Associated Students Legislative Council spent the majority of last night’s meeting discussing funding for College Republicans’ proposal to bring controversial speaker David Horowitz to campus.
After being denied funding for the proposed lecture at Monday’s A.S. Finance Board meeting, College Republicans requested that Legislative Council reopen the board’s minutes and allocate $1,770 for the event’s audio-visual, recording and security costs. Horowitz, a noted conservative activist and writer, last visited campus in April 2008 shortly after accusing UCSB’s Muslim Student Association of having political ties with al-Qaeda. Although several members of the Muslim Student Association and general campus community attended the meeting in protest of the group’s request, the council eventually approved $800 to the organization.
As of press time, the council remained in session pending the approval of the A.S. 2011-2012 budget, which faces significant cuts.
President of College Republicans Steven Begakis requested $1,770 for security, audiovisual technology and visual recording for the proposed event. Begakis said the council should allocate funds on the basis of freedom of speech.
“We just want to bring a conservative speaker to represent our minority opinion and promote a diversity of ideas,” Begakis said.
Sophia Armen, a second-year political science and feminist studies major, said the board’s eventual decision to even partially fund the event reflected poorly on the student government.
“Our association does not look good right now in the eyes of the average student,” Armen said. “I just want you to understand … what isolating communities really means. You’d better have communities on this campus’ back, because it’s your job. Not just because it’s your job — because it’s your moral responsibility.”
Andres Rey, a second-year political science major, said denying funding for the event would be a violation of a citizen’s First Amendment rights.
“That’s freedom of speech: the ability for you to speak,” Rey said. “I think it’s a very important step that the council approves the security for funding because you are denying the vehicle for someone to speak.”
While On-Campus Representative Danielle Stevens objected that Horowitz’s views transcended the divide between free speech and hate speech, Rey said the speaker’s words are not inflammatory enough to be censored by the association.
“The definition of hate speech … it has to be directly linked to a violent act,” Rey said. “You have to prove it incites direct acts of hatred and I think that’s something you can’t prove.”
However, College Republicans Vice President Matt Borasi said the campus has the duty of providing students a space where all voices can be heard.
“Do I agree with everything that Daniel Horowitz said? No,” Borasi said. “What I do agree with is the open forum the university stands for.”
Muslim Student Association member Ahmed Naguib, however, said the Muslim community is underrepresented on campus and is unwilling to tolerate further discrimination.
“There’s 200 or 300 of us on campus. We really fly under the radar,” Naguib said. “But, believe it or not, this is something that really affects us.”
Finance Board Chair Katie Lieberknecht said the board declined to allocate any funds to College Republicans on Monday as, according to A.S. Legal Code, the association cannot deny funding to events on the basis of offensive content.
“You need to base this not on the context of the event but on the event itself,” Lieberknecht said. “You really need to look at the policies and procedures of what can and can’t be funded.”
According to Internal Vice President Jake Elwood, California state law requires that the UC Regents not deny funding to events based on their content.
“If we pass the finance board minutes,” Elwood said, “we will be sued by David Horowitz.”
On April 14, 2008, the Daily Nexus printed an advertisement paid for by the Horowitz Freedom Center, advocating against the Muslim Students Association and accusing it of being a “Campus Front Group For Jihad.”
“The MSA is a radical political group that was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the godfather of al Qaeda and Hamas, to bring the jihad into the heart of American higher education,” the ad read.
Nick Dürnhöfer, editor in chief of the Nexus in 2008, said the editorial section of the newspaper cannot execute agency over the advertising section.
“I didn’t see that ad before it ran in the Nexus — I don’t see any ad that goes in there,” Dürnhöfer said. “I’m not going to let a newspaper get biased in that way by picking and choosing advertisers … When you start thinking that way, you can’t really do you job as an editor.”
Following a lengthy debate, the board swiftly approved a motion to allocate $1,100 for the event. However, according to Stryker, confusion arose among the representatives as to what the motion they passed entailed as it followed a string of stipulations and modifications.
“When the amendment is friendly with the person that made the original motion, then that amendment becomes the new motion,” Stryker said. “So when we passed it, we passed that motion. I guess a few got confused and thought we just passed that motion. People that wanted to vote didn’t understand what was going on and thought it was just to pass that amendment.”
