Search News


Browse Archives

News

Saint Louis U. Blocks David Horowitz Event

September 29, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

David Horowitz is getting backing from his usual critics after Saint Louis University sought to change or block (depending on who you are talking to) a planned lecture he was scheduled to give next week on the campus.

The event -- "An Evening with David Horowitz: Islamo-Fascism Awareness and Civil Rights" -- was organized by the College Republications and Young America's Foundation, which say they were banned from hosting Horowitz. The university denies that it banned Horowitz, but acknowledges that it told the students that they should modify the event.

"University officials expressed concern that the program in its current form could be viewed as attacking another faith and seeking to cause derision on campus," said a university statement. "Believing that this was not their intent, University officials offered the students several suggestions to modify their program in a way that could achieve their aims while remaining true to the university's Catholic, Jesuit mission and values. Among the suggestions was that the students engage scholars with expertise on historical and theological aspects of Islam to help prepare their program."

The university says that it cannot be said to have banned the talk because it was still in discussions with student groups about the issue when they decided not to continue the negotiations.

Horowitz's talks about Islam and what he calls "Islamo-Fascism" have been controversial, with many saying that he distorts history in a way that denigrates all Muslims. But he is also a popular speaker with conservative groups, who regularly bring him to campuses to speak. On some campuses, his appearances prompt protests, but at other campuses he ends up largely speaking to those who agree with him.

Cary Nelson, national president of the American Association of University Professors, issued a statement on the association's Web site, denouncing the university in harsh terms.

"Now that Saint Louis University has cancelled a scheduled October speech by conservative activist David Horowitz, it joins the small group of campuses that are universities in name only," Nelson wrote.

"The free exchange of ideas is not just a comforting offshoot of higher education; it defines the fundamental nature of the enterprise. As the AAUP has long asserted, all recognized campus groups have the right to invite any speakers they wish. The College Republicans exercised that right. There should not have been a mechanism in place for the administration to review the offer to Horowitz and withdraw it. The administration’s claim to support academic freedom has been hollowed out by the practical and symbolic effects of this one public act," said Nelson. "A campus that enforces ideological conformity supports indoctrination, not education."

Nelson and Horowitz have long criticized one another's views of higher education. Likewise, another Horowitz critic -- John K. Wilson -- criticized Saint Louis University on his blog, College Freedom. Wilson quoted from exchanges between the student organizers and Horowitz, which suggest that the university's decision was based on opposition to Horowitz's views.

"If the administration at SLU disagrees with Horowitz (and I hope they do), then they are free to express their opposition," he wrote. "They are free to attend Horowitz's lecture and criticize him. They are free to boycott Horowitz's lecture and denounce him. They are free to invite a speaker every day of the week to come to campus and refute what Horowitz says (I'll volunteer to be first in line). But they are not free, in any university worthy of the name, to suppress a speaker because he is offensive and wrong."

Horowitz said via e-mail that university officials had suggested that he calls as Muslims fascists, which Horowitz said was a "gross and demonstrable lie." He called the university's action "raw censorship" but said he was "pleased to see the AAUP defending me, as they should."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Saint Louis U. Blocks David Horowitz Event

  • CANCELLATION
  • Posted by Cary Nelson , President at AAUP on September 29, 2009 at 7:45am EDT
  • An avowed willingness to schedule an "alternative" event is, of course, a standard tactic in canceling the event that has actually been scheduled. It is not acceptable to insist that campus groups change a lecture to a panel discussion, add speakers with different views, or otherwise restructure an invited lecture. Campus groups do not have to invite speakers with whom they disagree. Nor can they be subjected to reeducation sessions aimed at altering their views or their plans.

    Cary Nelson

  • Avoiding Derision?
  • Posted by Keith Johnson on September 29, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • ("University officials expressed concern that the program in its current form could be viewed as attacking another faith and seeking to cause derision [sic]on campus," said a university statement.)

    Whether the said officials were seeking to avoid divisiveness or derision, they certainly obtained the exact opposite. The law of unintended consequences strikes again.

  • Posted by Paul on September 29, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • It's been a rough time of it for freedoms of speech and press over the past few months in academe. First Yale University Press removed the controversial cartoons from Jytte Klausen's new book for fear that terrorists the world over would start scouring academic presses for material that would offend them. (They'd have a tough time knowing where to start in that arena!) Now, a speaker who criticizes political Islam gets banned, or at the very least hassled into altering his speech, at St. Louis University. A tip for Horowitz: simply alter the title of your address to "Bush-Fascism Awareness and Civil Rights" and you'll have to turn down scores of speaking requests in university venues.

