Nova Southeastern has invited a controversial and undoubtedly extremely interesting speaker for its commencement--Salman Rushdie. Some Muslim students object to the choice, apparently because of his "blasphemous" writings. More or less par for the course. But here's the kicker:
Besides concerns based on Rushdie's writing, students also expressed worries over safety. "Who is to say there is not someone willing to try and kill him while inflicting harm to [sic] everyone else at the ceremony?" said NSU student Randy Rodriguez-Torres in an editorial published in this week's Nova student newspaper.
Rushdie's lived with a fatwa on his head for almost twenty years. Do you think Nova students might be willing to spend two hours in the same auditorium with him? (Hat tip: LGF)
I have nothing but respect for Salman Rushdie, but I have to say that the phrase "(Hat tip: LGF)"
"
I was *this* close to making a joke about that precisely to beat someone like mistermark to the punch, but then I thought that people would be above that. oops.
Fair point, Professor Bernstein. I realize that blog etiquette sometimes requires one to give credit to people one would otherwise not invite to a dinner party. Nevertheless, my comment about LGF still stands.
"Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever?"
-Sgt. D.J.Daly, USMC
France, 1918
-.45ACP@LGF
Look, students aren't stupid. They probably read the Kozinski decision noted in the post below.
All you have to do, according to the Kozinski doctrine, is THREATEN VIOLENCE, and you can get speech and speakers who you disagree with BANNED.
You certainly won't be punished for THREATENING VIOLENCE. Indeed, you will be REWARDED by ensuring that your opponents never get to speak.
Good to know. Thanks for the informative post.
that is good info- I wouldn't be in the same room as Juan Cole.
Back on topic: That the Muslim group chooses to couch its objections as a caution about possible violence just shows someone has been reading up on how to achieve your objective by addressing others concerns.
Presumably, Yes. In the Pentagon Papers case one of the 75 concurrences said something to the effect that you cannot, during wartime, disclose the location of a Navy ship that's already at sea. Plus there is the famous Holmes line about fire in a crowded theater. Somehow the fear of some kids in FL that Salman Rushdie, who has been speaking in public ever since the fatwa, will bring upon them the collective wrath of the Muslim world, seems a bit overblown.
OK, I'm really confused. I though Kozinski dissented from that decision? Exactly what case are you referring to?
But seriously, my girlfriend unit was accepted to NSE's DO program, and she says that the dean is this amazing guy, really inspiring and intelligent. From her description, it is no shock that he would invite someone like Rushdie to commencement. On the other hand, it should be no shock that these students in the middle of nowhere are concerned about terrorist attacks - they have been bombarded for five years incessantly with fearmongering and "the terrrorists are coming to get you so vote for us" campaigning and sloganeering. Who can blame them for making terrorism their #1 concern, when that is exactly what the government has told us it should be?
At the same time, travelling around the country in the years since 9/11, I've been struck by how every locale finds their own reasons why they are likely targets of terrorist interest. Every place seems to think they are important enough to register on the terrorists radar no matter how absurd it might seem to anyone else in the country. I've literally heard concerns about a firework display being the biggest in Ohio and thus a "very tempting target" for terrorists. Right. Everyone notes that there's a resevoir or something like it right outside of town. Ridiculous as this all is, Luke is right that it is hardly surprising give the messages being put out by the gov't and others (got that duct tape carefully stored away?).
Record high or record low?
Is this off topic?
I think it was feckless and cowardly. They should have cancelled his talk due to his being filthy fraud (and, in fact, I'm betting the alleged death threats was a face saving way of backing down, little more).
1) Mike's examples seem to suggest that a college could be justified in shutting down an event if a planned speaker's talk could reasonably be expected to incite violence. But at Hamilton the threatening speech was coming from off-campus and was aimed at and succeeded in shutting down an event which would feature unpopular speech by an unpopular speaker, to say the least. Is it really fair to suggest Churchill and the college deserved to be threatened in that way? Or am I misreading the tenor of your examples, Mike?
2) how should colleges balance safety and speech values when they potentially might conflict? I'm sure liability lawyers and law enforcement people have figured this all out, but it's beyond me.
3) No bites on my 3rd q yet: "what does it say that one liberal arts college was more scared of domestic terrorists than another is of radical Islamist ones?"
For my $.02, I think schools ought to take into account that we've had nothing happen since 9/11, and that police can address, if nothing else, <i>anticipated disruption.</i> Accordingly, the deans should check to make sure their balls are in place, and proceed.
I apologize for the delay in responding, but I actually just lowered myself to studying at IHOP (once Starbucks closed), and did not get home until just now.
Or Waffle House.
Surely you are aware Volokh and LGF share a spot on Pajamasmedia.com . Might be a little late to start worrying about appearances when it comes to associating yourself with racists.