OPINION & EDITORIAL
Visiting speaker divisive, futile
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Oliver Kiefer:
- Visiting speaker divisive, futile (October 25, 2007)
- GOP overlooks minority voters (October 11, 2007)
- Alcohol plan would be a sobering mistake (September 13, 2007)
- College Dems offer year of events, activism (September 6, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Barack Obama: Political St. Nick (October 15, 2007)
- Obama: Visionary, not fraudulent (September 19, 2007)
- Dissecting Obama-mania (March 12, 2007)
- Readers stop punching pillows, respond (September 21, 2007)
- Obama's charisma essential to victory (January 29, 2007)
by Oliver Kiefer
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Last week some claimed Santa Claus was coming to town in the guise of Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. This week, Madison played host to a visitor who did not invoke the spirit of hope and change that Mr. Obama or any other Democratic presidential candidate invokes.
This week, UW-Madison students were confronted by David Horowitz, a man whose ideas do little to unite or inspire our nation, but instead serve to divide our world into a dichotomy of “Us” vs. “Them.” While we fiercely defend Mr. Horowitz’s or any other individual’s right to express his or her ideas freely, we stand as one with those who protest his rhetoric of hate.
In response to Mr. Horowitz’s hateful speech and his denigrating nomenclature this week, the College Democrats have joined with the Muslim Student Association and other progressive-minded organizations around campus in declaring this to be a week of “Peace, not Prejudice.” We hope to combat the negative rhetoric of Mr. Horowitz with education and cultural understanding, in large part spearheaded by the Muslim students so grossly attacked by Mr. Horowitz’s words.
As we showed Monday night in our peaceful protest, the College Democrats are committed to combating prejudice in all forms while respecting and honoring the freedom of speech Mr. Horowitz and the College Republicans exercised in airing their views. However, in the spirit of robust discussion that is only possible given the assurance of free speech, we condemn Mr. Horowitz for his hypocrisy.
Mr. Horowitz lambasted progressives in this country (and in that room) for allegedly not caring about the religious extremism of Middle Eastern governments. But what about religious intolerance here at home? How can he, and the College Republicans who sponsored his lecture, criticize the governments in that region when they advocate for a hateful constitutional amendment that discriminates against homosexuals in Wisconsin? How can he speak about standing up for the rights of Middle Eastern women when he sponsors a speech by Ann Coulter as part of his “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week?”
The answer is that Mr. Horowitz is not out to liberate women and moderates from their oppressors. He is merely a diluted man with a loud voice trying to spread hatred and fear across this nation. In 2001, Ms. Coulter stated that, “I think [women] should be armed, but should not vote.” His supposed effort to give moderate Muslims a voice in their governments has lead Mr. Horowitz to align himself with one of the neoconservative movement’s most despicable voices.
We are facing serious and sometimes frightening issues both at home and abroad. Overblown, under-informed, and hypocritical rhetoric does nothing more than distract us from the challenges at hand. What is troubling about “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” is that it distracts us from the serious conversation we should be having about our national security and foreign policy as a whole. What is most troubling, however, is that it alienates and demonizes millions of innocent Americans, and millions upon millions of innocent citizens of the world based upon their religious beliefs.
Is the nation of Israel under constant threat from deranged leaders like President Ahmadinejad of Iran? Yes. Does the United States have an obligation to defend freedom throughout the world? Absolutely. But why did that obligation lead us into a premeditated war in Iraq, and where is that same sense of obligation when it comes to stopping genocide in Sudan?
While we condemn the childish antics and hypocrisy of Mr. Horowitz, we commend the vast majority of students who respectfully protested his ideas and attended his speech. We especially commend the behavior of the Muslim Student Association, who respectfully sat through the entirety of Mr. Horowitz’s speech, only to embarrass and frustrate him during the question and answer portion of Monday’s event by simply asking and answering questions.
From start to finish, Monday evening was a celebration of the First Amendment. Beginning with the protest outside, students assembled peacefully and made their voices heard through the glass doors that separated us from the people inside the Union, waiting for the doors to open. Even as UWPD lead a police dog through the protesters, the passion and resolve remained.
When infamous former lecturer Kevin Barrett interrupted Mr. Horowitz shortly after his speech began, the largely liberal crowd booed him out of the theatre to the scattered chant of “asshole.” In stark contrast to the respect that the vast majority in the audience showed him, Mr. Horowitz later responded by reducing his comments to the level of the most immature of his critics. “The stupidity here is mind-boggling,” he quipped during the question and answer period.
His frustration was evident as his earlier denunciations of extremism gave way to an extremism all his own. He underestimated the maturity and dignity of the students of UW-Madison, and Monday night, he and his ideas left our campus empty-handed.
Oliver Kiefer (oliver.kiefer@wiscollegedems.org) is chair of the University of Wisconsin College Democrats.
Anonymous (October 25, 2007 @ 7:57am):
"when they advocate for a hateful constitutional amendment that discriminates against homosexuals in Wisconsin?"
Kiefer, get your damn facts straight. The college republicans did not advocate a position on the marriage amendment last fall. Don't you remember all the fervor over it?
http://badgerherald.com/oped/2006/10/17/republicans_lack_sta.php
Anonymous (October 25, 2007 @ 8:58am):
Oliver,
How about you actually address the substance of his remarks? "He's a racist, a bigot, a hypocrit, etc." If you want to call him names that is right, but for crying out loud actually address what he said if it is so wrong. Do you deny that extremism exists?
You sound rather condescending when you thank the MSA for behaving so well. What, you think it's hard to be respectful? You also act as though the CRs were responsible for sending the police dog through the protest. How about knowing that the CRs had no control over the UWPD. They said that they had received threats about the event and were acting accordingly. If you want to blame someone, blame those who called in the threats.
