![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.keshertalk.com/nav-commenters.gif)
« Washington's Blood Sport | Home | Serious Questions for Henry Waxman's Show Trial »
March 15, 2007
Erasing History, One Objection at a Time
Does objecting to history because it hurts your feelings make it go away?
The University of Leeds was accused of infringing free speech last night when it cancelled a lecture on “Islamic anti-Semitism” by a German academic.For security grounds, read "insecurity grounds." Namely, the fact that some Muslims can't deal with the free discussion of history. And some academics in the west seem eager to pander to their every insecurity.Matthias Köntzel arrived at the university yesterday morning to begin a three-day programme of lectures and seminars, but was told that it had been called off on “security grounds”.
Dr Köntzel ... said: “I have lectured in lots of countries on this subject. I gave the same talk at Yale University recently, and this is the first time I have been invited to lecture in the UK. Nothing like this has ever happened before – this is censorship.What is a university for?“It is a controversial area but I am accustomed to debate. I value the integrity of academic debate and I feel that it really is in danger here. This is a very important subject and if you cannot address it on university property, then what is a university for?”
Why, to pander to feelings, of course.
Dr Köntzel ... said that he had been shown two e-mails that had been received, which objected to his lecture.No, but don't be shy there. You are delighted at your victory. And at how easy it was to impose your will and your ideology on the the Dhimmi Vice-Chancellor of Leeds University to sway him to do your bidding simply at the drop of the word racism.One, apparently written by a student, said: “As a Muslim and an Arab this has come to me as a great shock. The only intention that you have for doing this is to increase hatred as I clearly regard it as an open racist attack.”
Ahmed Sawalem, president of the university’s student Islamic Society, confirmed that he had contacted the office of Professor Michael Arthur, the Vice-Chancellor, to register an official complaint.
“The title of the talk is provocative and I have searched the internet to read his writings and they are not very pleasant,” Mr Sawalem said. “We are not opposed to freedom of expression. We just sent a complaint, we did not ask for the talk to be cancelled.”
Sad times for the academic world. What is academic freedom if not to resist this?
Or was there someone behind this decision who was delighted to suppress the lecture and hid his actions by claiming it was the result of bureacracy?
Here is the lecture that Professor Kontzel was going to present.
UPDATE: Other articles by Kuntzel can be found here.
Alcibiades | 03/15/07 at 01:03 AM | Categories: - Across the Pond
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.keshertalk.com/cgi-bin/mtb.cgi/6315
Comments
I have to say that it's not ONLY a Muslim phenomenon. when I was an undergraduate (this was, I think, 1974) the debating union at Durham University invited Enoch Powell to its annual dinner as the principal speaker. Powell had, a couple of years earlier, made a very inflammatory speech (though actually less so than the myth has it) on immigration. As a result he'd been sacked from the government. Anyway, the debating union was advised that busloads of protesters were going to turn up outside the dinner, an action co-ordinated by some of the local trade unions. The police warned that there might be violence, and while they would be there to do whatever was necessary they couldn't guarantee nobody would get hurt in the process. So the decision was taken to cancel Powell's appearance, which I thought was a shame (and not just because I'd bought a ticket). I didn't agree with his views one bit, but the guy was supposed to be an amazingly gifted speaker, and in any case I was interested to hear what he had to say at first hand. In that instance it wasn't a question of acaedmics caving in, as the dinner was a wholly student-run event. Unlike the Leeds one, though, it was cancelled because of a threat of violence rather than a mildly compaining email. I suppose I can take heart from the fact that there wasn't a threat of violent disruption, but be disappointed at how quickly the university caved in. Soft Yorkhire types....
I don't think the conspiracy theory of your final sentence adds anything much to the discussion, though. I suspect it's the whole academic system (and I don't suppose it's only at Leeds) which now panics at the thought of giving offence to anyone, rather than some dubious individual.
My guess is that if some Holocaust-denier was booked to speak and a few Jewish students complained vigorously, he wouldn't be allowed to speak either. Which would be no better than the present case.
the outcome of letting the people readiest to use violence to set the terms of the debate, is a situation in which they control who gets or doesn't get to speak by the use of violence and intimidation
this of course is terrorism but refuses to be recognized as such
sultan knish | March 16, 2007 01:49 AM
My guess is that if some Holocaust-denier was booked to speak and a few Jewish students complained vigorously, he wouldn't be allowed to speak either. Which would be no better than the present case.
I do think that is different than the present case.
Holocaust denial is counter factual. I am not sure what the point of having a Holocaust denier speak at a respectable university would be, except to bring offense.
Whereas Matthias Köntzel is a respected academic. He had previously given this same talk, linked above, at Yale University.
Do you see no difference between erasing (or making up) history for the sake of politics and research that may offend some people's religious sensibilities, but nevertheless, is well grounded in fact?
I think these are different matters altogether.
Alcibiades | March 16, 2007 08:47 AM
