Get PJ Media on your Apple

Ad Remembering Victims of Islamic Apartheid Deemed ‘Hateful’ by U.S. Campuses

Several newspapers reject the ad. Two apologize for it. And Tufts' President Anthony Monaco condemns it.

Daniel Greenfield


March 8, 2013 - 9:36 am

Every year, college campuses across the country hold a festival of hatred aimed at Jews and the Jewish state. Israeli Apartheid Week has become notorious for the targeted harassment of Jewish students, support for Hamas, and even physical violence.

This year the David Horowitz Freedom Center responded to Israeli Apartheid Week with Islamic Apartheid Week. Unlike Israeli Apartheid Week, which is based on a lie, Islamic Apartheid Week addresses the sexism, homophobia, and religious bigotry threatening minorities in the Muslim world.

To promote Islamic Apartheid Week, the Freedom Center attempted to place an advertisement in 40 college papers.

The ad, titled “Faces of Islamic Apartheid,” drew attention to victims of Islamic sexism, homophobia, and theocracy by briefly relating true events: we told of gay men who were hanged in Iran; of women and girls who were murdered by their governments — and their families — for the crime of falling in love; and of the Christian minister for minority affairs in Pakistan’s cabinet who was murdered for trying to reform his country’s theocratic blasphemy laws.

These four women, three men, and one little girl were victims of Islamic apartheid.

Five of them were murdered. Two live under constant threat of death.

One has been on death row for six years. Telling her story, as we wished to do, may help save her life.

Yet instead of listening to their stories, the campus culture of political correctness drowned out their voices. Further, they felt the need to apologize for allowing our ad to run, for allowing their stories to be told.

Nine college papers turned the ad down; five of the nine are part of the University of California system, which has often been criticized for tolerating anti-Semitism. When the California State Assembly passed a resolution condemning anti-Semitism on campus and warning that no public resources should be used for anti-Semitic hate, the University of California objected on free speech grounds.

However, those concerned regarding free speech for Israeli Apartheid Week went mute for free speech regarding Islamic Apartheid Week.

Seven college papers took the advertisement. Of those papers, two — Tufts University’s Tufts Daily and Austin’s Daily Texan — later ran apologies from their editors for printing the ad.

Tufts Daily editor Martha Shanahan called the decision to run the ad an “editorial oversight.”

Daily Texan editor Susannah Jacob denounced the attempt to tell the stories of victimized women and children as “hateful”, and as “an unspoken incitement to violence.”

Martha Shanahan dedicated two pages to her apology, mentioning the “Islamophobic and violently offensive” advertisement. However, at no point during her long apologia did Shanahan acknowledge that her paper had run four editorials that very week from Students for Justice in Palestine: each one attacked Israel, each one promoted hatred for the Jewish state.

In an unequal response to this, Shanahan’s paper also ran a brief letter from Tufts Friends of Israel distancing itself from the ad, and politely suggesting that “apartheid” shouldn’t be used to refer to Israel.

These were students, but the hypocrisy extended all the way to the university president.

Anthony Monaco, president of Tufts, took to Twitter to denounce the advertisement for vilifying Islam. Yet he made no such denunciation of the Tufts Daily’s op-ed “The Case for Israeli Apartheid,” which (not coincidentally) appeared on the same day as our ad.

At Tufts, no one apologizes for accusing democratic Israel of apartheid. There are only apologies when theocratic Iran and Pakistan are accused of practicing Islamic apartheid.

When anti-Israel voices are outweighed four to one, yet the editor feels the need to apologize for publishing a perspective that would have made it four to two, then the freedom of debate at Tufts University is at a sad state.

When that same editor prints editorials describing Israel as an apartheid state, but promises to put in place an entire system of oversight to make certain that no advertisement challenging Islamic apartheid is ever printed again, then a system of censorship has been put into place silencing the voices of victims and encouraging their persecutors.

The Daily Texan’s Susannah Jacob claimed that, in our ad, the crosshairs over the faces of the victims were an incitement to violence. This is irrational: the crosshairs were over the faces of people who were already victimized, a visual means of bringing urgent attention to the violence that had already been committed against them. That and another element of her response make it clear that she never even saw the advertisement that she was denouncing: Jacob described the ad as depicting six women; the ad actually included two gay men, one Christian man, and one little girl.

