The Buckley Program Stands Up for Free Speech

6a00d83451c36069e20168eb9dbef6970cThe William F. Buckley Program at Yale University lately showed bravery unusual for an academic institution. It has refused to be bullied by the Muslim Students Association and its demand that the Buckley Program rescind an invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali to speak on campus September 15. Hirsi Ali is the vocal Somalian critic of Islamic doctrine whose life has been endangered for condemning the theologically sanctioned oppression of women in Islamic culture. Unlike Brandeis University, which recently rescinded an honorary degree to be given to Hirsi Ali after complaints from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Buckley Program rejected both the MSA’s initial demand, and a follow up one that Hirsi Ali share the stage with one of her critics.

The Buckley Program is a rare instance of an academic organization staying true to the ideals of free speech, academic freedom, and the “free play of the mind on all subjects,” as Matthew Arnold defined liberal education. Most of our best universities have sacrificed these ideals on the altar of political correctness and identity politics. Anything that displeases or discomforts campus special interest groups––mainly those predicated on being the alleged victims of American oppression–– must be proscribed as “slurs” or “hateful,” even if what’s said is factually true. No matter that these groups are ideologically driven and use their power to silence critics and limit speech to their own self-serving and duplicitous views, the modus operandi of every illiberal totalitarian regime in history. The spineless university caves in to their demands, incoherently camouflaging their craven betrayal of the First Amendment and academic freedom as “tolerance” and “respect for diversity.”

In the case of Islam, however, this betrayal is particularly dangerous. For we are confronting across the world a jihadist movement that grounds its violence in traditional Islamic theology, jurisprudence, and history. Ignoring those motives and their sanction by Islamic doctrine compromises our strategy and tactics in defeating the jihadists, for we cripple ourselves in the war of ideas. Worse yet, Islamic triumphalism and chauvinism–– embodied in the Koranic verse that calls Muslims “the best of nations raised up for the benefit of men” because they “enjoin the right and forbid the wrong and believe in Allah”–– is confirmed and strengthened by the way our elite institutions like universities and the federal government quickly capitulate to special interest groups who demand that we endorse only their sanitized and often false picture of Islam. Such surrender confirms the jihadist estimation of the West as the “weak horse,” as bin Laden said, a civilization with “foundations of straw” whose wealth and military power are undermined by a collective failure of nerve and loss of morale.

This process of exploiting the moral degeneration of the West has been going on now for 25 years. It begins, as does the rise of modern jihadism, with the Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian Islamic revolution. The key event took place in February 1989, when Khomeini issued a fatwa, based on Koran 9.61, against Indian novelist Salman Rushdie for his novel The Satanic Verses, which was deemed “against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran,” as Khomeini said. Across the world enraged Muslims rioted and bombed bookstores, leaving over 20 people dead. More significant in the long run was the despicable reaction of many in the West to this outrage against freedom of speech and the rule of law, perpetrated by the most important and revered political and religious leader of a major Islamic nation.

Abandoning their principles, bookstores refused to stock the novel, and publishers delayed or canceled editions. Muslims in Western countries publicly burned copies of Rushdie’s novel and encouraged his murder with impunity. Eminent British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper suggested Rushdie deserved such treatment. Thirteen British Muslim barristers filed a formal complaint against the author. In their initial reactions, Western government officials were hesitant and timorous. The U.S. embassy in Pakistan eagerly assured Muslims that “the U.S. government in no way supports or associates itself with any activity that is in any sense offensive or insulting to Islam.”

Khomeini’s fatwa and the subsequent violent reaction created what Daniel Pipes calls the “Rushdie rules,” a speech code that privileges Islam over revered Western traditions of free speech that still are operative in the case of all other religions. Muslims now will determine what counts as an “insult” or a “slur,” and their displeasure, threats, and violence will police those definitions and punish offenders. Even reporting simple facts of history or Islamic doctrine can be deemed an offense and bring down retribution on violators. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, for example, earned the wrath of Muslims in part for her contribution to Theo van Gogh’s film Submission, which projected Koranic verses regarding women on the bodies of abused women. Van Gogh, of course, was brutally murdered in the streets of Amsterdam. And this is the most important dimension of the “Rushdie rules”: violence will follow any violation of whatever some Muslims deem to be “insulting” to Islam, even facts. In effect, Western law has been trumped by the shari’a ban on blaspheming Islam, a crime punishable by death.

