Harvard Sells Out Free Speech to Islamic Supremacism
|Professor Subramanian Swamy|
Harvard University has dropped courses on economics taught by a Hindu professor, Subramanian Swamy, president of the Janata Party of India and a former Union Cabinet minister—not because they were poorly taught, or because Swamy advocated discredited economic theories (such as, say, socialism), but because he wrote an editorial last summer that Muslims find offensive.
University officials said that Swamy’s editorial was “reprehensible.” Harvard students formed a group called the Coalition Against Bigotry at Harvard, and demanded that Harvard fire Swamy. Comparative religion Prof. Diana Eck explained: “There is a distinction between unpopular and unwelcome political views.”
Swamy, however, said that university authorities never even bothered to discuss the matter with him. “If there was an objection, they should have written to me.” With his firing, he said, “A dangerous precedent has been enacted.” That’s true, because when the protests first began, Harvard officials said they were going to keep Swamy on the faculty and defend his right to free speech.
The university had initially decided to stand by Swamy, citing principles of free speech. Harvard’s Faculty Council voted unanimously to keep him on board. But Swamy’s detractors didn’t give up with that vote: Philosophy Department Chairman Sean Kelly at first defended the Faculty Council’s decision, but then changed his mind and voted for the removal of Swamy’s courses from Harvard’s offerings. “I was persuaded,” he said, “that the views expressed in Dr Swamy’s op-ed piece amounted to incitement of violence instead of protected political speech.”
Neither Eck nor Kelly nor anyone else, however, bothered to mention that Swamy’s piece was called “How to wipe out Islamic terror,” and that it was written in the context of the Islamic jihad against India. I ran it on my website AtlasShrugs.com here on July 16, 2011. Swamy wrote: “The terrorist blast in Mumbai on July 13, 2011, requires a decisive soul-searching by Hindus of India. Hindus cannot accept to be killed in this Halal fashion, continuously bleeding every day, till the nation finally collapses.” He noted that “there are about 40 reported and unreported terrorist attacks per month in the country. That is why the recent U.S. National Counterterrorism Center publication, ‘A Chronology of International Terrorism,’ states: ‘India suffered more terrorist acts than any other country.’ ”
In light of this fight for India’s very life, Swamy offered a series of strategies for India’s defense. He even invited Muslims of conscience to join in the defense against the jihad and Islamic supremacism: “In this response, Muslims of India can join us if they genuinely feel for the Hindu.”
Some of Swamy’s recommendations reflect the deep crisis that he sees in India. He urged that “whatever and however small the terrorist incident, the nation must retaliate—not by measured and ‘sober’ responses, but by massive retaliation. Otherwise what is the alternative? Walk meekly to death expecting that our ‘sober’ responses will be rewarded by our neighbors and their patrons? We will be back to 1100 A.D., fooled into suicidal credulity. We should not be ghouls for punishment from terrorists and their patrons. We should retaliate.”
Accordingly, he recommended that when Islamic jihadists “blast our temples and kill Hindu devotees,” that mosques should also be “removed” as a “tit-for-tat.” In light of Islamic efforts to “make India into Darul Islam” (that is, the House of Islam, land ruled by Islamic law), Swamy said that India should “implement Uniform Civil Code, make Sanskrit learning compulsory and singing of “Vande Mataram” mandatory, and declare India as Hindu Rashtra in which only those non-Hindus can vote if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors are Hindus.”
People who sincerely believe in human rights and want to defend free societies against the Islamic jihad may disagree that some of Swamy’s recommendations are necessary or appropriate. But is it not central to this Ivy League university and every institution in these United States to “protect free speech, including that of Dr Swamy and of those who disagree with him”?
Where does Harvard address the truth of Swamy’s remarks, or the 80 million Hindus slaughtered in jihadi wars, land appropriations, cultural annihilations and enslavements?
India, along with Israel, southern Sudan and so many other places, have been the battlefields in endless bloody wars to install a universal caliphate, the objective of the global jihad.
Freedom of speech protects all speech, not just the ideas that we like. That’s the point. Who decides what’s good and what’s forbidden? Harvard? The Islamic supremacists who are seeking to impose the Sharia restriction on free speech?
Harvard has been bought and sold to the highest Sharia bidder. In December 2005, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal donated $20 million each to Harvard University and Georgetown University to fund Islamic studies.
It is dire. I cannot believe this is America.