The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Islam in the Academy

There is a troika of movements that’s coalescing
into one ugly phenomenon, a phenomenon that may rival what the world witnessed
in the 1930’s in Germany. They are a virulent anti-Semitism promoted by the
Progressives and the left, its appearance on college campuses and in university
classrooms, and the assault on freedom of speech in the guise of being
combating “Islamophobia.”
A Jihad Watch article of May 23rd, “Campus Watch: Legitimizing
Censorship – ‘Islamophobia Studies’ at Berkeley
,” by Cinnamon Stillwell and
Rima Greene, details the pitiful and organizationally inept efforts of the
Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project to pass itself off as a major
mover and shaker in the fight against Islamophobia.
“Islamophobia
studies” is the latest addition to the academic pantheon of politicized,
esoteric, and divisive “studies” whose purpose is to censor criticism of
differing views by stigmatizing critics as racist or clinically insane. The
University of California, Berkeley’s recent Sixth Annual
International Islamophobia Conference—organized
by the Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project (IRDP)—was titled, “The
State of the Islamophobia Studies Field.” The fact that this “field” doesn’t
yet formally exist in the U.S. may explain why speakers the first day of the
conference barely mentioned it. As in years past, the
conference featured victimology, academic jargon, and anti-Western rhetoric.
The
audience, including a number of women in hijabs (headscarves), ranged from
twenty to fifty students and faculty members. Because the conference was
preempted by another event, it had to shift between two venues. Adding to the
confusion, the schedule was made available online only days before. While IRDP
director and Near Eastern studies lecturer Hatem
Bazian
bragged at the outset that the conference livestream had garnered
“seven thousand” viewers in 2014, this year, visual and audio problems often
rendered it unwatchable.
The spurious audience estimate of between twenty to
fifty attendees is a telltale indication that Hatem Bazian was preaching to a
miniscule choir, or to a hollow papered hall in which the body count wasn’t
large enough to absorb the echoes of his words.
In
his introduction, Bazian apologized for these mishaps before launching into a
glowing report about the alleged state of “Islamophobia studies,” which,
according to the IRDP website,
“has witnessed rapid expansion in the past fifteen years.” He claimed that the
field had “come of age” in that there is “no longer . . . a debate over whether
we should use the term or not” or if “it is real or not,” except for “those who
really don’t want to confront Islamophobia” or “don’t want to deal with the
reality of what has taken place.”
In
fact, there is no consensus on the existence of “Islamophobia” in the U.S.,
particularly in light of FBI statistics
showing Jews experiencing the highest number of religiously-motivated hate
crimes, with Muslims a distant second. Conflating legitimate criticism of Islam
and the myriad human rights abuses occurring in its name all over the world
with an irrational fear or prejudice towards all Muslims further obfuscates the
matter.
Bazian claimed that his sparsely attended
conference was part of an international series of conferences (but not the OIC, or the Organization
of Islam Conferences
? How déclassé!),
spanning the globe from Paris to Switzerland. Stillwell and Greene report,
however, that “at this juncture, a search yields no evidence of IRDP-connected
conferences this year.”
Stillwell and Green then introduce
Munir
Jiwa
, founding director of UC Berkeley’s Center for Islamic Studies and
assistant professor of Islamic studies at the Graduate Theological [Madrassa?] Union, followed with the
talk, “Frames and Scripts of Islamophobia.” Jiwa maintained that the U.S. and
the U.K. view Islam through the “frames” of the September 11, 2001 and July 7,
2005 terrorist attacks, respectively, and lamented that, “This forgets the long
history of Muslims in the West” and “Muslim contributions to Western
civilization.” Referring to the alleged shortcomings of the latter—including,
ludicrously, the Enlightenment—he made the ahistorical