The result was met with outrage from the audience, as individuals shouted “You are sponsoring Islamophobia and racism on this campus,” and “Who on this board is representing the Muslim community?”
Considering the murky circumstances under which the resolution had been passed, the council moved to amend the allotted amount to $732, providing funding for only police officers.
On-Campus Representative Joseph Lee said the council was overstepping in bounds by reopening the discussion.
“What happened to the whole point of transparency of this council?” Lee said. “We’re already not doing our jobs and paying attention to what’s going on and just because we admitted to making a mistake that doesn’t mean we get to reconsider something we all passed through consent.”
The council eventually modified the amount to $800.
Additionally, Lee presented an apology for his recent incarceration. He spent five days in Santa Barbara County jail in relation to a stolen laptop and, after pleading not guilty at his arraignment on Tuesday, is set to appear in court on May 18.
“My mistakes have brought disappointment and frustration to both my student constituents and my peers,” Lee said. “I am ashamed and I fully regret this situation.”
Lee said he felt the incident was isolated within his personal life and would not affect his ability to perform his job.
“I’m going to do my best to continue to perform to the best of my best in leg council to the students that represented me,” Lee said. “This matter solely matters to me.”
Just FYI we finished at 3:45, almost 11 hours into the meeting with a pretty good budget plan for next year. Thank your elected officials (of which I’m not one, just a proxy)
So Horowitz is questionable but the Muslim Student Association and its invited speakers are not? What is happening to this country?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/03/msa-pledge-of-allegiance-i-will-die-to-establish-islam.html
hmm, yeah pretty much. I love the way you just blatantly assume that you can compare the two categories though. lol, especially because I bet you dont even know how many MSA speakers we’ve had this year so far. You probably dont even know how much funding they got either, but those are facts and who cares about that.
So let’s discuss facts if you think I don’t care about them. But I’ll readily admit upfront I know nothing about the funding issue for these events. If you want to discuss the facts about Islam and it being a violent, supremacist ideology I’d be happy to indulge you.
Ok, Im guessing that means that you are retracting your original point, since you just admited that you dont know anything about the funding issue, which kind of puts into question your opinion about the entire episode, since its not based on many facts, just assumption. But thats ok, we can just switch to your topic, and see where it goes. To start, just define your terms. And guess what, you get to define them as you see fit. 1st, what is Islam 2nd what does it mean for Islam to be violent and 3rd what does it mean for… Read more »
Gee, Josh, if I had all week I’d comply, but since I don’t I’ll keep it simple, concise and in a picture format such that even a child can understand it: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/01/people-picture-muslims-with-a-quran-in-one-hand-and-a-sword-in-the-other.html A = Devout (studied) Muslims in pictures. B = There obvious embracing of violence. C = This one is tougher and is not illustrated in the picture but can be clearly understood if the book they’re holding (the Qur’an) is read. {See here: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm And, here: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Quran-Hate.htm } Hope this helps answer you challenge. I readily admit my answer is NOT complete, but does fill in most of… Read more »
you should try reading up on formal logic. That is how arguments are broken down to basic pieces and analyzed. The lines I posted are actually only an example of what you could have done. Your argument could have been as simple as this: If A then B A QED: B But you did give us some definitions. and I can address that. The definitions are not really help, at least not imo. 1st, your definition of what Islam is not exhaustive. unless of course you are saying, only the poeple in the image are the only member of Islam.… Read more »
Joshua, Your lecturing me on logic is really pretty funny, and I mean it. I have a smile on my face while thinking about it. Anywho, let’s try this again. A. Mohammed is considered a perfect man in Islam. B. Mohammed is the only significant prophet of any religion who killed, raped, enslaved, stole and demanded the same from his followers. C. Islam is based on Mohammed’s example. D. Islam is violent always has been violent (see Siras and Hadiths describing Mohammed’s life) and will always be violent in no small part thanks to Muslim apologist like you who do… Read more »
Ok, Im willing to grant your terms and I am willing to work within that framework. Granting all of the above, what should be done about the conclusion that Islam is a violent ideology. (I didnt see you defend the claim that Islam is a supremacist ideology, but Ill grant that assumption as well)
Ok, so granting all that, who should do something about it and what should they do? And why?