Jacob further distorted the truth about Islamic apartheid when she described the pervasive sexism, homophobia, and theocracy that these people fell victim to as “discrete incidents of violence by Muslims” being used “to implicate all Muslims.”

Ms. Jacob: five of the victims in the ad had been targeted by their governments, or were targeted by others with government backing. “Discrete incidents” hardly represents an informed analysis, but a distorted, biased one. Can the Daily Texan’s editor honestly claim that Iran’s persecution of women and gay men, or Pakistan’s persecution of Christians, are “discrete incidents of violence” when they are openly state policy?

Could Ms. Jacob offer her readers a single human rights organization that would agree with her dishonest whitewashing of the terror under which millions live?

The responses to the advertisement have established — once again — that some forms of apartheid are privileged causes on campus, while some forms of persecution are not to be mentioned. Demonizing the Israeli victims of Islamic terror — that falls within the realm of campus free speech. Speaking up for the vulnerable minorities in the Muslim world does not.

If our advertisement was wrong, then there would have been no need to censor it. False claims can easily be disproven. Five minutes with Google would have told every reader and editor whether there was any truth to our Faces of Islamic Apartheid.

It is never necessary to censor lies. It is only necessary to censor truth.

That is why the majority of campus papers — ten so far, including Harvard, whose editors said they would not print it under any circumstances — refused to run this paid advertisement. It is why those few who did have been offering ritual apologies while lying about our ad’s content. It is why the attacks on the advertisement have taken refuge in vague platitudes about offensiveness, though have not offered a single attempt at a factual rebuttal. It is why every response to the ad has claimed that speaking about Islamic bigotry constitutes the only real bigotry involved.

There were eight faces, eight names in the censored advertisement that the president of Tufts, the editors of Tufts Daily and the Daily Texan, and the editors of ten college papers that turned down the ad did not want their students to see or know about. They did not want those names to disturb the manufactured campus consensus they have constructed, with great effort, about Israel and Islamic terrorism.

So: again, here are their names:

Amina Said.

Sarah Said.

Afshan Azad.

Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani.

Shahbas Bhatti.

Rimsha Masih.

Mahmoud Asgari.

Ayaz Marhoni.

They were repressed as individuals. Now their story is repressed on the American campus.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st Century.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (22)
All Comments   (22)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
If you want to see hatred, visit any ethnic, race, women's, LGBT, studies department in any Western University and look at what they are saying about Whites, Europeans, Men, Christians.

These people are paid to hate, spew hate, intellectualize hate, and teach hate to young people.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
And to provide expert advice on policy based on that hatred. Diversity and Multiculturalism are hate driven policy, which seeks to disempower, discriminate against, and displace the hated.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The world system loves it's own. It's not logical. So, don't try to be smart. Jews, and true Christians will be hated.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Wait, which five universities ran the ad without apologies? We'd like to know where it's safe to send our kids!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Our Muslim enemies may, just may, be succeeding ....or have indeed their campaign of generating fear of criticizing, or even mentioning anything concerning them as coming from a group of throat slitting, explosive vest wearing, terrorists crashing passenger airliners into kill us non-Muslims wherever we may be found. Automatic snapped at as "racism" and "bigotry". Has this then evolved into that "political correctness" we see today?

We can quote their Koranic verses at our peril....simply because we're not their co-religionists......we're non-believers.

Then, we do have actual fear among us. We must call it "fear" and mobilize against it.

Here's a paste from :

"The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran."...end paste.

This Dear Readers, is the infiltrating subversive "religion" which has apparently had such great success in intimidating our college Management Staff and Faculties.

Inquiring and absorbent minds have indeed been indoctrinated, Manchurian Candidate style.

These madrassas and mosques of theirs must be recognized as subversive cells. There will, of course, be ear piercing wails of bigotry....but this is my humble infidel opinion.