assertion:
Much like Colonial and Enlightenment ways of
dividing the world: us and them. It’s as if the West just came up with all
these great ideas on its own.
Jiwa
complained that Americans see terrorism as “barbaric,” “out of the blue,” and
“related to Islam, rather than the most warring nation in the world”—i.e.,
America.
Yes, the U.S. and the U.K. view Islam not only through
the “frames” of 9/11 and 7/7, but also through the “frames” of the nearly 26,000 acts of terror worldwide
since 9/11 and 7/7. Stillwell and Greene note that Jiwa “never mentioned ISIS’s
atrocities, only ‘our responsibility’ in creating the context for that
violence.”
It’s always the victim’s fault for creating all
those “frames” and “contexts.” As soon as we fit them onto a Muslim, he goes
ballistic and commits violence, almost as though by auto-suggestion. He’s just
a pre-programmed automaton, a kind of Pavlovian cum Mahometan dog “conditioned” to respond to certain stimuli, such
as depictions of Mohammad, or critical or satirical portrayals of Islam. What
conditioned him? The anti-mind, anti-reason, anti-life ideology of Islam.
After discussing the Marxist blathering of two
other speakers at Bazian’s conference, Stillwell and Greene end their article
with:
While
this year’s conference may have failed to usher in the dawn of an officially
recognized “Islamophobia studies,” it wasn’t for lack of effort. Soon after,
IRDP announced the latest edition
of its politicized
bi-annual publication, the Islamophobia Studies Journal. Perhaps
following UC Berkeley’s lead, Georgetown University recently launched
the Bridges Initiative, a project
of the Saudi-funded Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center
for Muslim-Christian Understanding devoted to “protecting pluralism – ending
Islamophobia.”
The
subject is all the rage in the
field
of Middle East studies and throughout academe, which is doing its utmost to silence
critics of the Islamic supremacism, systemic social problems, and total chaos
plaguing the region. If and when “Islamophobia studies” becomes a reality, we
can’t claim we didn’t see it coming.
It is interesting to note in passing some of the
actual funding for “Islamophobia” studies and similar pseudo-academic endeavors.
Mike Ciandella wrote in his February 4th, 2014 article for Media Research
Center, “$5.6
Million from Soros Aids Universities That Boycott Israel,”
that:  
The
American Studies Association is asking its member universities to join the
growing
academic boycott of Israel
. Eight out of the 14 member universities of the
ASA’s National Council that approved the boycott have received more than $5.6
million from George Soros’ Open Society Foundations since 2000. The ASA has
also been working closely with anti-Israeli organizations to promote this
movement.
Promoting
anti-Israeli and liberal propaganda, Soros has poured more than $400
million
into colleges and universities around the world, including money to
most prominent institutions in the United States. According to a May 2012
article in The
New York Times
, Soros gave $500,000 a year to J Street, a “two-state
solution” organization whose co-founder, Daniel Levy, called the creation of
Israel in 1948 “an
act that was wrong
.” Some of the $23.8 million that Soros has given to Bard
College in New York has gone to a Palestinian youth group, and Bard also offers
joint degree programs at a Palestinian school in Jerusalem, and partners
closely with Al-Quds University.
According
to the ASA,
this boycott is part of the larger BDS, or “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions”
movement. BDS promotes the work of Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as arguing for
a “one-state
solution
” to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, which would involve
Palestinians having equal right of return status in Israel with Israelis.
I always chuckle when I read that Soros’s “Open Society” machine is
involved in one or another program to “transform” America into a “more tolerant
democracy.” It’s a risible misnomer, when what Soros and his winged monkeys
have in mind in the end is a “closed society” – closed to freedom of thought
and to freedom of speech.
The official BDS site encourages