  • Posted by G. Tod Slone on September 29, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • Bravo to the AAUP for supporting high-profile Horowitz. BUT what about low-profile cases? It did not come to my support when I was evicted from my office mid-semester at Fitchburg State College because an anonymous faculty member expressed fear of my presence, nor did it come to my support when I informed Nelson that my comments regarding one of his articles were censored here on Inside Higher Ed.
    G. Tod Slone, ed.
    www.theamericandissident.org

  • G. Todd Sloan
  • Posted by Curious on September 29, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • How do you know your comments were censored? Sometimes my own comments just don't, for whatever technical reason, go through, as when I mistype my email address or something.

    To IHE: What is your screening policy?

  • hyperbolize much?
  • Posted by Chris on September 29, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • I teach at SLU and I can assure you it is not a university in name only. The administration made a bad decision but don't insult all students, faculty and staff. This is one incident and this university has existed since the 1820's.

  • My thoughts
  • Posted by Muslim on September 29, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • As an American Muslim, I am deeply offended at Horowitz's inability to seperate the religion of Islam from political and geographical historical and present unresolved conflicts. I appreciate the university's stand and sensitivity to Muslims. Very few institutions are able to stand up to the Jewish Lobbyists and all that it entails. The students should have continued to negotiate and not give up so that had an excuse as to why Horowitz could not attend. Alternately, the university should have had an additional event with Islamic scholars who could present a more accurate information on the actual religion which is totally opposed to all of the horrors being perpetrated on innocent human beings by ignorant people who believe they are acting on Islamic principles.

  • rights, and effective actions
  • Posted by long-time prof on September 29, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • First, yes, students have academic freedom as well as professors, so they can invite a speaker even though that speaker's talk may offend people.

    Second, though, academic freedom does not mean freedom from criticism. The experts on Islam in St. Louis know already what kinds of things Horowitz says, and can, in line with freedom of speech, go to the talk and ask questions in the question period, or pass out leaflets or carry signs near the event venue with their refutations or with key questions.

    Third, the organizers should allow questions after the talk from the audience, in line with the respect for free speech that they uphold.

    Fourth, if the university doesn't have a course on Islam -- its history, philosophy, and theology -- it should. If it already does, good for it.

  • academic freedom & free speech
  • Posted by jayvee on September 29, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • It's good for conservatives to be reminded that academic freedom, and the First Amendment, are there to protect them too.

  • The Administration Is Insulting SLU
  • Posted by John K. Wilson at collegefreedom.org on September 29, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • Chris, I didn't insult SLU by calling it a university in name only. I wrote, "They are not free, in any university worthy of the name, to suppress a speaker because he is offensive and wrong." I think SLU is a worthy institution. And that's precisely why its administration should be ashamed of itself for banning speakers (and equally ashamed of pretending that they're not banning speakers, but only offering suggestions). I hope that faculty, students, and staff will speak out about this and criticize the administration and change its policies.

  • Posted by Sode on September 29, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • Brave SLU Decision. What would have happened if someone decided to talk about Jesus in a bad way. These people are just hate mongers. SLU I am proud as an alumni.

  • Posted by Assistant Professor on September 29, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • To A Muslim: It is not the university's responsibility to provide an alternative viewpoint to a student group's presentation. If the Muslim student group wanted to present a few Imams and have a discussion of Mohammed's Ghandi-like pacifism, and how the Koran preaches perfect legal equality between the sexes, then they are free to do so.

    To Sode: Critiques of Christianity can be heard in any reasonable theology class. Many invited speakers, such as Richard Dawkins, also critique religions in general.

    Horowitz is not attacking Muslims, only the subset of Muslims who hold racist and imperialist beliefs. Call me a Liberal, but I tend to look down on racism and imperialism, don't you?

  • Posted by Prof Ethan on September 29, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • Bravo to you, Assistant Professor.  You hit the nail on the head.  And shame on USL. 