The result is the sorry spectacle of groveling and apology we see almost daily from our government, the entertainment industry, and worse yet, universities. Trivial slights and offenses that civilized nations leave to the market place of ideas to sort out are elevated into “slurs” and “hate speech” if some Muslim organization deems them so. A reflexive self-censorship has arisen in American society, one based on fear of violent retribution or bad publicity harmful to profits and careers.

Thus the government officially proscribes words like “jihad” or “Muslim terrorist” from its documents and training materials in order to avoid offending Muslims. Similarly the Muslim terrorist, a fixture in recent history since the PLO started highjacking airliners in the 60s, has nearly disappeared from television and movies, replaced by Russians, white supremacists, and brainwashed Americans. And when a Muslim terrorist does appear, his motivations and violence are rationalized as the understandable response to the grievous offenses against his faith and people committed by the U.S. and Israel. Islam is airbrushed from the plot, as in the recent series Tyrant, a dramatization of a fictional Arab Muslim state that somehow manages to ignore Islam as a political force. More seriously, universities disinvite speakers at the faintest hint of protest from Muslim organizations, even as they accept Gulf-state petrodollars to create “Middle East Studies” programs that frequently function as apologists and enablers of terrorist violence.

“Free men have free tongues,” as the Athenian tragedian Sophocles said. One of the pillars of political freedom is free speech. When the ability to speak freely in the public square is extended beyond an elite to a large variety of people with clashing views and ideals, speech necessarily becomes rough and uncivil. Feelings get hurt, passions are aroused, and language becomes coarse and abusive. That’s the price we pay for letting a lot of people speak their minds, and for creating a process in which truth and good ideas can emerge from all this rambunctious, divisive conversation. But when we carve out a special niche for one group, provide it with its own rules, and protect it even from statements of uncomfortable facts, then we compromise that foundational right to have our say without any retribution other than a counterargument. So three cheers for the Buckley Program. It has stood up against intimidation and defended one of our most important and precious freedoms.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • GlendaFun

    BEST Gadget Very Useful.
    First Rank of Top 100 in Electronics “The Top of Best sellers”
    http://goo.gl/QVDPgr

  • JB Ziggy Zoggy

    Maybe even lefties are starting to figure out that clitorectomies, gang rapes and the oppression of women are worse than free speech.

    Or maybe they just figured out that suppressing Hirsi Ali is very bad PR.

    • IronTigersVet

      But, but, but… I thought we were at war with women?

      • Raptormann

        The Feminazis don’t like having doors opened for them or men protecting them. And, they’ll support the Mooslim Student Association in it’s censorship.
        I wonder what they will think of free speech when the members of the Mooslim Students Association gets its way in society with Sharia?

        • JB Ziggy Zoggy

          Or start rape and forced prostitution rings like in England and every other islamic country.

  • http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/ Jason P

    Thanks, Bruce, for putting Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s actions in context of the threats and violence against all critics of Islam. She has dared to speak out against an illiberal ideology and practice. The so-called liberal arts institutions of higher education do not cultivate the deliberations, discussion, and debate worthy of their stated purpose. By bowing to the forces of intolerance they have only embolden intolerance.

    If the Buckley Program holds its ground, they can claim the banner of free speech and open discussion. This is an excellent place to start the new “free speech movement,” a real free speech movement. Let’s call it the Buckley Free Speech movement. Bruce, you’re old enough to appreciate the phraseology.

  • roccolore

    The Muslim Brotherhood Student Association and Hamas-linked CAIR must be fuming.

