That view was seen again — this time with threats of violence — when a well-known Muslim professor, from a respected American university, said he would like to publish an article together about young Muslims involved in terrorism, but that he was afraid to use the word “terrorism” because he and his family could be harmed or ostracized, and his daughter might never find a husband.
So despite agreeing on the theme, we eventually had to agree that there was no way we could report any of the findings without placing him in danger. To avoid publishing lies, we chose to abandon the project. He feared for his life. In America.
Another odd welcome took place at the University of Florida in Gainesville, at a talk on the participation of women and children in terrorism.
The audience was assured that, as a criminologist, I would not be discussing any political issues, but instead would talk about the psychological effects of gender discrimination and how they related to increasing radical Islamic terrorism.
There were two short films first, one from Pakistan and the other from Iraq, on how young girls were tempted into marriage and “sacrifice” (shahada); and on the massive use of women and children in the terrorism industry.
But a few minutes into the talk, a group of students (judging from how they looked, not all of them may have been students) walked towards the stage and sat in the front row.
The woman wore traditional Islamic dress, with her face fully covered; the men wore jeans and torn leather jackets. After a short while, they stood up, turned around, and unbuttoned their outer clothing to reveal pro-jihad and anti-Israel signs, which they held up; they then began shouting, waving their signs and jeering at the students, who by then seemed terrified into silence.
The group had probably come to disrupt a “demonic” Israeli, and because speaking about terrorism upset them.
They would be better off, I said, demonstrating in Syria, where terrorists were gassing and slaughtering women and children.
That was not, apparently, what they had expected. They looked at each other, then hurried out of the hall.
When the audience settled down, a student asked if I had been scared. I explained that after more than twenty years of going to prisons in Israel to interview serial terrorist murderers, I had worse things to contend with than people interrupting my talks.
They explained that such tactics were often used there, and that most of the time the lecture was cut short and people went home.
So, under the cloak of free speech, gangs of thugs in North America have apparently been silencing free speech in many universities. Where previously pluralism and freedom of thought were all-important, they were spreading hate propaganda.
It was unsettling that it took someone from a foreign country to preserve their right to know, but what was really frightening was seeing the erosion of academic freedom in such a great democracy. Do speakers now need security details? Will the academic calendar be arranged to suit the fancy of whoever is trying to silence opinions that they might disagree with? Is education now about instilling fear?
Will self-declared jihadis and other “speech police” decide what is, and what is not, discussed and taught in Western universities? Where are the university authorities? Why do they not simply expel whoever is intolerant of academic values? No one is forcing these students to be there. They may be enjoying their free speech, but they are not allowing others to enjoy their free speech. The first amendment right should not extend to depriving others of their first amendment right.