Just because you can say something doesn’t mean that you should.
Let me repeat: Just because you can say something doesn’t mean that you should.
One more time: Just because you can say something doesn’t mean that you should!
In an alarmist, hate-filled editorial, NYU Stern Clinical Professor of Business Tunku Varadarajan posits that instead of using the offensive expression “Going postal,” a new term "Going Muslim" may be more appropriate in light of the recent Ft. Hood incident. His article can be read by clicking here.
Complaints about the professor's remarks made by many alumni, faculty and current students (Muslim and non-Muslim) to the Dean of NYU Stern Thomas Cooley apparently elicited the following reply:
"Your complaint is duly noted. I read Mr. Varadarajan's article very differently than you did. I think it is a very distorted reading to call this hate speech. Read it carefully. In any event I would not censor it or rebuke him for having written it. We are an institution that treasures free speech and open dialogue. You need to think more about what this means since you don't seem to understand it.
I would suggest that if you take issue with what Mr. Varadarajan wrote you take the issue up with him. There is space for feedback on the Forbes site.
Dean Thomas Cooley"
The President of NYU John Sexton is reported to have had a different reaction regarding Professor Varadarajan’s remarks:
“In a university, we often find ourselves in situations in which more than one principle is at stake.
“A core principle at any institution worthy of the name ‘university’ is academic freedom. For a university to be a meaningful and successful home to those that advance the frontiers of human knowledge, its scholars must be permitted to pursue ideas -- sometimes provocative ideas, sometimes difficult ideas that we find challenging to listen to -- free from persecution. This is not a limitless freedom, but it is a broad one. Because of it, every institution confronts from time-to-time the painful companion of academic freedom: the expression of an idea that is widely offensive. Public calls for institutions to punish faculty officially for expressing such ideas are all too common, and are deeply regrettable -- were we to do so, we would sacrifice what may be our greatest strength and discourage those who would think originally and challenge the conventional.
“In this University, we also believe in the value of a civil discourse, a care for how and when and where we express ideas, because we know our ideas are not exchanged in a vacuum. We are a community of scholars, and ideas are formulated and exchanged by real people who are entitled to be treated in a decent and dignified fashion.
“Another key principle is that ideas and their proponents must be open to intellectual challenge and testing -- opposing ideas have an equal entitlement to be aired. But let's be clear, this is not a form of relativism; in fact, it is just the reverse -- the premise is that the superior idea will prevail.
“So where do we find ourselves today? A journalist and NYU clinical faculty member has written a piece for Forbes that many Muslims find offensive. I understand how they feel -- I found it offensive, too. I am teaching Muslim students now, and I have taught them in the past; the portrayal of Muslims in the Forbes piece bears no resemblance to my experience; I disagree with the Forbes piece and think it is wrong.
“I say all this because as president I have not foresworn the rights I have as a member of the NYU faculty to challenge an idea that I believe is erroneous. But I do not say this lightly, because, first, I believe that university leaders should be circumspect about criticizing faculty work lest they chill faculty's pursuit of new knowledge, and second, our higher duty as university leaders is to be defenders of our faculty's academic freedom rather than proponents of our own ideas. For this reason, I must resist the calls for sanction against this faculty member; such an action would be antithetical to NYU's academic principles, and it will not happen.
“What is appropriate, however, is for other views to be expressed and heard. It is the nature of a university to be home to opposing ideas and opposing views, even absurd and offensive ones. It is our highest tradition to meet ideas, especially absurd and offensive ones, with ideas in a process of civil discourse and through debate over the ideas at play. We will do that here.”
– John Sexton
At any given time it is okay to hate a particular group. Muslims are now the targets. History generally is not kind to prejudice that leads to hysteria that leads to unjustified blanket actions against a particular group. Do we recall fondly McCarthyism and the internment of Japanese Americans? I think not.