    • IronTigersVet

      Who cares. They need to be sent packing. Nothing more than a terrorist backing, homegrown organization for moose slime crimes and violence against the country and it’s people.

    • JB Ziggy Zoggy

      Those fumes are body odor.

  • justsayin

    Hisri Ali speaks out on Islam which is good but there is much more to Miss Ali than meets the eye. She is most definitely not who most people think she is. I’ll leave it there for now, but a hero she ain’t.

    • The March Hare

      Yeah, that’s it. Plant a seed of distrust and move on without explanation. The back handed smear. That’s what “just saying” means. It means I’m not going to explain what I am accusing one of, I am just dropping a bombshell and moving on letting you assume the worst. You chose an apt moniker.

      • justsayin

        While I appreciate much of what she says about Islam …, feminist, atheist, and adultress, Hisri is not quite who people think she is. She played the West’s tolerance like a fiddle, lied about her “arranged marriage” and lied her way into the Netherlands. Once there, she attacked and worked against not only Islam but Christianity too. She opposes all religion. Soon she began raking in the $ as a professional victim.
        Not content with that, Hisri wanted to have a child. In “Letter To My Unborn Daughter,” Hisri wrote:
        I have struggled whether to have you on my own or to marry your father . . . having a child is a personal choice. It’s not only a personal choice; it’s a very selfish choice. I want to have you for me, for mydelight, to enrich my existence.
        Getting the drift here? It is all about Hisri and what Hisri wants. Not what would be best for the child (and heaven forbid the child was a boy). But, like all radical feminists, Hisri sees the man as simply a sperm donor. In any event, she decided on historian Niall Ferguson to be the father, and started an adulterous affair with him, succeeding in taking him away from his wife and three children. So much for the feminist sisterhood. Shall I continue? She is good on Islam but not so good on anything else.
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1394418/Niall-Ferguson-having-child-Somali-born-feminist-partner.html
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249095/The-history-man-fatwa-girl-How-David-Cameron-news-think-tank-guru-Niall-Ferguson-deserted-wife-Sue-Douglas-Somali-feminist.html
        Spare me your flames. I am only the messenger. We have the right to know who Hisri Ali really is. Good or bad.

        • The March Hare

          I am not one to flame, however, I am one to want to know the basis for what you are putting forth. Thank you for your reply and I will research it based on what you stated and linked and draw my own conclusions.

          • justsayin

            I didn’t want to go into it seeing how revered this woman is but it is also difficult to sit back and watch people lavish praise on her when they really don’t know much about her. That’s all.

        • liz

          Your post is a great example of taking a grain of truth and twisting it in order to slander someone.
          Hirsi’s experience with Islam in Somalia would motivate most people to escape by whatever means they possibly could, truthful or not. That doesn’t make her a dishonest person. Neither does being an atheist, although you seem to consider that another strike against her character.
          There’s nothing wrong, or unusual, about a woman wanting a child, or finding the experience enriching. Would you prefer that she hate children, like a good feminist?
          And as for the affair, so what? These things happen. Who are you to judge her motives?

    • john spielman

      i’ve read some of your blogging on CBC, you disgrace yourself every where you write and here is no execption
      would that you were half as courageous and noble as Ms Hirsri, the world would be a better place.

    • joe

      It’s abundantly clear why your moniker isn’t “justthinkin”.

    • William

      She thinks all religion is bunk.

      • Softly Bob

        Yes, she does. She declared herself as an Atheist after rejecting Islam. Attempts to convert her to Christianity have always failed. However she does express respect for both Judaism and Christianity, unlike Islam which she does not.

        • James Linnstrom

          Once a person figures out what kind of fraud Islam is and what a scumbag this Mohammed guy was, it is likely that he or she would stay far, far away from ANY religion and any system of deity.

  • Gee

    Islam is not a religion. They are a genocidal, xenophobic, supremacist, fascist cult. They proclaim their superiority to everybody else and demand to enslave the entire world.

    Leftists support or ignore this.