the academic boycott of Israel:
The
Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI)
was one of the founding entities in 2005 of the Palestinian Civil Society BDS
Campaign and remains a key part of the Palestinian-led, global BDS movement.
PACBI
was launched in Ramallah in April 2004 by a group of Palestinian academics and
intellectuals to join the growing international boycott movement. The Campaign
built on the Palestinian call for a comprehensive economic, cultural and
academic boycott of Israel
issued in August 2002 and a statement made by
Palestinian academics and intellectuals in the occupied territories and in the
Diaspora calling for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions in October 2003….
The
PACBI Call states:
“We,
Palestinian academics and intellectuals, call upon our colleagues in the
international community to comprehensively and consistently boycott
all Israeli academic and cultural institutions
as a contribution to the
struggle to end Israel’s occupation, colonization and system of apartheid, by
applying the following:
  1. Refrain from participation in any form of academic
    and cultural cooperation, collaboration or joint projects with Israeli
    institutions;
  2. Advocate a comprehensive boycott of Israeli
    institutions at the national and international levels, including
    suspension of all forms of funding and subsidies to these institutions;
  3. Promote divestment and disinvestment from Israel by
    international academic institutions;
  4. Work toward the condemnation of Israeli policies by
    pressing for resolutions to be adopted by academic, professional and
    cultural associations and organizations;
  5. Support Palestinian academic and cultural
    institutions directly without requiring them to partner with Israeli
    counterparts as an explicit or implicit condition for such support.”
In academia – on the physical campuses, in the ivy
that clings to their walls but which is infested with the black widow spiders
of Marxism, and in the suffocating, light-dimming canopies of culturally
diverse kudzu – this agenda will manifest itself into active anti-Semitism of
the violent kind. Boycotting Israeli goods and thinkers and speakers and
associations translates into anti-Semitism. There isn’t any other meaning
possible.
 Being an
Israeli is synonymous with being Jewish, even though one may be an atheist or a
Christian or an Arab-Israeli Muslim, you’re still “Jewish” and can be
“boycotted” or bashed in the face or beaten up or even murdered.  You’re still an “occupier” of Palestinian land
and a racist and a colonizer over the bodies the Palestinian children and a
ruthless oppressor of Palestinian workers. The Boycott, Divestment, and
Sanction movement against Israel means business, and isn’t limited to a tenured
professor flapping his gums about the outrages committed by Israelis, or to
half-witted slobs sporting keffryahs and niqabs carrying signs and shouting
themselves hoarse, “Brains dead! Don’t shoot!”
While the BDS crowd keeps boasting of how it helped
to end apartheid in South Africa, it equates that with trying to end
“apartheid” in Israel. I’ve seen no recent calls by that crowd to protest
oppression, exploitation, and discrimination in Saudi Arabia, Red China,
Zimbabwe, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, and other sundry
dictatorships and authoritarian countries. It’s only against tiny Israel, the
freest and most prosperous country in the Middle East.
The American
Studies Association
has been recruiting universities to join in BDS and to
become signatories of the BDS
Resolution
of December 2013 to boycott Israeli academic institutions. The
ASA, founded in 1951 and purportedly ”the oldest scholarly organization devoted
to the interdisciplinary study of American culture and history,” has been
captured by the Left and is now apparently devoted to imposing a politically
correct discipline. The Jerusalem Post of January 1st, 2014, reported, however,
that ninety-two universities rejected
the academic boycott
of Israel.
More
than 90 American universities have so far released statements rejecting the
American Studies Association decision to boycott Israeli academic institutions,
and several have cut ties with the organization in protest.