Anonymous (October 25, 2007 @ 9:20am):
as a gay student on campus, i can tell you that the CRs silence on the issue was noticeable. especially when the college dems were out in force with fair wisconsin opposing that crappy amendment.
also, it's kind of interesting to point out that 59 of the 60 republicans in the assembly back in '06 voted for the ban, and the one who didn't was run out of office by his own party.
if you want people to actually think that the CRs didn't support it, you should have actually said something. enough calling on Muslim students to denounce terrorism, why aren't you denouncing the biggotry of your party?
Anonymous (October 25, 2007 @ 9:40am):
"a hateful constitutional amendment that discriminates against homosexuals"
So where is your concern about Moslems murdering homosexuals for religious reasons? Pushing a stone wall over onto to someone to kill them is a bit more egregious than "hateful speech".
Anonymous (October 25, 2007 @ 10:14am):
"But why did that obligation lead us into a premeditated war in Iraq, and where is that same sense of obligation when it comes to stopping genocide in Sudan?"
-Our interest in Iraq stems from the United States geo-political and economic interests in the Middle East. Our interest in promoting democracy in a hostile region is a legitimate one, while our economic interest in oil muddies the war in the eyes of many leftists. We are not in Darfur because the United States has no legitimate interest in the region. Africa is not a hostile region, nor does it possess the clear economic interest of a region such as the Middle East. Do you suggest that we expand our war efforts into Darfur to prevent genocide, while you candidly dismiss our efforts to protect our economic and political interests in the middle east?
Anonymous (October 25, 2007 @ 10:15am):
you should get your facts straight, anon.
they weren't public about it because they aren't completely stupid, but everyone knows the CR leadership was on board with it. the GOP hates gay people, this isn't something new, and it isn't a disputable fact.
lavonne dirksen, former CR vice chair, opined in favor of it in the herald - the *only* pro-amendment piece to appear in either of the campus papers last fall.
damn it. don't you hate when facts get in the way?
Anonymous (October 25, 2007 @ 10:49am):
"...and his denigrating nomenclature this week..."
You certainly have a way with words, Oliver.
Anonymous (October 25, 2007 @ 12:09pm):
7:57: Yes. I suppose all those chalkings showed up of their own accord. Their legislators are the ones who forced the issue, their gubernatorial candidate supported it, and their President does too.
Anonymous (October 25, 2007 @ 12:55pm):
"stopping genocide in Sudan"
China gets oil from Sudan and has blocked all attempts to stop the Arab Muslims from murdering the black Muslim males and raping the black Muslim women.
Put MSA on the job - maybe the moderate Muslims can stop the Muslim madness in the Sudan.
Anonymous (October 25, 2007 @ 3:44pm):
"as a gay student on campus, i can tell you that the CRs silence on the issue was noticeable. especially when the college dems were out in force with fair wisconsin opposing that crappy amendment.
also, it's kind of interesting to point out that 59 of the 60 republicans in the assembly back in '06 voted for the ban, and the one who didn't was run out of office by his own party.
if you want people to actually think that the CRs didn't support it, you should have actually said something. enough calling on Muslim students to denounce terrorism, why aren't you denouncing the biggotry of your party?"
The CRs were divided on the issue, with quite a few for and quite a few against. I wouldn't expect the Democratic Party to take a unified position on Iraq or the GOP to take a unified position on immigration for exactly the same reason (and they haven't). Being a big tent political organization sometimes means remaining indifferent to issues, even extremely important issues, but that didn't stop individual CRs from taking a stand.
Personally, I am a pro-life, pro-gun conservative, who was on the CR Executive Board at the time of the amendment vote, and I opposed the amendment (plenty of other CRs did as well):
http://studentsforafairwisconsin.blogspot.com/
"Yesterday, David Lapidus, a respected, outspoken conservative student at UW-Madison, wrote an entry on his blog, Letters in Bottles, describing why he is voting 'No' on November 7. You may remember David from Students for a Fair Wisconsin's 'Voices for No' Campaign at UW-Madison earlier this semester.
He writes that he supports civil unions for gay and lesbian couples:"
-David Lapidus
Anonymous (October 25, 2007 @ 3:58pm):
Horowitz runs from debate
www.yousefmunayyer.blogspot.com
Anonymous (October 25, 2007 @ 4:00pm):
i was on the CR exec board and I voted against the ban. suck on that one libs
Anonymous (October 25, 2007 @ 4:31pm):
"Africa is not a hostile region"
Well...considering Al Qaeda is now in Africa recruiting because we didn't finish the job in Afghanistan and instead went to Iraq...this isn't entirely true.
Anonymous (October 25, 2007 @ 4:57pm):
don't you realize that by still talking about horowitz 4 days later with 3 pieces here and more in the cardinal you're just helping the stupid crs get more unwarranted publicity? just ignore them and maybe they'll go away. we don't need them here anyway. the world doesn't need them.
Anonymous (October 25, 2007 @ 11:00pm):
Wow David, way to NOT be constantly self-promotional.
Anonymous (October 26, 2007 @ 2:38am):
"Wow David, way to NOT be constantly self-promotional."
Teh? The only purpose of this "self-promotion" was to dismiss a falsity and promote the truth. As another anon posted, I am not the only person who contradicts the statement that the CRs unanimously supported the ban. There were many other CRs who opposed it as well.
Damned if you do (you get called an arrogant self-promoter), damned if you don't (people keep believing that CR support was unanimously for the ban) I guess.
-David Lapidus
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