Education, Joshua. Teach poeople about the real Islam. Teach people about how Islam is aggressive, how Sharia law is repressive and against ALL individual freedoms, teach people about what Mohammed did during his lifetime, teach people why Islamic countries are backwards, repressive and cruel. Education is the first step. Muslims and Muslim apologists have gotten many people in the west to believe Islam is a tolerant, compassionate, peaceful religion and that only a small minority of Muslims make up the terrorists when in fact Islam is a violent, intolerant and war-mongering religion. Until we understand what Islam is it’s impossible… Read more »
1st, you say this like people dont know that most of the middle east is made up of 3rd world countries, with monarchies and dictatorships. I know that Saudi Arabia has horrible punishments for even the slightest crimes. Corporal punishment, honor killings, etc. But you seem to ignore that 1/5th of the world right now is a practicing muslim. Islam has spread to many different places, and in places where technology, western culture and secularism have been allowed to flourish, the people there are not violent or supremacists in ideology. Much in the same way that Old testament endorses slavery,… Read more »
Joshua: Legitimate logic, even works within strongly biased argument’s framework, courteous, asks questions
Arafat: Ad hominem, failed logic, false premises, insane generalizations, doesn’t even try to hide bigotry
I think we can clearly see the winner here, guys. (It’s not Arafat)
Ah Arafat, glad to hear from you again. Could you give an example of a questionable speaker that was invited to this campus by MSA?
We support full funding for the David Horowitz lecture. Most of the liberal speakers funded by the Students are offensive to us, but you really do not care as long as your viewpoints are heard. You fund the Muslims speakers why not those who speak against their brand of terrorism on campus.
Please provide full funding .
Thank you.
Concerned Taxpayers, I.N.C.
Justin Ruhge
Hmm, let me ask you something, if College republicans wanted to have Snookie come speak at the university, do you think AS should give full funding for the College Republicans so they can bring their speaker to UCSB?
Justin, it’s been my observations that with Muslims, their apologists and leftists generally it’s a one-way street, i.e., what’s good for the goose and good for the gander, with the gander being those who see things differently than they do.
While they whine and whine about our speakers and our prejudice against them you never hear them complain about their speakers or their behavior towards us.
To wit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyExaO4jzD0
http://bigpeace.com/jguandolo/2011/02/23/university-of-central-florida-stifles-discussion-of-terrorism-and-muslim-brotherhood/
Like I said, what’s good for the goose ain’t good for the gander when it comes to univeristy Muslims, eh?
I think that as long as the event follows AS and university guidelines, then there is no reason to deny funding. I leave it up to the “senators” to decide how much student money they want to give to the College Republicans. They could invite the KKK or the Neo-Nazi’s to speak and I leave it up to AS to decide how much money they want to give them. I am very much in favor of defending their right to speech and perhaps even using a part of the student funds to fund their event. after all, they like every… Read more »
Joshua, I think your position is pretty reasonable. That said I was wondering what specifically you find offensive about Horowitz. If you could be specific it would help us have a constructive debate on this topic.
Thanks for being fair-minded about the funding.
If you want an example of explosive quotes ala James O’keefe then watch this 10 min video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaTtj9Mc000
If you want to see the entire 90 min presentation then watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnFlv9vDmSQ
I dont see why finding specific parts that I found offensive is at all relevant. If you read my comment, not once do I mention anything about the event being offensive to me or do I talk about how offensive it is to others.
Start with the facts and we will go from there
I’m surprised at how admadantly against a middle-eastern conservative theocratic religion the right-wingers are, considering their wet-dream is installing middle-eastern conservative theocracy as state policy.
If they weren’t so out of touch with reality, they’d both see they’re both delusional in the exact same way, with just different names and skin colors.
X,
For what it is worth I am an atheist just like this man:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/02/wilders-trial-the-most-determined-statement-of-dhimmitude-weve-yet-seen-in-europe.html
you know, there was a lot of backlash against this man on youtube by other atheists as well, mostly because it became apparent that almost every video he made became only about Islam and about muslim presence in the UK.
But the tipping point came when he openly endorsed UKIP.
For more on this watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkCkdoO8lU8
Look at the video to see why the atheist community in general went after Pat Condell.