Commentary on Free Speech:
News Flash for supporters of NYU Professor Varadarajan: Free Speech goes both ways
Related articles:
Interfaith response to Ft. Hood incident
Imam Hendi, Muslim chaplain at National Naval Medical Center, talks about alleged Ft. Hood shooter
Reform Jewish Leader asks Rev. Pat Robertson to retract 'outrageous and bigoted claim' about Islam
Comments
Most Muslims or people of any faith or of no faith, want to live and let live. Each group has crazy and evil people, unfortunately. It is up to each group to condemn first and most, the actions and attitudes of hatred of those who claim allegience to our particular faith. So Christians are to condemn the Crusades, etc., Muslims are to condemn the conquest of Spain, etc, Jews are to condemn the takeover of the Palestinian lands, atheists are to condemn Hitler,Mao,Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.
I posted this piece at Forbes. Thanks for the link - and for posting the other responses:
Varadarajan links the Fort Hood killings to "Arab men." Why smear "Arab" men? Why not restrict the group condemnation to "Palestinian men?" But then, why leave out "Palestinian women?" And what about their children? If we are going to condemn all the men and then all the women, the kids have gotta go too, right?
Wait a minute. The alleged shooter was a shrink. Maybe he "went Freudian."
Wait another minute. The alleged shooter was an officer, right. Maybe that was the problem. Maybe he "went rank."
But then, he was an apartment dweller, wasn't he? Maybe he "went rental."
Did he drive a small car? I am guessing, he "went compact."
How would readers take it, if someone were to refer to the Oklahoma City bombing of a few years ago as Timothy McVay "going Christian" or to a mob, destroying a mosque in India, as people "going Hindu." Does this sort of commentary add any light
Islam preaches hatred towards non-Muslims, but of course the author of this article wants to cry victim. Islam calls for Muslims to fight and kill Jews to reach judgement day, it is no better than Nazism. Stop whining.
@Alden....when you say most Muslims, do you mean the 99% of them that sit silently as non-Muslims are persecuted under Islamic rule?
The Crusades were in response to 100's of years of Muslim aggression. Try doing some research.
Point out another group people that are on a worldwide movement trying to subjugate the world under a set of barbaric religious laws. You cannot, so you all is equal fantasy does not exist.
@Richard....what McVeigh did was not done in the name of a religion.
The Fort Hood attack was.
Hasan Wanted Patients to Face war Crimes Charges
Read the opening paragraph and you will see that.
http ://islaminaction08.blogspot.com/2009/11/hasan-wanted-patients-to-face-war.html
Christopher,
Where do you get your information??? I suggest you try less bias sources.
Prof.Varadrajan piece is certainly alarmist - and I think there are good reasons for that. But why do you call it "hate filled"? Any sentences, statements from the article supporting your view? My view is that his article is "love filled" - love for America. Isn't it?
Prof.Varadrajan piece is certainly alarmist - and I think there are good reasons for that. But why do you call it "hate filled"? Any sentences, statements from the article supporting your view? My view is that his article is "love filled" - love for America. Isn't it?
I am sorry some pulled on someones head scarf but its not a hate crime, we have laws on the books to address this already.
I for one will never feel sorry for any Muslim in America, why because you are free in America you should learn from it and provide some freedomes in your country to those who are not like you. Muslim nations are the most repressive in the world yet they come to American and attempt to use our open laws to hurt us
I just posted a very good response to Varadarajan's article that was written by James Ferguson and initially posted on Daily Kos. Another good response was written by Haroon Moghul at religiondispatches dot org.
Hi Greg,
One thing that that I consider hate-filled or suggests a severe dislike for Islam is the following statement:
"How to address the threat posed by the fact that, of the hundreds of thousands of Muslims in our midst...."
While people disagree about the number of Muslims in the United States--some scholars say 7 million, others 4 million and some around 1 or 2 million. It seems that those who are most opposed to Islam always put the number of Muslims in the United States at the lowest. The fact that the professor states there only only hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the United States is a red flag and extremely revealing.