     More broadly, as we see with the Copenhagen Cartoon controversy both in 2006 and now in 2009, the existence of large groups that do NOT believe in the Enlightenment social compact that in order to have a free society you must accept that anything can be criticized (including aspects of your religion), and which instead react with violence and intimidation to any criticism of themselves and their beliefs, presents governments (including USL) with a dilemma.  The fact is that the first duty of any government (including USL) is to maintain law and order.  And the answer of governments to the existence of extremist Muslims (not all Muslims, extremist Muslims) is increasingly to maintain law and order by cracking down on freedom of speech.  We see this in the Netherlands, in Canada, at Yale University Press, and now at USL.  Note that what started out as pleas for multi-cultural tolerance (still employed by the USL bureaucracy) is quickly turning into arguments based almost purely on fear. This fear is not paranoid, it is reality based--ask Theo van Gogh.  It is based on the maxim of some Muslim extremists:   "Don't criticize us for being violent or we'll kill you."

    In these circumstances and under these ruthless pressures, however, we must make the difficult decision to stand up for our own traditional beliefs in freedom of speech, however dangerous that may be.  Free speech has always been the province of courageous humans--that's what Brandeis said in Whitney v. California (1927).

  • For once I agree with Cary Nelson,
  • Posted by DFS on September 29, 2009 at 2:00pm EDT
  • And the rest of you doubtful 'academics' out there should just get a grip and embrace true academic freedom and freedom of association.

    Why not just try and engage David Horowitz on his stated ideas? Just wait for the statements, scholars. Perhaps he may surprise you, if not impress you.

    But, that would be academically expected. Oops -- I'm sorry. That's not allowed at SLU, now. Perhaps instead we'll find 'scholars' from some other place.

  • yeah right
  • Posted by Peterk on September 29, 2009 at 6:30pm EDT
  • "As an American Muslim, I am deeply offended at Horowitz's inability to seperate the religion of Islam from political and geographical historical and present unresolved conflicts. I appreciate the university's stand and sensitivity to Muslims."

    unfortunately you don't understand the first thing about academic freedom. I hear all too often Muslims here in America complaining that the Islam-fascists don't represent Islam and yet your first reaction is to condemn Mr. Horowitz. I guess the terror plots recently revealed in Dallas, Denver, North Carolina, Chicago had nothing to do with the 'religion of peace' but were instead just misguided youths claiming to be Muslims.

    as an American I am highly offended that a university devoted to academic freedom decided to cancel Mr. Horowitz's presence.

  • Academic Freedom
  • Posted by William Calin , Graduate Research Professor at University of Florida on September 29, 2009 at 8:15pm EDT
  • Once again Cary Nelson is right. Again he comes down on the right side. I disagree with much that David Horowitz says and writes. However, I note that he has always been a strong supporter of academic freedom. This dates back so many years ago; I remember his memorable appearance at my university, hosted by the First Amendment Coalition, defending academic freedom. Speaking as a Christian, I maintain that our Enlightenment values, which include freedom of speech and expression, must always trump the self-proclaimed sensitivities of religious groups.

  • SLU doesn't allow the Vagina Monologues either
  • Posted by SLU is Restrictive all around on September 30, 2009 at 5:30am EDT
  • SLU has also banned the Vagina Monologues for several years now. They're basically afraid of anything that could be considered controversial and are always trying to cover their behinds.

    http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/14/support-v-day-at-st-louis-university/

  • Censorship and Anonymity
  • Posted by G. Tod Slone on September 30, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • How can I possibly respond to somebody who signs anonymously, CURIOUS? I don't even know if you'll be back to read this. WHY do so many academics fear posting their real names on an academic website? WHY? What is wrong with the Academy if it is producing so many fearful academics? I have proof that I was censored on IHE... correspondence from the editor, as well as from another person who has experienced censorship here. Do you want to see the proof? Will this message even be posted? If you want the proof, contact me at todslone@yahoo.com using your real name.

  • Okay, I'm going to bite at that apple.
  • Posted by DFS on October 3, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT
  • "As an American Muslim, I am deeply offended at Horowitz's inability to seperate the religion of Islam from political and geographical historical and present unresolved conflicts. I appreciate the university's stand and sensitivity to Muslims. Very few institutions are able to stand up to the Jewish Lobbyists and all that it entails."

    As an American, you should be more deeply offended at yourself by not putting forward any mitigation of America towards actions against "Muslims."

