If you are one of the many people who are upset at Brandeis University’s withdrawal of an honorary degree from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, you can leave a message with the President, Fred Lawrence. He has a public Facebook page, on which I’ve left the following message (you have to “like” the page first). My message will probably be removed quickly , but perhaps if many people left messages, they’d get the message (note: as of a few minutes ago, my message was still there, along with others).
His email address is also public: lawrence@brandeis.edu, and you can find a general email contact form (a box to fill in) here.
I’ll be sending emails later, but I must now prepare for a talk.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has responded to the rescinding of her degree. Read her whole eloquent statement at the link, but here is an excerpt:
I wish to dissociate myself from the university’s statement, which implies that I was in any way consulted about this decision. On the contrary, I was completely shocked when President Frederick Lawrence called me—just a few hours before issuing a public statement—to say that such a decision had been made.
. . . Having spent many months planning for me to speak to its students at Commencement, the university yesterday announced that it could not “overlook certain of my past statements,” which it had not previously been aware of. Yet my critics have long specialized in selective quotation – lines from interviews taken out of context – designed to misrepresent me and my work. It is scarcely credible that Brandeis did not know this when they initially offered me the degree.
What was initially intended as an honor has now devolved into a moment of shaming. Yet the slur on my reputation is not the worst aspect of this episode. More deplorable is that an institution set up on the basis of religious freedom should today so deeply betray its own founding principles. The “spirit of free expression” referred to in the Brandeis statement has been stifled here, as my critics have achieved their objective of preventing me from addressing the graduating Class of 2014. Neither Brandeis nor my critics knew or even inquired as to what I might say. They simply wanted me to be silenced. I regret that very much.
Not content with a public disavowal, Brandeis has invited me “to join us on campus in the future to engage in a dialogue about these important issues.” Sadly, in words and deeds, the university has already spoken its piece. I have no wish to “engage” in such one-sided dialogue. I can only wish the Class of 2014 the best of luck—and hope that they will go forth to be better advocates for free expression and free thought than their alma mater.
Damn, did she deserve that degree! Brandeis’s behavior is reprehensible and cowardly. President Lawrence, are you not ashamed of your university?
I couldn’t resist posting this comment, from a Brandeis graduate, that appeared on President Lawrence’s page. I don’t know who Sam Hilt is, but good for him!
I’m glad she called them on the free expression bit. Universities are meant to be institutions where ideas are discussed freely & they’ve turned around and done the opposite!
Thank you for posting the email address. I read the article put out by the Muslim Association the morning it was published but had hoped Brandeis would ignore it. I’m very disappointed in their decision.
There’s no way that Brandeis can escape ignominy no matter what they end up doing. If they do reinstate the degree, it makes a further mockery of the idea they actually have “core values”, if these values are so easily swayed by the number of emails they receive.
The honorary degree is unquestionably well deserved and it should never have been withdrawn.
As for the purity of the honorary degree in general, I’m much more cynical. I have seen quite a lot of logrolling by colleagues and their friends in awarding honorary degrees. Such degrees rarely go to people who are entirely undeserving, but many go to deserving people who also do a whole lot of politicking and who might not be the very best choices possible.
Subscribe.
I’ve written to President Lawrence, reminding him in his shame that Louis Brandeis wrote, “Fear of serious injury alone cannot justify oppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.”
What does he fear?
I guess certain of Brandeis’s statements can be overlooked.
Good quote. Even if Hirsi said something distasteful at the 2014 graduation ceremony, I fail to see why offended Muslims would have a problem with Brandeis and not her.
Perhaps President Lawrence should receive a dishonorary degree from his own University.
I commented on Facebook instead of sending email. The exposure is more public.
I did the same too.
So did Michael Shermer, who also sent a letter of protest to Brandeis.
Yeah and he faxed it….who faxes anything anymore? It <a href="Post“>is a good letter though.
oops. that’s what I get for making fun of faxes. The link works though.
