RSS
Home
'Going Muslim' - NYU professor's remarks spur controversy
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
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
Related Articles:
Comments
- Commenting, both in agreement and disagreement, is encouraged and welcomed
- Hateful, nonconstructive comments about author or others will be removed
- Comments spreading racial, ethnic, or religious hatred will be removed
- Trolling comments will be removed