    I, for one, am offended by you. America, in the last 20 years, has gone to war and lost non-Muslim American citizens in: Bosnia (in defense of Muslims), Somalia (in defense of Muslims), Iraq (in defense of Muslims), Afghanistan (in defense of Muslims), and other venues you don't know about, probably because Hezbollah didn't email to you our actions.

    Besides, America has been the last bastion of true freedom in your face because we don't believe in female mutilation, female apartheid, nor female subjugation of any kind, and eventually we will not tolerate any religion within our shores which mandates separation of males and females when offering prayers to God.

    There will come a day against you and your ilk who wake up each day and immediately try to decide what America has done wrong yesterday in the little, itty-bitty world of you, so that you can have some purpose for each day besides improving the human race. This day which will come will be known as Darwinism's last laugh on your ass.

  • Am I in a dream?
  • Posted by SLUprof on October 5, 2009 at 5:15am EDT
  • In what universe do you people exist where hacks who have not published any credible research receive the same amount of academic respect as scholars who have devoted their lives to conducting real research that is peer-reviewed and open to intellectual debate? Why should someone like Horowitz be given the time of day? The issue is NOT academic freedom, but whether pseudo-academics have a place in academia.

    Horowitz has managed to build an empire on the internet by clever usage of websites that make his presence seem all the more pervasive. Guess what...anybody can make multiple websites. Horowitz lists dozens of books on his list of publications. Guess what...anybody can self publish (or at least create a front publisher) whatever they want. The guys deserves no respect as a scholar.

    I am embarrassed for the other universities who have hosted Horowitz. They have failed Philosophy 100: just because someone has an opinion does not make the opinion valid. People who want to argue the validity of their opinion do so in forums that allow for real intellectual debate, not hyperbolic diatribes on the internet.

    And what gets lost in the discussion over "The Vagina Monologues" is that the issue at the time was that SLU wanted the relevant organizations on campus to do something new regarding women's violence and not host the same event year after year. The University had held "The Vagina Monologues" for several years in a row without a problem.

  • Disgusted alumni
  • Posted by Disgusted Alumni on October 5, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • To those who misrepresent Horowitz's views, shame on you. You are petty pseudo-intellectuals who choose not to seek the truth. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    To my alma mater's administration: Not another dime until Horowitz speaks.

  • Posted by SLUAlumni on October 5, 2009 at 3:45pm EDT
  • SLUProf, since when did the Vagina Monologues, with scenes depicting rape, contribute to the debate? It's one thing to allow them on campus, I'm all for it, it's another thing to subsidize the production.

  • SLUProf
  • Posted by Mike on October 10, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • "In what universe do you people exist where hacks who have not published any credible research receive the same amount of academic respect as scholars who have devoted their lives to conducting real research that is peer-reviewed and open to intellectual debate? Why should someone like Horowitz be given the time of day? The issue is NOT academic freedom, but whether pseudo-academics have a place in academia."

    I have to disagree. In THIS universe, people exist who have an opinion and are free to express it, regardless of whether they meet your idea of intellectual ability or not. Horowitz SHOULD be given the time of day because we are a TOLERANT and BENEVOLENT society, not a dictatorship. If you want to be condescending and petty, DO IT IN YOUR OWN LIFE, not in a public university.

    Meeting a peer review these days is becoming synonymous with adhering to a particular political ideology and you of all people should have the self awareness to realize it.

  • To G. Todd Sloan and DFS
  • Posted by Curious on October 27, 2009 at 8:00am EDT
  • Hope you see this. Just wanted to make sure you had verified from the editors that you were censored. I get censored often, but I haven't verified what's tech glitch and what's not. That's why I asked about screening policy.

    I sympathize with your desire that we all not use psuedonyms. I work for a for-profit. I can assure you, their compliance officers (corporate lawyers) monitor the web. I've known folks who were fired for blogging and/or offering "constructive criticism" of a certain branch of the private sector. I have to be paronoid because they are. The education market/racket is growing highly competitive, often in a backstabbing way that is, in my view, corrosive to education.

    DFS: To challenge your excellent points above: Against what has America been defending Muslims? Does "America" (with American taxpayer funds) defend much anything other than global corporate interests? Should we beware the propaganda (i.e. "defending national interests") they put out about that? In the old days nations defended their land. Today it's their "interests." If those interests are imperial can we not understand how both mainstream and fundamentalist Islam would have some objections. Because of the former's strong ethical appeal, I'm inclined to take those objections seriously.