Taking the Heat for Freedom of Speech
As many of you know, I recently wrote an op-ed piece that appeared in the Jan. 16 print edition of the Tennessean. In it I criticized Islam for posing a worldwide jihad danger that continues to grow. I wrote the piece in the wake of the horrific attacks carried out on Jan. 7 by self-admitted Al-Qaeda jihadists that left 12 dead at the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine.
Following the publication of my op-ed, I was inundated with criticisms labeling it as “hate speech,” “intolerance,” and “bigotry,” and a particularly unflattering cartoon caricature , published in the Vanderbilt Hustler, that can only be described as a racial stereotype. Perhaps I could have tempered my comments some, revisiting language that might have been perceived as an indictment of all 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide. I am, however, perplexed why there continues to be scant public outcry – certainly no campus rallies or protests of take-note significance – among Muslims when another Islamic jihadist attack hits somewhere in the world. Also, I don’t accept the position that these attacks are carried out by only a “few Islamic extremists.” Estimates say Islamic militant jihadists around the world number in the tens or even hundreds of thousands. That’s when you add up all the members of organizations such as Islamic State (aka ISIS or ISIL), Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Taliban, other affiliated splintered groups, etc. and who knows how many sleeper cells in semi-hibernation around the world. I’m not going to dance around the issue or those numbers. PC speech isn’t in my vocabulary. Nor will I tolerate it with my students in the classroom. A university should be a place that harbors the free exchange of ideas, on both sides of the aisle, across all spectrums of thought and culture.
Since the publication of my column, which, by the way, never singled out Vanderbilt University or any demographic of its student body, I have been under siege. That includes other professors, such as a fellow Christian who I thought was a friend, who have attacked me in published works of their own. My “friend” spent more than 1,000 words chiding me, for among other things, implying as “simply indefensible,” as he put it, “the notion that all Muslims are crypto-terrorists.” (I wrote no such thing.) Another Vanderbilt professor, of history, used phrases such as “simplistic nostrums,” “unthinking emotiveness,” “wild generalizations,” “shallow political opportunism,” “frightening,” and “Muslim-baiting” to describe my column. I suppose that pretty well covers it. I am waiting for someone in authority on the Vanderbilt campus to support my freedom of speech or to acknowledge the disrespect and hatred that has dominated the Vanderbilt Hustler’s coverage of the issue.
On the morning when the print edition appeared, Dean of Students Mark Bandas sent a campus-wide e-mail to the student body affirming the university’s commitment to “diversity and inclusion” and its support of free speech, which Bandas stated is challenged when polarizing speech is shared. Then, seemingly encouraging the public protest, he wrote “I encourage all students who wish to do so to fully exercise freedom of expression, and to engage in dialogue.” Bandas’s letter seemingly set the stage and lit the fuse for the ensuing student protests and ensured that talk of a counter-protest never materialized because who would want to protest in favor of bigotry and hatred, as my op-ed was characterized.
Students jumped on the anti-Swain bandwagon. A small band of Vanderbilt students staged a Saturday afternoon rally to speak out against what has been termed “hate speech” on my part. The students called for Vanderbilt’s officials to condemn my comments and “to declare that the campus is free of intolerance and hatred against its students,” according to a Tennessean video report of the rally. A student op-ed piece in The Hustler, a student publication, was even more strident, saying, “Her poorly supported argument and unprofessional conduct on social media following the backlash against her editorial is a stain on the reputation of our institution.”
My commentary on Islam and Muslims is not a hackneyed compilation of random thoughts. It is based on ample expertise on Islam, such as that offered by Dr. Bill Warner of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. One of Warner’s video commentaries on Islam, posted on www.politicalislam.com, addresses “Minimal Muslims,” those he says who claim not to support jihad but only to adhere to the five pillars of Islam, which maybe aren’t so moderate. For one thing they acknowledge the prophet Muhammad as a jihadist; for another, one of the Muslims’ daily prayers includes a denigration of Jews and Christians. A third pillar refers to Muslim charities, in which funds only go for Muslims to be used for such things as bribery and jihad. There’s more like that in the five pillars. So explain to me again why Muslims shouldn’t be considered dangerous.
As tempting as it is, I won’t use this space at this time to dig into what’s really going on behind the scenes with Vanderbilt’s administration wringing their hands as it pertains to the “Carol Swain conundrum,” as in, What in the world should we do about this female African-American law professor who is a staunch conservative and evangelical Christian, and who for years has been a thorn in our side with her bold speech of a decidedly politically incorrect nature?
I remain a passionate proponent of free speech always ready to exercise that freedom with clarity and without compromise. I also respect the rights of my ideological opponents to have their fair say in the arena of public expression. But before accusing me of not having the facts, first, tell me what you know. Then let’s have a civil discussion on the topic without all the name-calling and pity-me posturing.