>>Joshua: Legitimate logic, even works within strongly biased argument’s framework, courteous, asks questions Arafat: Ad hominem, failed logic, false premises, insane generalizations, doesn’t even try to hide bigotry I think we can clearly see the winner here, guys. (It’s not Arafat)<< ********************* Just to set the record straight I have asked questions. Admittedly I habe been less than courteous but never knew that was a requirement in our society. And concerning being strongly biased this is like calling people Islamophobes which I have already shown is defined as being honest about Islam. I didn't know being honest was cinsidered a… Read more »
ehh, no one has called you an Islamophobe. as far as I know i think islamophobia has to do with fear of Islam, so strictly speaking, if you are mortified by islam to the point that it has become a phobia, then perhaps you are indeed an islamophobe. Contrary to what you might think, I dont like throwing around terms like racist, islamophobe or bigot at people that disagree with me. My concern here is not “arafat needs to have the exact same position I have” or “arafat disagrees with me so he is x,y,z”. Mostly, I am trying to… Read more »
Josh, A couple of points. 1) I write that Islam is a supremacist ideology because it is. Read the Qur’an, study Mohammed’s life, read the Hadiths and this is abundantly clear. In Islam all non-Muslims are inferior. Is this not supremacism? 2) Islamophobia is nothing more than a BS word used to confuse people about Islam and to discredit people like me (or Richard Dawkins, or Winston Churchill, or John Quincy Adams). I am not afraid of Islam, I just understand Islam and am honest about Islam. Honesty is being confused with a phobia purposely by Muslims to confuse the… Read more »
P + P = P,
Is Richard Dawkins biased or is he just stating the truth about Islam?
(It’s important to know that Dawkins has spent a lifetime studying ALL religions including Islam.)
http://freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/479-richard-dawkins-islam-is-one-of-the-great-evils-of-the-world.html
Hi Josh, You mention that 1/5th of the world is Muslim as if this supports your belief that not all Islam is backwards and repressive like the Arab Middle East. Let’s work with this theory of yours. Sure there are innumerable Muslims who have seamlessly integrated into western cultures and have contributed to our cultures in many ways. I would never argue otherwise. That said, these are Muslims who have rid themselves of many vital parts of Islam, like Sharia law as one example. All Islamic countries practice some degree of Sharia law and the results speak for themselves. Be… Read more »
Josh, You write, “I would also add, that I have no problem with you talking about x,y and z countries that are repressive, backwards and cruel. But it seems incredible to me how you seem to want to attribute guilt by association, or rather guilt by adherence to a faith. I know for a fact that ONLY a small minority of muslims are terrorists.” You are putting words into my mouth. I never said a majority of Muslims are terrorists. What I have said is that Islam is a repressive, backwards-looking religion which serves to hold back a majority of… Read more »
“Muslims and Muslim apologists have gotten many people in the west to believe Islam is a tolerant, compassionate, peaceful religion and that only a small minority of Muslims make up the terrorists when in fact Islam is a violent, intolerant and war-mongering religion.”
Your quote implies that the statement “only a small minority of muslims make up the terrorists” is false, and I took it to mean that the opposite was true.
Im confused, Im not sure I see where you are coming from with that link.
Ive read the first few paragraphs and skimmed the rest, but I dont see how it fits in with the rest of your statement.
Could you elaborate, perhaps offer a small summary of the article?
(I assumed that the link was the example you where referring to of Muslims destroying the UN)
Josh,
One additional comment on your latest post. In it you make the unsubstantiated comparison between the Old Testament and what is found in Islam. I strongly encourage you to read the following article which should put to rest any doubts you may have that Islam is like any other Abrahamic religion.
