There is an outstanding scene in the movie With Fire and Sword in which the Polish voyevode (governor) Jarema Wisniowiecki is handed a message from the Cossack chief Bogdan Chmielnicki, with whom he is at war. Wisniowiecki tears it in half without even reading it. This is what we think should be done with “Tufts University: Outcome Of The Committee On Student Life’s Hearing Of Complaints Brought By David Dennis And The Muslim Student Association Against The Primary Source.” While we must make a very clear distinction between peaceful Muslims and Islamofascists (individuals who invoke Islam as an excuse to behave like fascists), Muslim Student Associations are clearly a nationwide source of trouble. We first became associated with them through an incident at our alma mater, the Pennsylvania State University.
http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=4491Joshua H. Stulman, the former Penn State art student whose anti-terrorism artwork was censored by Penn State, and who was labeled a racist propagandist for Israel by two professors, filed a Complaint in federal court last night, claiming violations of his First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and expression and of association, and that he was defamed by School of Visual Arts Director Charles Garoian.
Stulman created a series of paintings, “Portraits of Terror,” to address the issues of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism in Israel. Each of the paintings in the series is based on news articles, photographs and well-documented research.
Penn State officials and the Muslim Student Association advisor who professed concern about Stulman’s work refused Stulman’s repeated efforts to meet with them.
Penn State art professor Robert Yarber, also a named defendant in this lawsuit, labeled Stulman a racist propagandist who promoted Islamophobia, and said Israel was a terrorist state that had no right to exist.
Penn State administrator Garoian announced that he cancelled the exhibition of Stulman’s anti-terrorism art exhibit because of Penn State’s hate speech code and its policy on nondiscrimination and harassment. Garoian also falsely said that Stulman’s work was “commissioned” by Penn State Hillel and that Stulman’s artwork was used to advance Hillel’s “particular cultural and political” agenda.
Stulman is seeking damages and injunctive relief.
There was also a controversy in Wilkes-Barre PA, in which a local dentist questioned an “Islamic Awareness Event” at Wilkes-University. Wilkes students and faculty members promptly derided him as a racist, bigot, yadda, yadda, yadda in the Wilkes-Barre Times-Leader. Then we published a letter that showed how “Islam” is actually practiced in the Middle East, e.g. with Christians and Jews being compared to animals, and women treated as chattel property. The opposing side went completely silent, and we presume that the Muslim Student Association or whatever crawled back into its hole and pulled the hole in after it. It did not attempt to reply to our follow-up letter several months later.
This brings to mind the Earl of Uxbridge’s line from “Sharpe’s Waterloo:” “Once you get past the lance points, it’s like killing rabbits.” Although a lance obviously outreached a saber, skilled cavalrymen could parry it with near-certainty (as later described in then-Lieutenant Patton’s “Saber Exercise” of 1914), after which the lancer had no defense whatsoever. The same applies to the Left’s bleats of racism, intolerance, yadda, yadda, yadda. If you ignore them, you find that the Left is totally defenseless against the facts—and the contents of The Primary Source’s advertisement were indeed factual. This is obviously what the Muslim Student Association finds so offensive.
The incident at Tufts shows what now seems to be a standard modus operandi for these Muslim Student Associations. They find faculty members and administrators whom they can persuade to use their authority in a manner that brings widespread negative publicity—and, as shown by the Penn State story, possible legal consequences—on their universities. Tufts’ Committee on Student Life’s recent actions have already resulted in highly negative discussions of Tufts on the Internet and elsewhere.
Tufts’ Muslim Student Association also needs to understand the consequences of its actions to its own agenda. Instead of being confined to The Primary Source, the advertisement about which it complained is now being circulated all over the Internet. “Muslim Awareness Week” has become “(Militant) Islamic Awareness Month,” featuring a September 2001 calendar with the burning World Trade Center as the background. At least the one we posted last night qualifies “Islamic” with “militant;” someone else’s just said “Islamic.”
There is also an adage that, if the shoe fits, one must wear it. We do not take exception to signs in stores that warn that shoplifters will be prosecuted, because we are not thieves. The Primary Source’s advertisement did not condemn Muslims in general, but only militant “Muslims.”. It is no secret that so-called Islamic groups are parading around Europe and even North America proclaiming that Islam will one day rule the world, that Sharia (militant Islamic law) will be implemented, and that those who insult Islam must be beheaded. What The Primary Source said about militant “Islam’s” treatment of women and gay people was entirely true. Saudi “blood money” laws define women as half-human for wrongful death compensation purposes. Gay Palestinians often try to get INTO Israel to avoid being lynched by their own people, with the full approval of the Hamas-controlled government.
These are the “Muslims” whom the Primary Source was condemning, and the fact that the Muslim Student Association took exception suggests that the shoe might indeed fit many of its members. The same applies to Penn State’s Muslim Student Association, which apparently found artwork that condemned terroristic violence offensive. In any event, If Tufts’ Muslim Students Association feels “offended” by criticism of violence in the name of Allah, misogyny, femicide, terrorism, and persecution of gay people, its members might feel happier in Hamas-controlled Gaza, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or a similar location. When we last checked, the United States has no Berlin Wall to keep people who object to our Constitution, including its First Amendment, from leaving.
Regarding the Committee on Student Life’s finding of “psychological intimidation,” we felt “psychologically intimidated” by seeing flames pouring from the World Trade Center, and then seeing another jetliner crash into the second tower. We recommend that this committee’s members take a 5-minute “sensitivity training” course by viewing the following video: http://www.fdnylodd.com/BloodofHeroes.html
Now for the Committee on Student Life itself. The Primary Source’s side of the story at http://tuftsprimarysource.org/?p=647 says, “…the hearing was turned into a kangaroo court once again by CSL chair, Barbara Grossman. Grossman displayed complete disregard for fair judicial proceedings, allowing both complaining parties to drastically exceed their time limits and slander SOURCE staffers on dozens of occasions, while silencing the SOURCE in the middle of our questioning and comparing our actions to the “spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue.” It became apparent throughout the course of the hearing that certain members of CSL had already made up their minds to prioritize students’ hurt feelings over freedom of expression and meaningful intellectual diversity.”
We would like to get proof of this, e.g. through a written transcript or a recording of the hearing. In conjunction with http://tuftsprimarysource.org/index.php?cat=1, “The CSL is currently chaired by Professor Barbara Grossman. Professor Grossman is married to Steven Grossman, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and a former Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Massachusetts” It might be possible to use this incident to cost Obama, Clinton, or Edwards millions of votes next November.
All three of these individuals consorted openly with the prominent racist and anti-Semite Al Sharpton, and also with MoveOn.org—which was forced to take down its online Action Forum after publication of the vicious anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, and even racist hate speech that appeared there. If Grossman really conducted herself as described above—and we qualify this statement by acknowledging that we have read only The Primary Source’s side of the story—an argument could be made that the Democrats’ agenda is to silence their opponents in violation of the First Amendment. As it stands now, Sharpton and MoveOn will be the nominated Democrat’s “running mates” (or albatrosses around his/her neck). If what The Primary Source says about the conduct of the hearing is true, perhaps Ms. Grossman can become albatross #3.