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations expressed
appreciation to university presidents and chancellors who “stood up against
this discriminatory and unjustified measure and rejected the ASA boycott of
Israel.”
But not all is well with the university and
education heads. Many of them belong to what Salman
Rushdie,
who still lives with an Iranian fatwa on his head, might have called
the “But…Brigade” when it came to endorsing freedom of speech. “We’re for
freedom of speech, but….” Or perhaps these hypersensitive folk should be called
“Butt-Heads.”
Molly
Corbett, president of the American Council on Education – an umbrella group
that covers 1,800 institutions and claims to be the “most visible and influential
higher education association” in the US – issued a statement on Sunday that
“such actions are misguided and
greatly troubling, as they strike at the heart of academic freedom….

We hope the leadership of these organizations [who support the boycott] soon
reconsiders their actions and trust that other scholarly organizations will see
the troubling implications of such boycotts and avoid [a] similar vote….” [Italics mine]
Misguided?
But BDS is nothing if not clear and on-target about its means and ends. To call
the ends of BDS – one of which is the economic submission and eventual
destruction of Israel – “misguided” is like calling an armed hold-up a
“misguided” attempt to augment one’s income.
Princeton
president Christopher L. Eisgruber dubbed the boycott “misguided,” adding that
singling Israel out was “indefensible.”

But while Eisgruber noted that his “personal support for scholarly engagement
with Israel is enthusiastic and unequivocal,” he said he did not intend to
denounce the ASA or cut Princeton’s institutional ties with the organization.

“My hope is that the ASA ’s more thoughtful and reasonable members will
eventually bring the organization to its senses – here, too, engagement may be
better than a boycott,” he wrote.
But the central method of BDS is to bypass thought
and reason and to rely on emotion and a virulent strain of anti-Semitism to
accomplish its ends. There are no “thoughtful and reasonable” members in BDS.
The only “engagement” they’re interested in is violence and force and
censorship.
A May 4th article by Ruth Wisse in Mosaic Magazine,
Anti-Semitism
Goes to School
,” reveals the depth of the anti-Israel sentiment and of the
anti-Semitism.
In
February, a Jewish college student was hospitalized after being punched in the
face at a pro-Palestinian demonstration on a campus in upstate New York. His
family has insisted on maintaining the boy’s privacy, but other such incidents,
some caught on camera, include a male student punched in the face at Temple
University, a female student at Ohio University harassed for defending Israel,
and a male student at Cornell threatened physically for protesting anti-Israel
propaganda. On three successive days last summer, the Boston police had to
protect a student rally for Israel from pro-Palestinian mobs shouting “Jews
back to Birkenau!” At the University of California-Irvine, this year’s Israel
Independence Day festivities were blocked and shouted down by anti-Israel
demonstrators. Every year, some 200 campuses now host a multiday hate-the-Jews
fest, its malignancy encapsulated in its title: “Israel Apartheid Week….”
Nor
are students the only targets. At Connecticut College, to cite but the most
recent example, a quietly pro-Israel professor of philosophy has been
maliciously singled out and hounded as a “racist” in a campaign instigated by
Palestinian activists, endorsed by numerous faculty members, and at least
tacitly complied with by the college administration and the campus Hillel
organization. At the annual meetings of prestigious academic associations,
boycott resolutions against Israel and Israeli academic institutions are
routinely aired and often passed.
Wisse’s article is long and detailed in her examination
of the anti-Israel phenomenon in this country, and is worth reading in its
entirety. Some highlights are:
As
one of its first acts in December 1945, the Arab League called on all Arab
institutions and individuals to refuse to deal in, distribute, or consume
Jewish and Zionist products or manufactured goods. Seventy years later, calls
for boycott of Israel, under the acronym BDS—boycott, divestment, and
sanctions—have become a staple of American university agendas, extending not
only to Israeli companies like SodaStream but to Israeli scholars in the
humanities and social sciences. Last year, a petition by “anthropologists for
the boycott of Israeli academic institutions” garnered the signatures of the