http://www.meforum.org/2159/are-judaism-and-christianity-as-violent-as-islam
From what I get from the article, the thrust of the argument is that Judeo-Christian history is violent, while the Q’uran commands violence. But how does that challenge my argument? Just because the Q’uran commands violence, does it mean that All, Most or a Large Minority of Muslims will resort to violence? Even though the bible does not command violence, it has never the less inspired violence. But somehow the violence that results from biblical interpretations of the old testament are different from the Q’uranic verses that incite violence. Ill reiterate my example, lets assume that the bible does not… Read more »
Josh, If you cannot understand the distinction between a religion whose prophet practiced and encouraged his followers to follow the Golden Rule as Christ did, versus a religion whose prophet practed and encouraged his followers to hurt all non-Muslims then there’s little I can write that will make any difference. Did Buddha kill, rape, enslave and steal? Did Jesus kill, rape, enslave and steal? Did Buddha teach his followers that injuring others – physically or otherwise – was a good thing? Did Jesus teach his followers that injuring others – physically or otherwise – was a good thing? These are,… Read more »
You keep missing the point. Please read carefully what I say, please try to give it more than a few seconds of thought! This is becoming increasingly frustrating for me, as I am afraid that I am not able to communicate with you what my points are. Let me try once more. IF one is a Muslim, does that mean that one is forced to be violent? If one is a Muslim, does that mean that one is forced to be a supremacist? Is there a CAUSE AND EFFECT BETWEEN Believing X and doing Y. Strictly speaking, does practicing Islam… Read more »
My point is that, THERE IS NO DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN WHAT ONE PROFESSES TO BELIEVE AND WHAT ONE ACTUALLY DOES. IT might be ONE of the MANY necessary and sufficient conditions that would CAUSE a person to ACT on certain beliefs, BUT mere BELIEF does not EQUAL ACTING on the BELIEF. And my position is that much in the same way that the DARK AGES was replaced by the Renaissance and later on the scientific revolution. What you define as Islam, will one day be touched by a Rebirth and a Scientific Revolution that will pull them away from what… Read more »
“THERE IS NO DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN WHAT ONE PROFESSES TO BELIEVE AND WHAT ONE ACTUALLY DOES.”
Really? And so whatever you, Josh, happen to believe in is irrelevant to your actions. That’s an interesting theory.
So Amish people despite their inculcation from birth onward into behaving in certain ways are just as likely to be violent as Islamists who have been taught from the cradle to kill non-Muslims?
http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportID=92249
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/01/hamas-tv-muslim-kids-taught-to-sing-may-the-glory-of-the-religion-islam-return-and-may-our-blood-be.html
I completely agree with what you’ve said here. I posted something similar on another article. Religion is a red herring. The Q’uran may command violence and praise the destruction of infidels, but if everyone in Pakistan had food, water, a home, internet, iPods, cars and a TV, I feel like there would be a drop in Taliban recruitment. Having said that, I also feel that if you were able to magically replace Islam with Buddhism, you’d also see a drop in people blowing themselves up. For some reason I just can’t conjure up the image of a Buddhist monk in… Read more »
Nik,
Thanks for the help.
Nik, Many people believe that if not for Islam people in Pakistan would have food, water, a home, internet, iPods, etc… Islam by being a religion, a political system, a judicial system, a teaching system that begins in the cradle, and an all-encompassing ideology that represses curiosity and independent thought is in large part why Pakistan has none of the things you mention. Contrast this with Judaism a religion that encourages intellectual curiosity and independent thought and I think you will agree that the socialization that different religions foist onto their adherents (as a generalization) help form what the societies… Read more »
I agree with most of what you wrote, the only thing is I don’t agree with is that the root cause is Islam. Islam (as all religions were) was written to galvanize and support the ideals of the culture. The real problem is the acceptance and perpetuation of these practices. The rest of the world will eventually drag that region in line with modern civility. The only reason the more stable Muslim countries don’t denounce the actions of extremists is because it would be seen as an attack against the teachings of Islam and which those in power use to… Read more »
Josh, I feel like we’re both missing one another’s point, but the questions you’ve just asked are very clear and even I understand them this time! Let me try to be clear in my response. You ask, “IF one is a Muslim, does that mean that one is forced to be violent? If one is a Muslim, does that mean that one is forced to be a supremacist?” A Muslim is not required to be violent but they are required to submit to Allah. This means not questioning Allah’s demands that they treat non-Muslims as beneath them and worthy of… Read more »
Let me try once more.
IF one is a Muslim, does that mean that one is ALWAYS forced to be violent?
If one is a Muslim, does that mean that one is ALWAYS forced to be a supremacist?
Is there ALWAYS a CAUSE AND EFFECT BETWEEN Believing X and doing Y.
Strictly speaking, does practicing Islam mean that you inevitably will ALWAYS do violence and become a supremacist?
I dont require an explanation or qualifiers. Yes or no.
It doesn’t have to be that being Muslim causes you to be violent, it doesn’t have to be a logical necessity to be true. Some people blow themselves up in public places. Some people engage in “holy wars”. Some people use religious law to subjugate and abuse women. Now, of this population, where does the overwhelming majority of the sample come from and what religion do they practice? Not all Muslims act in this way, but the majority of people that do act this way seem to be a product of Muslim countries and Islamic teachings.