What does it mean to be political? Media and other “very important people” tell us it means to disagree civilly over public policy and politically correct narratives. However, when these constraints confine political discussion, politics suffer and cease to be politics. Being political means there will be times when you’re uncomfortable with what the opposition is saying, but that’s the nature of politics; that’s why you oppose them. If you’re uncomfortable discussing controversial political issues, find a new interest. Strangely enough, when conservatives are uncomfortable, we’re told to expand our minds and broaden our horizons. When liberals feel uncomfortable they don’t need to expand their minds, instead they’re allowed to claim there is something wrong with conservatives.
Instead of addressing the issues at the heart of the political narrative, many are trained to react by calling us racist, homophobic, sexist or bigots, ignoring the discussion completely. This is counterproductive. Hiding behind these terms surrenders your argument to the other side, demonstrating an inability to combat their argument. The same logic applies to any political discourse between two opposing sides and couldn’t apply more to the political discourse between the UCSB College Republicans, who desire to bring David Horowitz to campus, and those who oppose this effort by calling the speaker racist, Islamophobic and bigoted.
David Horowitz is a controversial speaker, however any other speaker the College Republicans could have brought to discuss the idea of stealth Jihad by Islamists (not students) within American institutions or Middle Eastern problems would be equally controversial. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Nonie Darwish, Robert Spencer, Andrew McCarthy or Tom Tancredo would have generated the same amount of opposition and the same onslaught of name-calling. These activists are national figures and are players within the debate on militant Islam, with some coming from the societies they speak of. Repressing this debate within society is detrimental because it prevents good ideas from being elevated while simultaneously preventing their shortcomings from being discarded. If this topic is so irrelevant and racist, why are there classes in national security and governmental agencies that focus exclusively on this issue? I urge you, regardless of your predisposition to David Horowitz or the topic he discusses, to approach the event as an opportunity to challenge or expand your current beliefs, not as an opportunity to disrupt an event that tackles serious national security issues.
Further, to Horowitz’s credit, he has launched an admirable campaign to institutionalize an academic bill of rights, which has three goals some professors should pay attention to. First, it ensures that instructors provide students with materials that reflect both sides of controversial issues. Second, it ensures that instructors not present opinions as facts. And third, it ensures that instructors allow students to think for themselves. I can say firsthand most UCSB classes are not failing the third goal; at least the professors I choose to learn from aren’t, and most pass the test of separating fact from opinion and present both sides. However, I know all students haven’t been so lucky or choosy with their professors; even though I’ve been impressed with the UCSB Political Science Dept., there are a handful of other departments that need to be checked with such a bill of rights. Hopefully Horowitz will address some more points of his academic bill of rights in his lecture May 26 in I.V. Theater 2. Hope to see you there.
Daily Nexus conservative columnist Ben Parish has already bought his ticket.
Well written with good points. For a long time now Democrats have described the GOP position on hot topics as bigoted and it does shut down dialogue. I have no opinion about the council’s decision not to fund the event, but students shouldn’t be so vehemently opposed to any speaker. You’re right, if his message is hateful and ignorant students will dismiss it. Last time I checked, UCSB had a high standard to entrance and the students were pretty smart. I don’t identify myself with either side, but the campaign against Horowitz makes me wonder if the MSA believes the… Read more »
“You’re right, if his message is hateful and ignorant students will dismiss it.”
Please proofread your sentences before you post.
bye bye.
You’re right, the absent comma does change the meaning of that sentence quite a bit. I do my best to proofread my posts to catch the more egregious errors, but I’m sure nothing I post is perfect.
Since you have brought this to my attention, I assume you understand what I was trying to say, so it wasn’t such a horrible mistake that the meaning of the sentence was lost on you.
I’m glad you’re out there contributing to the dialogue in a meaningful way. Thank you.
Just want to help avoid future uproar over misinterpretation of such innocuous mistakes.
Good day to you Nik.
A thought experiment: If a student funded group publicly called for the extermination of gays or blacks (instead of Jews as MSA did at UCSD), do you think academia would permit them to continue their student funded activities? To ask the question is to anwer it. On May 10, 2010, Jumanah Albahri, an ex-officer of the Muslim Student Association (MSA) at the University of California-San Diego (UCSD), admitted during an event put on by Young Americans for Freedom and featuring David Horowitz as a speaker, that she supported a second Holocaust. During the exchange, Albahri also refused to condemn Hamas… Read more »
My observations are that when the political right is uncomfortable they don’t question themselves; they blame it on “liberals.” Uncomfortable with a real public discussion? Blame it on “liberal political correctness.” Uncomfortable with the economy? Blame “the Muslim-Marxist in the White House.” Uncomfortable in your local community? Blame it on “stealth Sharia.” Uncomfortable with tax policy? Blame it on “liberal welfare entitlements.” One view is that Horowitz’s various campaigns don’t guarantee anything other than the fact that David will continue to get his paycheck. Here’s a fellow who, as a leftist, involved himself in things a lot of other leftists… Read more »
“You’re right, if his message is hateful and ignorant students will dismiss it. Last time I checked, UCSB had a high standard to entrance and the students were pretty smart.”
Being smart and being smart are two very different things. Look at how smart students were at Harvard back in the 1930s:
http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=6889
When David Horowitz was busy cheerleading for the fascist Contras in Nicaragua, with their proven track record of egregious torture and massacres of civilians, where was all his tolerance for human rights? He never had it. For most of his adult “career” he has been committed to supporting the most immoral U.S. foreign policies with an uncanny fervor. That meant supporting fascism and torture all over the third world, don’t even try to deny it when the CIA and the U.S. government have even admitted to it. Easy for him to support Contra death squads as a writer and lecturer… Read more »
“[Horowitz’s proposed academic bill of rights] ensures that instructors provide students with materials that reflect both sides of controversial issues.” The idea that there are always two sides to controversial issues, or that the state apparatus should insert itself into academia and force instructors to include “both” sides, is asinine. I hope your Political Science professors didn’t teach you this. It reveals a very naive black and white view of what knowledge is and how it’s acquired. “Balance” is not a criterion of truth, or a category of academic inquiry. Congress should not be dictating university curriculum, even if it’s… Read more »