relevant department chairs at (among others) Harvard, Wesleyan, and San
Francisco State. The American Studies Association attracted the “largest number
of participants in the organization’s history” for a vote endorsing a boycott
of Israeli academic institutions.
Keep in mind that the briefly described incidents
here did not occur in Nazi Germany:
….Which
is not to say that grounds are lacking for larger concern. In addition to the
catalog of academic offenses I’ve briefly summarized here, a growing number of
anti-Jewish incidents—from a swastika-desecrated Jewish cemetery in New Jersey
to fatal shootings at a Kansas City Jewish community center—has been registered
by agencies like the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee.
At the government level, more ominously, and perhaps for the first time in
recent American history, it is the White House, rather than the once
notoriously Arabist State Department, that has taken the lead in threatening to
isolate the Jewish state. President Obama’s frankly contemptuous treatment of
Israel’s prime minister smacks more of the university than of the Senate in
which he once served, but he is the president, and his words and actions
give license to others.
The linkages between the assault on American values
and on Jews is not so complex that it needs lengthy explication. To wit:
Contrary
to the claims of administrators like the chancellor of UCLA, prosecuting the
war against the Jews is not an issue of free speech, “sacrosanct to any
university campus.” Had UCLA’s chancellor and president faced a campaign to
reinstate segregation, recriminalize homosexuality, or bar women from the
faculty club, they would have reacted with more than “concern.” Yet behind the
banner of free speech, they tolerate, however squeamishly, campaigns to undo
the Jewish homeland and to demonize the already most mythified people on earth.
Anti-Jewish politics are no more innocent when pursued by left-wing American
SOCCs and SOOPs than when they were prosecuted by right-wing European
blackshirts [sic]….
Indeed,
institutions that enforce “sensitivity training” to insure toleration for gays,
blacks, and other minorities may inadvertently be bringing some of these groups
together in common hostility to Jews as the only campus minority against whom
hostility is condoned. On almost every campus in the land, the norms of
political correctness are rigorously enforced; punitive speech codes
proliferate; a phalanx of administrative functionaries labors so that nothing
said, or read, will ever offend the sensibilities of any student—with one
licensed exception. Multiculturalism has found its apotheosis in a
multicultural coalition of anti-Zionists: a uniquely constituted political
phenomenon with its own functions, strategies, and goals. 
I have a hypothesis about anti-Semitism and Jew hatred
on or off campus. It is probably not even an original hypothesis. It is based
on nothing more disgusting and damning than envy.
When you recall all the accomplishments of Jewish men and women over the
centuries – in scholarship, in science, in finance, in business, in the arts –
what is it that Jews are most resented and hated for?  What they’ve done in the face of persecution,
genocide, and pointed discrimination when they were not being persecuted,
punished, or murdered.
Writing as an atheist who is beholden to no
religion, I am naturally confounded by the attraction to or loyalty to Judaism.
I could poke holes in it as easily as I can poke holes in Islam and Catholicism
or in any other species of Christianity or faith. What I see, however, in the
BDS movement and in the poison ivy-covered halls and walls of academe is racism
– even among those self-hating Jews who lend their hands to BDS and to all
manner of anti-Israel causes. The latter really need to book themselves some
time on a therapist’s couch to thrash out that self-hatred. It’s a unique
pathology; I haven’t read about self-hating Episcopalians calling for the dismemberment
and downfall of the Anglican Church. 
Is Judaism a “race”? I think not. Neither is Islam.
I wouldn’t know a Jew on the street unless he was wearing a sandwich board or a
kippa.
BDS and anti-Semitism are birds of the same
diseased feather. What is perhaps most important is that BDS and anti-Semitism
in the schools is simply that their horrendous maledictions against Israel and
Jews enable Islam to insert itself into the phenomena and eventually reach a
terms-setting ascendency. That is already happening in an incremental, stealthy
progression in American education at all levels, and bodes no good for freedom
of speech.

