While listening to different opinions about Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week (IFAW), I couldn’t help but think of the old cliche, “two ships passing in the night.” Except in this case, there were at least four or five ships, there was a lunar eclipse happening, and everyone was sailing in different oceans.
Most of this is due to a lack of direct engagement between the Bruin Republicans and the groups opposing the week, as well as the Bruin Republicans’ association with a national movement that overshadows their local concerns.
As of writing this, the Daily Bruin Editorial Board, the Undergraduate Students Association Council (USAC) and the UCLA Muslim Students Association (MSA) have publicly condemned IFAW as being misleading, aggressive and even dangerous. Yet, according to David Lazar, a graduate economics student, chairman of Bruin Republicans and former Daily Bruin Viewpoint columnist, none of the aforementioned groups ever contacted the Bruin Republicans before making such statements, and all of these condemnations were issued within the first two days of IFAW’s events, before their keynote speaker even got a chance to open his mouth.
I do understand the temptation to lambaste IFAW before it even began ““ it’s an effort supported by such revered icons of logic and reason as Ann Coulter, and it is often used as a front to rally support for President George W. Bush’s disastrous foreign policy decisions.
“I would hope that people would evaluate our arguments by what we’re doing at UCLA” and not the national effort, Lazar told me, who pointed out that Coulter is not someone he would choose to speak at UCLA.
My suggestion to the Bruin Republicans: Be more original with the name of your events.
This does not, however, excuse us from the hassle of evaluating the Bruin Republicans’ arguments based on their merit, no matter how inflammatory they may be.
For instance, Lazar expressed concern that MSA has hosted Amir Abdel-Malik Ali, the imam of a mosque in Oakland, as a speaker at UCLA more than once, despite the fact that he is an outspoken anti-Semite and claims to celebrate Hamas, a terrorist organization famous for its suicide bombings. Earlier this year, an MSA board member acknowledged Ali’s appearance was inappropriate. The Bruin Republicans obviously do have some legitimate concerns, even one they apparently share with MSA.
So why won’t MSA respond?
Mohammad Tajsar, the external affairs director of MSA and a fourth-year English and comparative literature student, said, “We didn’t want to legitimize the event by engaging in counter-programming.” He also noted that the context of the event makes it uncomfortable to directly engage with the promoters, and “does not facilitate a fair dialogue.”
I can understand his discomfort ““ being accused of supporting terrorism is not a friendly gesture. Yet I’m sure many Jewish students felt the same way when MSA decided to host an “Anti-Zionism” program on campus a few years ago. They deliberately used a term that has, rightly or wrongly, been associated with anti-Semitism, instead of playing nice and naming it the “We-cordially-request-that-Jewish-people-do-not-have-a-homeland-in-Palestine” program.
At some point, all of us will be a member of a group subject to defamatory rhetoric, but that does not mean the best response is to allow it to go unchallenged.
It is our academic duty to directly deal with these issues. A public debate mediated by a neutral party should occur as soon as possible in order to stop the seemingly baseless pointing of fingers.
Lazar informed me that MSA has rebuffed the Bruin Republicans’ requests for debates in the past, though they did not ask them to participate in a panel during IFAW. Yet Tajsar told me that he would personally like to see MSA and the Bruin Republicans engage in a debate.
During a forum opposing IFAW put on by The National Project to Defend Critical Thinking in Academia, I asked panel member Larry Everest if he would engage the Bruin Republicans in a debate. “The challenge is issued,” he replied.
A challenge indeed: Which of these organizations is willing to reach out to people who do not already agree with them and defend their positions with factual evidence from neutral sources? (A note to the Bruin Republicans: This does not include David Horowitz’s Web site.)
Unlike the editorial board or USAC, I think I’ll await the answer to that question before deciding whom to side with.
E-mail Strickland at kstrickland@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.