Dear Mr. Carp,
What is the purpose of your Feb. 24 Wespeak? You state that you are unsurprised by the lack of criticism from the student body, so you’re familiar with the general perspective at Wesleyan, but you then frame your argument in unusually offensive language. Were you writing this as a call to arms? Why use words that you surely knew would antagonize? Is your piece intended to be a meta-critique on “the right to be insensitive”?
Personally, I’m skeptical about this right. As Americans, we have a stated right to freedom of speech, but nowhere is this defined as a right to be insensitive. It is insensitive, to say the least, to falsely shout fire in a crowded theatre or to utter words that would incite an immediate breach of the peace, and such actions are not defended by the Constitution. Fully aware of this responsibility, with only two exceptions, the American media has prudently not shown these cartoons, though they would be within their First Amendment rights to do so. Similarly, you are safely within your rights to call “many, many, MANY” members of the Muslim world primitive, barbaric, savage, and animals, but do you imagine that it makes your argument accessible or inviting to further discussion?
Furthermore, the information you present is incomplete. Yes, there are no news reports of Jews protesting violently in response to the Iranian cartoon contest you mentioned. This is most likely because no one is baiting them. Jyllands-Posten first ran the Mohammed cartoons last September, and Danish Muslims responded by peaceful protest. Only after several months of Muslim frustration did the situation reach its current proportions, after opportunists used the cartoons as political incendiary. Even at that point, many Muslims were boycotting rather than bombing and after Jyllands-Posten apologized, the Danish Muslim Association declared itself satisfied and startled that the state of affairs had deteriorated to such an extent. For a more complete discussion of this situation and its factors, I suggest you read Robert Wright’s editorial in The New York Times, “The Silent Treatment.”
Finally, your argument is weakened by generalization. In your examples of Muslim violence, you reference five situations. Regarding the subjugation of women– it is individual countries that call for oppressive robes, not the whole culture. There are Muslim countries that do not ask this, including notably, pre-liberation Iraq. This is like trying to typify America based on observations of a few states. In addition, the four remaining charges predominately pertain to specific countries—Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and the Palestinians of Israel. Please do not proceed from this point to saying that “it certainly does seem that nearly all people who behave this way are Muslims.” It doesn’t matter that you qualify with words like “nearly” and “not all,” you are still making far-reaching and unfounded statements. If you genuinely think that Muslims are the only people to defend their faith through violence, please reconsider the past and present actions of the Christian churches. And lay off the hyperbole. When your argument is strong, you don’t need it.
Regards,
Sarah Montgomery
Leave a Reply