She said her reception at Brown was by far the most virilent yet on a college campus...with no real care to debate the issue, only to discredit her (altho this reception is happening more and more). She said that more and more she is confronted by radicalized Muslims who are moblized by the Mosque and Muslim cleric on campus.

In her website she has received many e-mails from young people, describing that Saudia Arabia is offering free scholarships to radicalized young Muslims and placing them on campuses all over the country. [My emphasis - Judith]

What is MOST disturbing to Nonie, however, is that young American Students are so eager not to offend Islam and to support their fellow students that they do not stand against this radical viewpoint....They don't even listen to really hear Nonie's words. Rather than be outraged by the oppression of women in Arab countries....stoning, polygamy, second class citizens, travel restrictions, burkas, wive beating, .....they are outraged by anyone who says anything negative about Islam.

Questions like:

1. "what credentials do you have to speak at Brown?" [My friend adds: Would anyone have asked this question of Nelson Mandela or Rosa Parks??? The sheer arrogance of the Brown student population!]

2. "Why don't you speak about the oppression of women in America??" "There is a lot of rape in the U.S." Nonie answered: I am speaking about my culture, my people. I am not saying that women aren't oppressed elsewhere...but let's remember that here in the states, rape is ILLEGAL, and there is due process of law".. The stoning to death of women in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other states is LEGAL. This is what I am here to talk about.

3. "You are a hate-monger"

4. Muslim cleric on campus who said Nonie's speech might cause physical harm to Muslim students on campus asked " What is your meaning of Jihad?"...Nonie said: "Jihad is the religious obligation to spread Islam, thru violence if necessary. This is the definition at the XYZ university ....and the meaning of JIHAD I have known and have been taught all my life." The cleric responded: "What page of what book did you read this?" Nonie responded: "I don't have the book or the page, just look at the reality, the violence today and the spread of Jihad today...the actions we see in the world is NOT an internal struggle as people claim "JIHAD" to mean...the action we see is violence and hate."

A member of Brown Hillel commented on my post last November, inadvertantly illustrating the attitude described above:

Most of the Muslims Student Association did not even know the speaker before it appeared in the media!! Rather than trying to “crush dissent” or “silence protest” the Muslim expressed concerns to Hillel about a speaker. The Hillel executive board obviously though his concerns were valid so decided not to sponsor the speaker. There was no coercion, no strong armed tactics, and no threats. Any other description is simply false.

Right wing commentators like to cite free speech only when it serves their interests. When Tony Judt was supposed to speak at the Polish Consulate, pro-Israel activists intervened and “silenced” him. [Debatable - Judith] Left wing radicals are no less guilty—the actions by students at Columbia were certainly despicable. But Nonie Darwish was not an issue of free speech—it was an issue of sponsorship. No one at the University wanted to keep Darwish from speaking at all—rather what people did not want is Hillel to sponsor the speaker. . . . before you attack Brown Hillel and the MSA think about what evidence you have that there some kind of massive clamp down on free speech at Brown. And then we’ll talk.

My reply:

Why didn't Hillel want to bring her? Because a Muslim student "had concerns." What are the concerns? Read my five questions, they go on from there.

Referring to earlier in that post:

I have some questions, not just for Rabbi Eisenberg [of Brown Hillel, who advised the students] but for all Brown student and faculty:
1) Does the Brown Muslim student group have the same compunctions about bringing in a Jewish speaker who criticizes Judaism?
2) If they planned to bring one in and the Jewish students protested, would the Muslim students defer to them?
3) Has a Jew ever been silenced on a college campus for misrepresenting or denigrating Judaism?
4) Is the problem just that Darwish criticizes Islam, or that she compares it unfavorably to Judaism? For example, this appreciation of the self-reflection demanded during the High Holidays, contrasted with the shame/honor imperative of the Islam she grew up with. Is it that Darwish criticizes the Arab Middle East, or that she defends Israel?
5) Is it an acceptable stance at a university supposedly committed to the free flow of ideas for either group to have veto power over the others' invited speakers? Whatever happened to reasoned disagreement? If Darwish is saying things that aren't true or are unfair, let the Muslim students attend her speech and respectfully ask her tough questions.

Based on my friend's account, the Muslim students did ask her "tough" questions, and that's better than not bringing her to speak just because feelings might be hurt. But they sound like the kind of dumb questions typical of self-consciously intellectual highly-politicized college students:

One student attacked her views and said he attended the speech only "to embarrass the people who brought you here." Another student challenged whether Darwish's words helped or hurt her fellow Arabs. "Is what you're doing helping the Middle East or increasing the hatred there?" the student asked.

Several students questioned Darwish's credentials. "You are not a scholar of Islam," said one student. "Similarly, when you speak about Palestinian society, I am trying to figure out what your credentials are. You do not have the credentials most speakers who come to Brown have."

Darwish replied that she may not meet the criteria "somebody needs to speak at Brown," but she meets "the criteria of a human being."

. . . . Vale Cofer-Shabica '09 said he thought Darwish was overly defensive in her answers to questions. "Even when people asked questions that could have been answered, she didn't even answer the question, but instead used emotional appeal," he said. If somebody more scholarly had spoken on the same subject, Cofer-Shabica said, the event would have prompted more interesting questions from students. Even if a speaker expressed views that contradicted the opinions of most Brown students, a discussion could have remained intellectual so long as the speaker's claims were convincingly substantiated, he said.

Other students agreed that Darwish drew too much from her own life. Erik Peterson '07 said Darwish based her ideas "too much on personal experiences, rather than a broad picture of the Middle East.

I thought with these folks that authentic life experience from an oppressed third-world country always trumps academic credentials. Like Jacobs said, maybe it depends on who the oppressor is.

UPDATE: I stand corrected. Letter to the Brown Herald:

To the Editor:

All of us rely on our experiences to form our opinions, including recent speaker Nonie Darwish, and we don't need a higher degree to express them. However, if we want to present ourselves as credible authorities to criticize a culture or society, we can't rely solely on those experiences. We need to nuance our views by taking various sources into account in order to avoid oversimplification.

A Brown student group that started last semester, Open House: Valuing Diversity in Middle East Education, attracts students from across the religious, ethnic, and political spectrum to have structured discussions about the Middle East. We draw on our own experiences, but also on a variety of media, including news articles, academic literature, and pop culture to frame our discussions.

Of course there is support for Darwish's opinions in news articles, academic literature, and pop culture, and if you are honest you will include them along with the material annointed by your professors. But you may have to creep outside your comfort zone to find them, like watching Fox News or MEMRI videos or something equally transgressive.