THERE is a certain irony associated with the accusations of “hate speech” and “closed-mindedness.” Often the very people accusing others of this habit become so enraged at the perceived violation of civilized social discourse that the accusers carry out the very practices which they themselves condemn. Such is often the case with dissenters of speakers like David Horowitz. Those who accuse David Horowitz and other such speakers of prejudice must be careful not to fall victim to the same vice.
One thing must be very clear: The Burke Society invited David Horowitz to present his perspective strictly about Islamofascism, which we define as a manipulation of Islam by a terrorist elite for political gain, and to discuss why it is a danger to free peoples around the world. This was meant to be an event dedicated to the ideals that our group strives to promote, including free speech and preservation of natural rights, as was mentioned in our introduction of the speaker. After the Horowitz Freedom Center placed an advertisement in The Cavalier Daily — the content of which was unknown to us — we specifically called to tell him not to attack any groups on Grounds, and not to cause division at the University. The Burke Society does not agree with Horowitz on every position he has taken. In fact, a member of our executive board was the first person to question him on one of his fundamental arguments that evening. We invited him to discuss the inalienable rights that are being threatened by Islamofascism and how this threat should be addressed.
That said, it was troubling that some students, many of whom had never actually heard him speak before, were infuriated by his presence and certain that he would make bigoted pronouncements against Islam and whatever else they were “certain” he “hated.” He made it very clear that he was not there to attack any religion. He was also very explicit with his main theme: simply, that Islamofascism is a threat that needs to be addressed. Though his word choice could sometimes be twisted to seem racist and bigoted, he was not; most of the people who came to the event with open minds quickly realized this to be true.
Unfortunately, as Horowitz spoke, some students continued to hear what they had assumed he would say, and often refused to hear what he actually said. For instance, at one point he advocated a possible Israeli response to the continued bombardment of Sderot. When he used the phrase “carpet bomb” in his suggestion, some students read into his statement that he was advocating an attack upon and even an ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Although he was only referring to carpet bombing the small region from which the offensive rockets were being launched for the purpose of forcing the terrorists to move their rocket launchers away from the border, thereby placing Israeli cities out of range, that did not seem to matter. Though he explicitly explained himself later during Q & A, it is exactly this type of statement that has been used to accuse him of “hate mongering.”
Several people approached members of The Burke Society’s executive board in the days following the event. Many pointed out that after hearing most descriptions of Horowitz saturated with terms such as “hate-monger,” “evil” and “prejudiced,” they entered the event with the assumption that all they would hear was a speaker brought in to stir up controversy and to attack the religion of Islam. Based on these accounts, we are pleased to note that most of them left the event with their own, very different, opinions of Horowitz.
One individual in particular thought that Horowitz was loud and unyielding, but backed up his statements with facts and made interesting points. Horowitz’s personality, admittedly, was abrasive, and his word choice made many of his statements easy to misrepresent, but we believe that those in attendance with open minds would most likely confirm that Horowitz’s points, though sometimes controversial, were interesting and thought-provoking.
Horowitz’s visit and the ensuing reaction show that speakers ought to be heard out for what they actually say, and then questioned as necessary. The Muslim Students Association and Middle Eastern Leadership Council set excellent examples: They heard Horowitz through, and then asked thoughtful questions which showed they had listened to his argument. Such is the model we all ought to follow.
Appreciate the First Amendment; hear what every speaker has to say, and incorporate all that you hear in the forming of your own opinions. Don’t blindly believe everything you hear from pundits on television or from your fellow students. We should certainly be skeptical of everything we hear from a speaker, but we should be equally skeptical of the way they are portrayed by others. Students at the University are known as some of the brightest in the world, and we have achieved this record of excellence by listening to all perspectives and thinking for ourselves. Let us continue to do so.
Rick Eberstadt and Keenan Davis are members of the executive board of The Burke Society.
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | YesterdayThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