    Those of us non-politically correct folks are the only ones that oppose them.

    • kevinstroup

      How does it not fit the definition of religion?

      • ADM64

        A religion is simply a faith-based system of beliefs primarily about how man ought to live, and his relationship to whatever god or gods the religion believes exist. It may or may not extend to politics, and need not be genocidal, xenophobic, supremacist, racist etc.

        • kevinstroup

          Islam fits the definition of a religion. Gee is wrong.

          • JB Ziggy Zoggy

            Islam is compulsory. It isn’t a system of worship, it’s a war manual.

          • kevinstroup

            Where is it written that a religion, or any ideology for that point, cannot be mandatory or compulsory? Besides, all laws are based upon some morality, and all laws are enforced with threat of violence. That fact that we in the West separate religion from civil does not mean that MUST be the case. In old Europe the Catholic Church was the law.

          • JB Ziggy Zoggy

            Where is it written that religion can be compulsory? Your thesis is complete nonsense. A religion is a belief system, not a system forced on the unwilling.

            Islam is a system designed to instruct its subjects to conquer, murder and rule all other people, with a particular hatred for Jews. It’s thinly disguised with a tiny percentage (less than 20%) of psuedo religious trappings just to fool people like you.

          • kevinstroup

            Guess all the people who think it is a religion are wrong and you are right. Must suck being the only smart person in the world.

          • ADM64

            I agree that it is a religion. I’d understood your comment to mean that it was the genocidal, xenophobic etc elements that made something a religion, which is incorrect.

            Islam is a religion that includes a comprehensive and non-negotiable worldview that not only includes political organization within its tenets, it mandates them. The caliph had, and was intended to be the supreme religious, political, military and civil authority. This makes it different from many other religions and presents particular problems in opposing it. Thus it also has all of the characteristics of a totalitarian political movement and may have to be viewed as primarily that rather than inherently as a belief system for individuals to live their lives as individuals.

    • William

      Leftists (and religious scholars) see Islam as one of the three major Abrahamic religions, based on Judaism and Christianity.

      • JB Ziggy Zoggy

        We all know how unhinged leftists are.

      • Softly Bob

        Except that Islam is not an Abrahamic religion. When Mohammed invented Islam, he based it on the Bible but twisted it to suit his own agenda. He asked both Jews and Christians to recognize him as a prophet. When they refused to, he turned against them, then declared that Allah was the same god that they worshiped. This is why Islam is seen as being an Abrahamic religion but in actual fact is nothing but a fraud claiming to be Abrahamic.

        • William

          They believe in the God of Abraham (and Moses, Jesus etc.).
          In fact Shia Muslims believe they are descendents of Abraham. Deny it if you like.

          • Softly Bob

            It’s not a matter of denying anything. It’s a matter of historical fact. Allah was a Moon god worshiped by pagans long before Mohammed was born and has no connection whatsoever to the God that Abraham worshiped.
            As for Shia being descended from Abraham that could possibly be true. Abraham’s son Ishmael is believed by some to be the father of all Arabs and the Shia do claim descendency from Mohammed himself. I’m not going to argue with that bit.
            But, as for them worshiping the same God as Jews and Christians well that is very suspect. Mohammed wanted to be recpgnized as a Jewish prophet but he did not fulfil the criteria. After he was rejected, he claimed that Allah was a Jewish deity but that does not fit the record as the Jews never worshiped idols and Allah is in actual fact a black meteorite worshiped by Mohammed’s tribe, the Quaraysh for many generations.

          • William

            Just like Muslims, you are convinced that your god is real and all others are not. And you are entitled to your beliefs.

          • Softly Bob

            You’ve missed the point entirely. It’s got nothing to do with what you believe in. If we were discussing the plot of a Harry Potter novel we wouldn’t care whether it’s fiction or not. In order to understand what people believe in you have to examine their scriptures and the stories behind them.

