this happening in Tennessee, what happened in California, Mr. Hensley said Thursday.

Public universities have abdicated their responsibility to uphold free speech principles, and these failures make it appropriate for all state institutions of higher education to restate and confirm their commitment in this regard, his bill reads in part.

Too many times weve seen classrooms where the professor doesnt want to hear both sides of an issue, weve heard stories from many students that, honestly, are on the conservative side that have those issues stifled in the classroom. We just want to ensure our public universities allow all types of speech, Mr. Hensley said Thursday.

Mr. Yiannopoulos, whom detractors have accused of peppering his talks with hate speech, applauded the lawmakers proposal in a prepared statement.

We are winning the war. And we will continue to win as long as students, and now defenders of free speech within the government, stand up to ivory tower intellectuals and left-wing administrators intent on shutting up any speech they dont find convenient, he said.

Read the original here:
'Milo Bill' sponsored by Tennessee Republicans would protect freedom of speech at states colleges - Washington Times

PROTESTERS AND SUPPORTERS of a Breaking the Silence exhibit face one another outside of Barbur Gallery in the Nahlaot neighborhood of Jerusalem last night. (photo credit:RHONA BURNS)

One day after Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat abruptly announced the eviction of the owner of the Barbur Art Gallery, which hosted a lecture by the left-wing NGO Breaking the Silence, the group said the mayor was unequivocally using punitive measures to stifle free speech.

Breaking the Silence is composed of veteran IDF soldiers who condemn an Israeli presence in occupied territories, as well as purported crimes against Arab residents there. Its executive director, Yuli Novak, spoke at the Nahlaot gallery Wednesday night.

While Barkat contended that the eviction was due to zoning violations, Breaking the Silence spokesman Dean Issacharoff said on Thursday that there was no question the right-wing mayor was abusing his authority to intimidate opposing views.

He obviously wants to stifle freedom of speech in order to stop us from talking about our experiences as soldiers in the occupied territories, Issacharoff said.

However, according to Issacharoff, right-wing politicians attempting to cancel the NGOs events is nothing new, and generally has a converse effect.

Every time they try to silence us, we get more requests from people who want to meet us and hear about the reality we experienced in the occupied territories, he said.

Asked what he would say to Barkat if given the chance, Issacharoff replied: You are silencing soldiers, and cynically handing over the city I grew up in to Lehava in order to further yourself in the next Likud primaries. Nonetheless, he emphasized that the NGO remains undeterred.

We will continue meeting thousands of people a year all across Israel, he said. There is only one way to stop Breaking the Silence: End the occupation.

Barkats edict followed heated statements denouncing the lecture by Culture and Sport Minister Miri Regev (Likud) and Deputy Mayor Dov Kalmanovich, both of whom demanded the mayor intercede, and called for the gallerys shuttering.

In a statement on Wednesday, Barkat claimed that the eviction notice followed a year-long deliberation by the municipal legal adviser, who determined that the owner of the gallery breached the citys legal protocols.

Moreover, Barkat said the building must be returned to the city for municipal use within 90 days.

According to the mayor, the eviction is unrelated to the lecture.

It has no connection to freedom of expression, he contended. The municipality needs the structure, and is actively consulting with representatives of the neighborhood about future use.

Meanwhile, the gallerys owner and curator, Masha Zuslam, expressed incredulity over the eviction, noting that she has not received any warnings or notices from City Hall.

We didnt get anything from the municipality, Zuslam said, adding that she has run the gallery for nearly 12 years without any previous warnings of wrongdoing. Everything we know is from the press.

The mayor is trying to punish us because we have different political views.

Despite a protest held by the extreme right-wing group Lehava, Zuslam said the lecture proceeded as planned, adding that far more demonstrators came to support the gallerys right to sponsor the talk and to condemn the mayor for intervening.

We had a very big demonstration of support, she noted.

While Zuslam said she is considering all her legal options, she lamented what she deemed to be an unjust and retaliatory response by the mayor for exercising the right of free speech.

Its a pity that the mayor of Jerusalem [has pitted] the artistic and cultural community against his political interests by preventing the basic right of freedom of speech, she said.

We have had this gallery for 11.5 years without any problems, and all of a sudden it is illegal. It remains unclear if the eviction will be enforced within the next 90 days.

Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin

Prev Article

VP of New Israel Fund: Country was rejecting me

Kraft hosts Ezra Schwartzs family as Super Bowl VIPs

Next Article

Read this article:
Breaking the Silence: With Barbur closure, Barkat attempting to stifle free speech - Jerusalem Post Israel News