“I have received an Honorary Doctorate myself, so I know how important they are to both the recipient ”
Why exactly is an honorary doctorate important to the recipient? They always seemed rather silly to me, and thought I’d probably refuse one if offered.
Hard though it may be to believe, there’s a chance that Shermer is a bit of a publicity hound.
I bet a strident critic of Christianity would not have been treated in such a fashion.
Posted this, in case it doesn’t survive on Fred Lawrence’s FB page:
“An abysmally shameful day for any university when it prefers to placate angry and oppressive adherents of religion rather than honour the courage of someone who has endured that anger and oppression first hand, survived it, and lived to tell the tale on behalf of so many who have not survived. If you really think you made the right decision about Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s honorary degree, you have no place in a university.”
I wonder how long before the FB page no longer accepts posts. That would be interesting.
Absolutely disgusting behaviour for an institution that should support academic freedom and freedom of speech. I hope that potential students and donors react appropriately to this gutless conduct.
As for then inviting Ayaan Hirsi Ali to “join us on campus” – what sort of imbecile runs the place!
I too, sent an e-mail to Lawrence, from Australia. This unconscionable decision is not restricted in its effect to this University, but affects all our lives and our freedoms no matter where we live on this globe.
I’ve emailed the president:
Dear President Lawrence
I’m really saddened to read that you have chosen to embarrass a woman who has endured some of the worst that extremist factions of religion has to offer; and has bravely stood up to it and endured it; and in so doing, have rewarded the very people who are indifferent to the suffering of women under these sorts of regimes.
Brandeis once said: “Fear of serious injury alone cannot justify oppression of free speech and assembly.” Ayaan Hirsi Ali at least, seems to live by that code. More power to her.
Wonderfully succinct and to the point.
My post to Facebook.
Re: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, one step forward two steps back for women’s rights. Had SHE been a man you would have been less inclined to revoke the offer of an honorary degree… based on a few out of context quotes. The damage is now done, the cat cannot be returned to the bag. Let us see if another university will step forward and paint this episode with brighter colors.
I wonder if Brandeis has generated or is generating an “Islamaphobes” blacklist, and if there is a humanist or skeptic or CFI student group there, which the Brandeis omniscients would presume to prevent from inviting speakers inclined to critique the efficacy of Islam.
My own post on his page: How does Brandeis justify withdrawing an honorary degree from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, apparently on grounds of Islamophobia? Can we assume that Brandeis would refuse to honour Richard Dawkins on grounds of theophobia, or the Archbishop of Canterbury on grounds of atheophobia, or an eloquent left-wing intellectual (take your pick) on grounds of plutophobia?
Right. Why not just mail it to her? Save her the trouble of having to deal with interrupting, loud-mouthed zealots.
Looks like the Facebook comments have been taken down.
I still see them there. They are in the “recent posts” section on the right side.
I was at this time ( 6:45p Central / USA ) able to post thusly:
SHAME on YOU and on Brandies University !
May your $donor$ dry The Hell right up !
Values of Brandies ? SEXISM: .YOUR. ORIGINAL SIN.
Blue
If you are leaving a rant like this, at least spell the institution correctly.
While this travesty ensues, Condoleezza Rice is set to deliver her commencement speech and receive an honorary degree at my current institution amidst faculty and student protest.
I went to Brandeis. They once took down an art exhibit that showed the wishes and reams of Palestinian kids — because apparently it offended the Jewish population. Then they censored a humor newspaper for making a racist joke — even though they NEVER had before censored it or its competitor for making sexist, anti-trans, anti-Semitic, and other off-color jokes. This latest attack on free expression is the third strike for me — I now despise this institution. I shall never again support it, unless I do so by some accident or without knowing I am doing so, etc.!
Sorry: -DREAMS (not “reams”!). (For some reason, I cannot find the “Edit” function for comments….)
I have just purchased two of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s books which I have long meant to read.