            The point is that Mohammed didn’t even have the decency to invent his own religion from scratch. He usurped somebody elses religion and twisted their scripture to suit himself. He rewrote Genesis and rewrote the stories of Hebrew prophets then accused the Jews of not following their own religion properly.
            It’s a bit like me claiming to be a Hindu and telling the Hindus that I worship a god called ‘Santa’. When the Hindus reject me, I then get angry with them, claim that Santa is just another name for Krishna, rewrite Hindu philosophy to suit myself, thus completely changing the religion and what it’s all about then accuse the Hindus of not following Hinduism properly because they’re not doing it my way.
            Whether you look at it historically, theologically or Atheistically, Mohammed was a fraudster.

          • James Linnstrom

            You can try to educate. But William has no motivation to learn.

          • JB Ziggy Zoggy

            You completely mistated his comment.

            Trollfail, liar.

          • James Linnstrom

            All muslims claim that they are descendants of Abraham thru lineage of Ishmael. However, that is very doubtful because there were people of Arab race even before Abraham.

          • James Linnstrom

            I know that is the kind of dribble you learned in school. If you carefully examine the Five Pillars of Islam, it will be clear to you that muslims believe, first of all, in god of Mohammed. They believe and worship the god Prophet Mohammed worshiped. ( Allah god of Mecca ) Now, the question is, is the god of Mohammed same as the god of Abraham?

            How would you prove that??

          • JB Ziggy Zoggy

            They also believe the God of Abraham commands them to murder, plunder, rape and enslave all unbelievers. They’re morons and they’re irrefutably wrong, just like you.

      • aspacia

        Your point William?

      • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

        Yes, well, Leftists see Obama’s Presidency as a success, too. Leftists see many things, none of which are real. Islam is a totalitarian political system with some theology grafted onto it – not in any way comparable to Judaism and Christianity.

      • nightspore

        So is “turn the other cheek” really a call for jihad? You get an F for eschatology.

  • William

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali is aweseome.. liberal, feminist, atheist, pretty and smart as heck.. the perfect package.

    • JB Ziggy Zoggy

      I think we all know what your idea of a perfect package really is: the kind that swings.

    • Softly Bob

      Yes, and she knows Islam well too, and she despises it.

      • William

        She has good reason, her life was affected by it.

    • http://www.stubbornthings.org NAHALKIDES

      I imagine she’s rather more Conservative politically than you think since she actively opposes creeping sharia law in this country, a position the political Left is not known for.

  • wileyvet

    Why is it that currently, the muckrakers on campuses seem to be Muslim? From protests against Ms. Ali, to BDS campaigns and Israeli Apatheid Weeks, it is the MSA, a Muslim Brotherhood front group that is always front and center. Does that not incur the slightest interest among College administrations, or student bodies? Apparently not. There is a cadre of Muslims, supported by clueless whites and others, in solidarity with an Islamic group whose aim is the destruction of America and the imposition of Sharia to replace the US Constitution. With each passing day, Muslims keep pushing the envelope, sowing discord wherever they are. They get bolder and more aggressive as they are wont to do as their numbers increase and they gain influence. This cannot and will not end well. One side will win and the other lose. No ties.

    • hawk1

      Good questions and post. I have often wondered how this dissent in our culture by Muslims and clueless others has gained such a stronghold. When I read this article here on Frontpage by Deborah Weiss, I realized that the Organization for Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) influence through the UN is a huge part of this problem.

      According to the OIC, it is the duty of Muslims to complain.

      The largest voting block in the UN, the OIC is the largest Islamic organization in the world.

      One of it’s primary aims is…” the international criminalization of speech that is critical of any Islam-related topic, including Islamic terrorism, Islamic persecution of religious minorities and human rights violations committed in the name of Islam.”

      “No other religion has a worldwide campaign instructing its members to report unpleasant truths as “bigotry” or to complain about slights as minor as “hostile looks.”

      http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/deborah-weiss/oic-ramps-up-islamophobia-campaign/

      You are correct, “This cannot and will not end well. One side will win and the other lose. No ties.”