Hi Greg,
Other hate-filled comments:
"Muslims may be more extreme because their religion is founded on bellicose conquest, a contempt for infidels and an obligation for piety that is more extensive than in other schemes."
This is factually incorrect and simply regurgitates the remarks made about Islam by those well known for disliking Islam. The fact that the professor repeats them speaks volumes.
"Muslims are the most difficult incomers in the ongoing integration challenge..."
Again, incorrect and I question where the professor got this data. In general, Muslims are very well integrated in the United States.
Yet another hate-filled remark is the new term the professor proposes 'Going Muslim'.
"'Going Muslim.' This phrase would describe the turn of events where a seemingly integrated Muslim-American--a friendly donut vendor in New York, say, or an officer in the U.S. Army at Fort Hood--discards his apparent integration into American society and elects to vindicate his religion in an act of messianic violence against his fellow Americans."
I refer you to Richard’s comments below. Why single out Muslims? There have been far more mass shootings in the United States from people with other beliefs.
Finally, I find his 'practical note' at the end disingenuous. And I don't buy at this point a warped sense of 'political correctness' as the problem. The professor tries to come across as neutral and well thought out. But his own writing betrays him.
Hi RedHogg,
I'm not sure why but your comment about the headscarf made me smile. In any event, no one is asking for pity. But certainly if someone or group is unfairly characterized that someone or group can and should point out the error. There is vast difference between wanting others to feel sorry for you and wanting to correct a misconception. Also, I was born here.
If muslims want to live in this country with the understanding that rule of law of this great nation that has been in place for 230 plus years will not be adjusted to accommodate one group of people, fine, live here. But, and this is a big one, if you don't embrace the freedoms of speech that this great nation guarantees to all people, get lost. We will not change our fundamental rights for anyone, let alone a group of professional victims like CAIR and their ilk.
Hi SicSemperTyrannis,
Your comment neglects the fact that many many Muslims are born in the country and have the right to live here just like anyone else born here. We are Americans just like you.
Anyway, the issue here isn't about the constitutional right of free speech. At least not as I see it. I'm not suggesting that the professor didn't have the right to say what he did--he can certainly think what he likes and what he said appears not to have transgressed to so-called “fighting words” or other types of speech that are limited. What I am suggesting is that his comments are offensive and ill-informed.
And while we are on the subject of free speech—I would like to remind you that it works both ways. If someone is going to dish it out—he certainly should expect that his targets might respond. When the professor wrote his editorial, he knew there would be backlash. Perhaps, that is what he wanted all along—a little publicity.
I have a problem with the term "hate filled". We have no way to determine whether his intent was hateful or not. It seems to me that the term "hate filled" is used when someone has a problem with the message presented and has no other reason to disparage it. I only had one problem with the article and that was his proposed "plan". His plan while legal is wrong. Besides that, you can't take the term "Going Muslim" serious, its a joke, albiet in bad taste but still sort of funny. Going beyond that, the term "Going Muslim" is used because in the public perception, Muslims appear to instigate a lot of attacks, while this is not true, this IS how it is perceived. One last point for Mr. Alden Marshall, Jews have no reason to condemn their anti terrorism activities in Gaza or the West Bank. Palestinian Terrorists instigated the situation and are guilty of war crimes. Putting a stop to terrorism and the slaughter of Israeli citizens is not something to be sorry for or to condemn! Thanks.
Hi Google37,
As I was reading your comment, I started to wonder whether the term hate-filled requires intent. Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines hate as "intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury". Another definition provided is "extreme dislike or antipathy". The professor's article suggests to me he has an extreme dislike for Islam or an aversion stemming from fear. In any event, is it possible to make a hate-filled comment and not realize it is hate-filled? I think so. A person could repeat the propaganda of others not realizing how offensive it is. Thus, the comments are filled with hate but the person repeating it does not realize it. I’m not sure that is the case here though.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!