Previous

The “Sach-ing” of America

Next

Hate Crimes vs. Hate Speech: A False Dichotomy

2 Comments

  1. madmax

    Ed,

    Jews consider themselves to be a race. The studies show that when asked what the most important thing about being Jewish was, Jews did not answer that it was the religion. They answered that it was the holocaust. So racial solidarity over that event was what was at the center of the Jewish mind. The Jews have come to create a victim mindset around the Holocaust that is unlikeable. They use it in a manipulative way. But further, when you study the Left, you see that the main shock troops are Jews. There is a long association b/w Jews and socialism. It was Jewish Communists that largely presided over the slaughter of millions of Ukrainians. This is what the Nazi saw and they associated the evil of Communism and cultural decadence with Jews. I'm not saying they were right in their solutions, but Jews were instrumental to the rise of Leftism. In Europe and now in America.

    Also, you talk about the accomplishments of Jews. Well, they do possess and average IQ that is one standard deviation above Europeans. The Ashkenazi Jews are on average one standard deviation above whites the way whites are one standard deviation above American blacks (think about what that would mean if there were hundreds of millions of Jews on the planet). Now there are only a few million of them in the world but they possess superior IQ because of the mini science experiment that the Europeans carried out. By not letting the Jews work in fields other than finance they placed selection pressures on the Jews that resulted in the development of cognitive capital (they weren't allowed property or land). This has come back to bite the Europeans in the ass. Because sadly the Jewish Left (75% of them) have basically allied to advance an anti-white, anti-anglo agenda. The Mulitcultural, multi-racial agenda of the Left that you linked to with Ann Coulter's column a few posts ago is largely driven by Jewish Leftists that want to create a society where whites are the minority. They want this because they don't want white gentiles to have power because they feel that could lead to another Hitler. So the browning of America which is a very real phenomenon (and a terrifying one) is largely driven by Jews; ie Jewish Leftists who are manipulating a political ideology of egalitarian collectivism to advance their own tribal collectivism. That makes Jewish Leftists imo the most unlikeable of Leftists.

    Kevin Macdonald has a good book called the Culture of Critique which shows just how closely linked is Leftism and Jewery. I don't think its an exaggeration to say that Leftism would not be so advanced if not for the Jews. This is not to say that philosophy doesn't matter, but that the Jews are a unique phenomenon in the rise of the Left.

    So my conclusion with them is that I don't have such a rosy opinion of the Jews. I'm not a neo-Nazi, but I do think that pointing out the Jews connection to Leftism and multi-racialism and the war against white Christian/Non-Leftist males is important. And I know Ayn Rand was Jewish. I often wonder if the Objectivist movement would have been different had it not been founded by a Jewish person. There is a consistent dynamic to Jewish revolutionary movements. Obectivism in that sense has a number of things in common with Trotskyism, etc.

  2. Elisheva Hannah Levin

    Whoah. The above comment is full of factual errors.
    I will correct a few, and while I am at it, correct a misunderstanding in the main text.

    Edward, in the main text you treated Judaism as a religion, akin to Christianity, that requires an intellectual agreement to a set of dogmas and creeds. Judaism is nothing of the sort, nor do Jews see themselves bound together by a creed. In fact, Judaism has no creed, and when Maimonides tried to impose one, his Yigdal was rejected in the streets of Juderias and ghettos across Europe. In order to render it harmless, in Ashkenazi prayer books, it was often used as the song after the Mourner's Kaddish at the end of the morning service.
    How we see ourselves is not as a religion nor as a race, but as a people, bound together by a common history and set of experiences. our dispersal to different parts of the world following the Roman conquest and the attendant intermarriage means we come in all kinds of physicsl forms and colors. It was modern antisemitism in Europe, culminating in the Nazis that was racialist. The deliberate error of pur enemies should not be used to define us.

    With respect to the commentor above:
    First, Ashkenazi Jews in the United States score an average of 12 points above the norm for the entire population of the United States on IQ tests. It must be remembered that IQ is a poulation measure, that the scores are generally subject to about 7 points error, and that any individual score is a discrete score of function on a certain day. In short the differrence is not that meaningful.
    That Ashnazi Jews value scholarship, hard work and the fruits of our labor in this world and not some other are far more relevant to our success in academia and in the world of business. The fact that we have no religious restraint on our thought, is undoubtedly another.

    Secondly, the linking of Jews to finance, in the US and elsewhere, is simply wrong. Most financiers are non-Jews of various baclgrounds, and proprtiomally represented according to the prevailing population diversity in a city or region.

    Thirdly, within the Jewish population of the United States, there is a range of political opinions, even among those who vote Democrat. It is simply wrong to say that all of those who vote Democrat are virulent leftist, and it antisemitic bullshit to conclude from election numbers that the majority of American Jews have some war against Christians or white-males. From my perspective moving in Jewish circles, most Jews are not terribly interested in Christians or white males, and are living their lives.
    Regardless of his protest to the contrary, I think the commentor above is dealing in antisemitic ideas.
    He is at least repeating racialized antisemtic ideas that go back to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion forgery, whether he is conscious of them or not.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén