The latest polemic around Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Clearly, Brandeis did not do its research and background checks and should have anticipated this controversy. While many of the specific criticisms she makes about aspects of Islamic and related cultural practices are valid, she, like many critics (e.g., Pipes) go too far in painting Islam and Muslims with the same brush, rather than recognizing the diversity within Islam and among Muslims. Just imagine substituting Christian, Jewish or Sikh in any of her quotes below:
She has come under criticism for remarks about Islam. In a 2007 interview with Reason magazine, Hirsi Ali was quoted as saying “there is no moderate Islam” and that Islam needed to be defeated.
“Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful,” she said. “It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace.”
That same year, she told the London Evening Standard that Islam is “the new fascism.”
She also characterized Islam as “a destructive, nihilistic cult of death.” she was quoted as saying, “It legitimates murder.”
Her selection by Brandeis sparked an outcry by students, faculty, and national advocacy groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
“We believe offering such an award to a promoter of religious prejudice such as Ali is equivalent to promoting the work of white supremacists and anti-Semites,” the group stated.
An online petition signed by students and other critics condemned Hirsi Ali’s “extreme Islamophobic beliefs.”
Brandeis University rescinds planned honorary degree to outspoken critic of Islam – Metro – The Boston Globe.
Two opinion pieces on opposite sides of the argument, starting with Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, defending the decision made by Brandeis:
Ms. Hirsi Ali’s statements on Islam are not incidental to her activism and her life’s work. They stand at the very center of her concern. It goes without saying that Brandeis blundered by not doing its research before making the announcement and embarrassing everyone involved. Still, the only issue for the critics of Brandeis is whether they affirm Ms. Hirsi Ali’s prejudicial and deeply offensive views on Islam as a violent and fascistic religious tradition. If they do, let them say so. And if they don’t, they should acknowledge that Brandeis was right in the decision it made.
Andrew Sullivan takes a very different take:
The rescinding of an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not exactly an act of punishment. No one has a right to any such degree and Brandeis is fully within its rights to breach basic manners and fail to do basic research about an honoree’s past work. And Ayaan has indeed said some intemperate and extreme things at times about Islam as a whole. But to judge Ayaan’s enormous body of work and her terrifying, pioneering life as a Somali refugee by a few quotes is, I’m afraid to say, all-too-familiar as an exercise in the public shaming of an intellectual for having provocative ideas. There seems to be an assumption that public speech must seek above all else to be “sensitive” rather than provocative, and must never hurt any feelings rather than tell uncomfortable truths. This is a terrible thing for liberal society as a whole and particularly terrible for a university campus, where freedom of thought should be paramount (although, of course, the hard academic left every day attempts to restrict that freedom).
I am more with Rabbi Yoffie on this. Yes, one should consider the life work and not just selected quotes. However, the quotes are consistent in Hirsi Ali’s overall writing and public remarks, and are central to her arguments against Islam in general, not just particular aspects of Islam.
Find it a bit surprising that Sullivan defends her position when his own views on religion are nuanced thoughtful and reflective, unlike the overly broad brush approach of Hirsi Ali.
Multicultural Meanderings 