"Muslim Student Association Harasses Women and Jews at University of Texas-San Antonio"
Happily, they shot their own video to document the occasion.
I’m interested to hear what the diversity czars and the risk-averse university bureaucrats have to say about this kind of identitarian political activism — not because I’m particularly bothered by it (the video shows the MSA for the repressive ideologues and wannabe zealous thugs they are, and frankly, I find it refreshing to see such free speech aired on a university campus for a change) — but rather because a university-sanctioned group is performing such confrontational activism on a university campus, where “hate” is purportedly disallowed.
This puts diversity advocates and university administrators in quite a bind, I should think. Because to “tolerate” the political activism of the MSA, the university must simultaneously allow for “hatred” against women and Jews (the latter not really much of a problem, of course — provided the wretched Zionists don’t threaten to sue). Unless, that is, one is able to alter what constitutes “hate” by simultaneously altering the feminist narrative to conclude that Muslim women who “Americanize” are somehow traitors to their own cultural foundationalism, and so shouldn’t be granted the protections of American women who are treated as kitchen and laundry room chattel. Which argument, here, would manifest itself as nothing much more than deafening silence from the Women’s Studies Department.
Sadly, none of this anti-intellectual two-stepping is at all implausible (or even unlikely) — particularly when one is forced by one’s progressivism to navigate through the minefield that identity politics and multiculturalism combine to create once protected groups are pitted against one another.
Of course, simply by posting the video, Charles at LGF sets himself up as a convenient (and potentially diversionary) scapegoat. He will be accused of “hate” — for precisely the same reason that progressives can rationalize their refusal to publish Danish Mohammed cartoons, or Opus comic strips: the simple fact of airing criticism of Muslim ideologues is itself an offense against today’s Orwellian idea of “tolerance,” even in cases where the ideologues themselves produced the material being criticized.
In this case, the contortions of university logic would likely go something like this: the MSA is engaging in protected political speech, and so can confront others students, film those confrontations, and present it for consumption, even if the purpose is to recruit new ideologues for further harrassment.
However, the moment control over the context is wrested away by someone like Charles at LGF, Muslims are being unfairly targeted as objects of hate, and the criticism implicit in the re-contexualized airing of the video (on a site known for its criticism of Islamic fundamentalism) marks it as a performance of that hate, and so — insofar as such an airing can now be re-framed as “intolerant” — is no longer protected speech.
Or, to put such contortions into their most surreal formulation (inexorable, given the structure of progressive thinking): this video, shot by the MSA, is, once it is shown by someone the MSA would consider inauthentic, a hate crime against Muslims.
Which will not stand! — given that adepts of identity politics and modern progressivism proclaim themselves “intolerant of intolerance.”
Up is down. Black is white. Balki is that other guy — the short nebishy one with the curly hair.
In the service of pragmatism, the university might — if the proper pressure is applied — voice its displeasure over the way the MSA is conducting its activism, even as it simultaneously mouths predictable claims to champion free speech.
But those who have been paying attention — or who aren’t committed to an intentional double standard that they recognize, but that they cynically ignore — know in their guts that had this show of political speech been, say, an “affirmative action bake sale” put on by college Republicans, or an anti-gay protest put on by the Campus Crusade for Christ, concerns about free speech would be less than forthcoming.