If wider interest in her books were to result from this contretemps it would at least serve to counterbalance Brandeis’s insult.
Too many, it appears, seem to feel they should read Hirsi Ali’s books, but never seem to get around to it. (I felt that way myself a few years back.) What few realize it that Infidel in particular is hugely readable, often in the “not able to put it down” sense, a gripping narrative in addition to being one of the most inspiring reads one is likely to encounter. That she survived all she did and still eventually arrived at Enlightenment values purely through her intellect and refusal to give in and submit is one of the most inspiring human triumph stories around.
This is the letter I just sent to Frederick Lawrence:
President Lawrence,
I am writing to express my outrage at Brandeis University’s decision to withdraw an honorary doctorate from Ayaan Hirsi Ali. No matter what political, monetary, or even security calculations caused this exercise in suppression of free speech, in the end it reflects very poorly on an institution that is supposed to be a place where progressive ideas are freely exchanged. It is especially ironic in this case, because seldom can a university find an individual more deserving of this honor. With this shameful decision Brandeis demonstrated that it does not stand by the values Ms. Hirsi Ali lives by: courage, integrity and freedom of expression.
You may think she does not deserve to be the part of the Brandeis community, but in reality, Brandeis has shown it does not deserve her.
You may think she does not deserve to be the part of the Brandeis community, but in reality, Brandeis has shown it does not deserve her.”
Nice chiasmus.
To WEIT readers: I want to make a point or two here of partial dissent. Before I go on, I will say: Brandeis should NOT have withdrawn its honorary degree and cancelled her speech so easily. It is still up to them to do so (by properly following through whatever process the University has in place), but they seem to have done so far too quickly and under pressure from some groups, not all of which have good intentions.
I am generally an admirer of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s. I read her two memoirs, and I follow her output keenly. She’s intelligent, brave and generally committed to liberal values.
However, I find her political associations are too conservative.
Why join the neoconservative, free-market (read: upper-class privilege) American Enterprise Institute? Supposedly Brookings wouldn’t have her, I suppose, but was there nowhere else? Some commentators have pointed out that her party in the Netherlands was also a free-market type party, which had a malign attitude toward the welfare state. I would hope that these are merely incidental features of her career, and don’t reflect on her politics. I will give her the benefit of the doubt, in this case. She doesn’t really talk much on these economic issues anyway.
But we some to the interview, which appears to have killed her Brandeis degree:
http://reason.com/archives/2007/10/10/the-trouble-is-the-west/singlepage
She says that “we are at war with Islam”, and “you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, ‘This is a warning. We won’t accept this anymore.’ There comes a moment when you crush your enemy.”
This way of talking troubles me. Ali has claimed that her comments were taken out of context, but her language seems fairly frank to me, and the context by no means improves the quote. I am generally a fan of Ali, and have defended her on a number of occasions, but are we secular humanists on board with this statement?
I’ve no doubt that some huge number of Muslims believe that they are at war with the West, and that they are God’s warriors working against the friends of Satan. But should Westerners believe that they are at war with Islam? I had once agreed with Sam Harris when he said this in The End Of Faith, but now I see it as playing into the narrative of the jihadists, making their view of Islam more plausible. I say this despite the fact that I AGREE with Sam that the jihadists are giving a very plausible version of Islam (I mean plausible from the point of view of believers). Islam really does teach its followers to make war on non-Muslims.
But Islam is not really a geopolitical system that one can be at war with. It’s not like Communism and the Soviet Union, which had a more identifiably coherent political system and geographic territory. The aspects of Islam that threaten civilization are rather like the KKK, only wildly more popular.
Of one thing there is no doubt: Some non-trivial part of Islam is at war; partly with the West, but mostly with the rest of Islam, which it seeks to subjugate. This can be seen from the fact that almost all jihadist attacks are carried out against Muslims. The West cannot be neutral about this. It has to side with liberal Muslim reformers (who are very scarce indeed).
