The Cavalier Daily
Serving the University Community Since 1890

Sowing the seeds of hatred

Speakers like David Horowitz do more harm than good by focusing on hate instead of education

I  DON’T know about you, but I felt pretty worthless after missing conservative activist David Horowitz’s talk on campus last Wednesday about “Islamofascism.” I couldn’t sleep soundly knowing that I had failed to “stop the jihad on campus” waged by the renegade Muslims Students Association. I couldn’t walk around campus freely because I hadn’t learned how to distinguish a “good Muslim” from a “bad Muslim” (does it have to do with turbans or beards?). And I didn’t attend my classes because I couldn’t ask Horowitz which 5 percent of my professors were not “on the left.”

There was something missing in my life. After hours spent wallowing in depression, I decided to fill this void by contacting the sponsors of the event to watch a taped version. The conservative Burke Society gleefully responded. And so my Friday night was spent partying it up with the bearded master.

Horowitz did not disappoint. He condemned the Arab culture as “sick,” “racist” and “misogynist.” He insisted that the “spineless” Israelis “carpet-bomb” Palestinian territory to free themselves of daily missile strikes.

Lest anyone dare question Horowitz’s expertise, he drew a circular map of part of the Middle East, quoted hateful Islamic statements (how come we don’t have those in the Bible or Torah?), and asked why moderate Muslims did not condemn the resistance movements Hamas and Hezbollah (just like the Israelis used to condemn their terrorist Prime Minister Menachem Begin).

Enough. By now, you can see why Horowitz has two bodyguards and has been the victim of flying cream pies and disruptive boos. His modus operandi is very much like the very terrorists he condemns. He prefers inciting over educating. He wraps somewhat legitimate premises in a cloak of hatred. And Horowitz’s main strategy is a page straight out of any insurgent manual: Anger your opponent to force a corresponding overreaction that weakens his hand and strengthens yours. Reactions are as, if not more, important than actions themselves.

Hence, those protesting Horowitz’s hate-mongering sermons ought to focus their efforts on measured critiques and educational initiatives, rather than the blood-stirring denunciations or radical protests Horowitz hopes to elicit. University students did a decent job at being measured at the event but much more could have been done to counter the bearded bigot’s bluster.

Like most hateful ideologues, Horowitz is successful because his rice bowl of hate speech contains a lone grain of truth. In this case: Islamic extremism exists. If you don’t acknowledge this lone grain, Horowitz dismisses you as a leftist or an Islamofascist. So the first two questioners did well to accept the premise that suicide bombings and terrorism were a problem, before asking why Horowitz then generalized about a monolithic Arab or Palestinian culture. This robbed him of cheap rhetorical tactics and forced him to engage them on substance.

Just as the radical Islamic clerics he detests denounce America, Horowitz also rails on about Islamic extremism in a deterministic way without critically examining why it results. It makes for a rousing speech but a poor history lesson. So graduate student Arsalan Khan’s question about what drives people to these radical religious interpretations was a good, direct assault against this approach.

Horowitz predictably sidestepped the question with a workaday rant against “Muslim fanatics.” But no amount of empty anger could fill the gaping substantive hole in his argument. Palestinian suicide bombings grow out of grievances and economic dislocation caused by Israeli occupation. The seeds of radical Islam were partly sowed by America’s support of Middle Eastern dictatorships and Israel. Saying Arab culture or Palestinian culture causes extremism is an insulting oversimplification.

But although Horowitz struggled to answer the last query, measured questions are only half the answer against ideologies of intolerance. Muslim Students Association President Alla Hassan’s e-mail to members urging them to “make sure you stay calm and that you don’t get emotional” was indeed a pragmatic step. Overreactions would have merely pumped air into Horowitz’s empty and laughable argument that MSA is affiliated with Islamic extremism. But the organization could have gone much farther.

Americans for Informed Democracy, which has a strong record of promoting inter-faith relations in college campuses, sent out a whole list of events to colleges that they could fund to promote awareness about Islam. This ranged from movie screenings about American Muslims, interfaith discussions, panels of experts, benefit concerts and art exhibits. The idea is to shift the focus from merely responding to negative propaganda to “responding with alternative programming to promote U.S.-Muslim relations.” MSA and other organizations should look to AID as a potential source to counter hate speech instead of merely responding or ignoring it.

All pretenses aside, speeches like Horowitz’s are ultimately designed to sow hate rather than implant knowledge. While students have the right to invite a hate monger, those who disagree have a corresponding obligation to ensure that his message of hate is actively countered rather than passively or measuredly engaged. Empty vessels always make the most noise. But the ones with substance ought to drown them out with concrete arguments.

Prashanth Parameswaran’s column usually appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at p.parameswaran@cavalierdaily.com.

Comments

Latest Podcast

Today, we sit down with both the president and treasurer of the Virginia women's club basketball team to discuss everything from making free throws to recent increased viewership in women's basketball.