If we say “we are at war with Islam”, as Ali did in the interview, what will we say to real liberal reformers like Maajid Nawaz? Because I’ve got news for you: Islam is not going away. It’s not going to collapse like Communism, because it isn’t a geopolitical system that CAN collapse. Islam is a religion and group of civilizations. Ultimately, only Muslims can extinguish the jihadist threat, by forming new interpretations of Islam, just as Christians managed to arrive at more humanistic readings of Christianity (think of Quaker abolitionists). Islam must have its Quakers, using their own theology (however bogus) to argue against jihad. But declaring war on Islam, as Ali did in the interview, will just play into the jihadists themselves, who paint a picture to their fellow Muslims of an Islam under siege. That’s not the way to go.
While what you say may have some truth the reality for most western democracies is that they are “under attack” from within. The real danger in the long term is a creeping expansion of the type of Muslim influences which we already see – they can’t be criticised without threats of violence or the sort of campaign waged at Brandeis – hence criticism of their attack on humanistic values becomes stifled. Acceptance of some precepts of sharia law and Muslim cultural values, such as their attitude to women, starts to intrude more widely. Most importantly if Muslim votes become critical for political power (and that need only mean around 10%) then political parties will pander to to Muslim values at the expense of the broader values that are dominant in a society.
“…a free-market type party, which had a malign attitude toward the welfare state. I would hope that these are merely incidental features of her career, and don’t reflect on her politics.”
Oh, god forbid that anyone should favour free-market economics, or express doubts about the welfare state! She’s obviously just as bad as those muslim extremists who crash planes into buildings, blow people up in cafes and cut off little girls’ clitorises.
I also favour a (regulated) free market economy and would like to see the welfare state in my own country (the UK) cut back. I obviously don’t meet your stringent standards of political correctness, so maybe I should be banned from commenting here?
I think that a mixed economy, with an open market for those economic goods and services that the market is best at providing, and a broad based welfare state to promote the general welfare of the society is the best system.
Generally (I’m from the US) I find that the “free market” and “cut welfare” political types are usually of a reactionary, aristocratic persuasion, who follow these ideas because they want to enforce a rigid social hierarchy, in which the privileged maintain their position, and the poor are suppressed. It is an generally antidemocratic position, so I oppose it.
Should you be banned from commenting here? No, but who’s saying that. As usual with conservatives, persecution in the mind…
Just congenially curious, who do you think should serve in the military and go in harm’s way to preserve, protect and defend any given economic-political system/ideology? Who, if anyone, of sound mind and body, is entitled to being exempt from so serving?
I’ll venture a comment on Ali’s attitude toward the welfare state. As she saw it in Holland the welfare state coddled Muslim immigrants who were work-shy. They had way too much free time on their hands to worry about a non-existent deity and nurse their grievances. She acknowledges that the situation is different in America where immigrants seem to assimilate into the host society better.
Hmm, basically she was in the party that decided to retract her dutch citizenship based on some bureaucratic issues, leading her (in part) to leave the country, while being a chosen representative in parliament! That shows signs of a pretty bad judgement party-wise, and currently this party is facilitating geert wilders’ hate speech. Even though I agree with her stand on islam, her political orientation is otherwise quite idiosyncratic.
Let me clarify: if she had not been famous her party would have sent her back to somalia with all consequences. That is not defendible.
Surprised it took this long for this caveat to appear. Basically you’re parroting the liberal stance in all its relativity here. As to the perceived dangers of “war on Islam” imagery, I reply that public international opprobrium is one of the biggest factors in bringing about social and cultural change such as those changes in Islam you advocate in your last paragraph.
She stated that Islam is a “cult of death.” There are 1 billion Muslims. I don’t think a university should honor such speech. It’s not inclusive and goes beyond civil discourse.
Islam IS a cult of death… Also, if Brandeis University didn’t want to honor her, THEN THEY NEVER SHOULD HAVE OFFERED TO IN THE FIRST PLACE! HELLO! ARE YOU SERIOUSLY NOT GETTING THIS?
Thanks for providing such a good example of tone trolling, jimparkey. It is always nice to be reminded what it looks like.
And what the fuck is so important about civil discourse?
I find your statement here quite uncivil, implying as it does that the barbaric acts perpetrated by a significant percentage of muslims, inspired and or justified by their religious beliefs, should be supported in any way by universities. At the expense of a victim of some of the worst types of acts by those very same muslim believers.
That pretty much defines “uncivil.”
Tell us how Islam is inclusive and civil regarding women.
My FB post to Brandeis’ Pres. Lawrence:
You and those who rescinded the honorary degree and speaking invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali have besmirched the name and reputation of Brandeis University. You could have offered the apologists for Islam a chance to explain their treatment of women and, indeed, any person who is non-muslim. Instead, you rolled over for those who whined a bit or perhaps offered an infidel like yourself an endowment. A bad mark on Brandeis’ transcript!
At kbhattacharya:
What are you talking about?
1) Yes, we ARE in an intellectual war with Islam. Therefore, we are indeed at war with Islam.
2) We are ALSO in an intellectual war with Christianity, Judaism, and ALL faith-based religions. Therefore, we are also indeed at war with these faith-based religions.
3) Islam is not under siege from extremists; rather, the extremists are actually the ones CORRECTLY interpreting the (upsetting, crazy, and disturbing) literary and historical mandates of Islam.
4) Your entire post has ZERO to do with the issue at hand: Brandeis University has ZERO right to rescind its offer based on comments it finds offensive and/or upsetting. Period.
I’d disagree with #4.
I’d imagine that they have every right to withdraw their offer of an honorary degree (unless there’s some legal issue that we’re not aware of).
It did make them look pretty stupid when they decided to do so, though, pretty well demonstrating the difference between “could” and “should”!
What gives them such a right? Brandeis University has found nothing about AHA that would permit them to rescind the honor. Maybe you mean they have a legal right? That’s not what we’re discussing here. They have no moral right. Sorry, I thought that was implied in “ZERO right,” but in case it wasn’t, I meant “ZERO [moral] right” to rescind the offer. It is 100% immoral to do what Brandeis did, period.
My post:
What you have done to Ayaan Hirsi Ali in first announcing this honor for her and then taking it away for some supposed flaw in her behaviour is to dis-honor her and everything she stands for – more than this you have dishonored freedom of expression, woman’s rights, freedom from religious intolerance. You have insulted all the principles that have developed within our traditions of enlightened Western Democracy. You have sent a message out to any woman who might aspire to a university honor – “keep your mouth shut and don’t protest”. You have brought down shame upon Brandeis University and everything that it was ever set up to achieve.
My heart goes out to her – what a beautifully written response – she holds the high ground and I salute her.
The primary function of a President is to act in a way so as not to bring disrepute onto the institution. This guy has failed in a number of areas :-
Incompetence : Surely, before offering the degree, he researched the speeches and writings of the recipient in order to be fully aware of what he was about to do?
Cowardice : the impression is that he gave in to threats from outsiders and this drove him to reverse the decision.
Lack of Leadership Skills : Any leader worth his salt would have blagged his way out of the problem without embarrassing himself and the institution.
All in all, a bad show and one meriting a resignation.
There is more in a guest post by Rogier van Bakel today on Hemant’s blog.
Pertinent read. Yet again the first response to a gadfly is persecution.
Brandeis are foolish – for giving her the degree in the first place. Ali is a Breveik apologist and her statements about crushing Muslims are borderline genocidal.
Ali also strives to prevent Muslim women escaping dire straits from seeking asylum in the West. The womenfolk of Islam, she confides, are here to “outbreed” the non-Muslims – hardly the beliefs and actions of someone that interested in women’s rights.
I think you are profoundly confused about what Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s position actually is.
Fraid not, chief.
David Silverman (president of American Atheists) went to Brandeis and wrote this letter.