....Charles Griffith.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It might be instructive to look into the influence of Saudi Arabian money on American Universities.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
...a starting point is Georgetown University in our National Capital.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There is a great deal of truly sad information in this article, but saddest of all is that these myrmidon college students actually think they are more enlightened. I've witnessed so much of this cognitive dissonance I can hardly make myself believe it exist. From Medea Benjamin cuddling up to the Iranian regime to poo pooh American policy, to the universities ever embracing virulent demonstrations against Israel while steadfastly portraying a truly brutal religious dogma in Islam as something inherently good.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Another confirmation of how political correctness is a one way street without true diversity of thought, challenge, tolerance, lack of censorship, balance or fair play. In other words, like our congressional tri-racial caucuses, completely unAmerican.

I tell you right now, if Perez Hilton strutted around Tahrir Square in pink high heels, hot pants, and with no shirt, I doubt he'd survive. Same story for any one doing that with a Star of David t-shirt. Liberalism is a suicide cult that clasps the worst racists in America to their breasts and if their were ever a situation where push came to shove, liberals would be the first victimized.

They're just like that priest in the old War of the Worlds who tried to give some love to the aliens.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
While you are correct that "political correctness is a one way street without true diversity of thought, challenge, tolerance, lack of censorship, balance or fair play" you miss that we ought not to tolerate it at all in any way.

Depicting it is of course a contribution, but we have a problem here in that we should not tolerate it, and we should make sure no one who advocates these things be allowed to be in a University, a teachers position, or a political position.

I suppose they can be in writing position and news positions as their freedoms cannot be interfered with. But the other positions are based n acceptance and no one is under any obligation to accept them.

Nor should we either hesitate or be shy in practicing our intolerance of them. Going about this is the most singular failure of movements calling themselves Conservative.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
We are doing ourselves no favors.

Calling radical leftism "liberal" or "progressive" simply adding a layer of camouflage.

And pointing at "hypocrisy" time and time again, is finding fool's gold.

It's not hypocrisy if they don't stand for the original principle and never did.

You accuse them of not acting "liberal" or "progressive" and they don't care...because they are not and never were. They are fascist.

They hate America and they hate Israel. They side with their enemies. The sooner we wake up and smell the coffee and STOP adding layer upon layer to their mask...the better.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Well, "progressive liberal" is how they describe themselves. It's a useful way of speaking. You're right about not being hypocrisy, but because it's Orwellian delusion where women can fight in the army but not keep an unarmed rapist from taking their gun.

That's not rejecting their own principle, that's simply having none and going by the moral roulette wheel called identity politics, where anything can be anything at any given moment.

George Zimmerman kills a black, he's a white Hispanic. He writes a science fiction novel and he's an Afro-Peruvian-American with extra points because of his great-grandfather and celebrated.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Something is seriously wrong on many college campuses, where discrimination and defamation against Jews is promoted by so-called anti-racists, but apparently against no one else.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
oh, they promote intolerance, discrimination, and defamation against Christians and caucasians as well, and with almost the same fervour.
And of course the eternal battle against manhood, portraying every man ever born as a sex crazed maniac with no redeeming values.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What is the reason for this? Is this because the PC left thinks that all of these cases are made up by the far right and that there is no persecution in Islam? Or is it because they are actually afraid of speaking out against Islam?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The real agenda here is cultural Marxism and the deconstruction of Western tradition. The reasoning is as follows:

1. Western Classical/Judeo-Christian culture is imperialistic, sexist, racist, destructive, etc.
2. It must be replaced with cultural Marxism (broadly conceived)
3. In order to be replaced, it must first be destroyed ("deconstructed")
4. Islam is among the victims of the West and opposes it, therefore Islam is an ally to the cultural Marxists who are influential in the academy
5. You can probably see where this leads. Western "imperialism" against Islam is highlighted and exaggerated; Islamic aggression is minimized and rationalized as self-defense

Of course we all know that words like "tolerance" really mean approval of cultural Marxism. Recall that Orwell's "newspeak" was conceived by a socialist government, not a conservative one. The left is quick to attack anyone who questions the victim status of Islam or the aggressor status of Israel and the United States. It doesn't matter that Islamic governments are generally far-right, the left is willing to ally with them anyway. Remember that words don't really have "meanings" anymore, just social effects, and "objective truth" is now an obscenity. Language is manipulated as necessary to gain power for the Marxist intelligentsia vanguard.

To their credit, some on the left are speaking out, as here:

Sadly, as this article shows they are few and far between.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Only straight white men are a source of bigotry and racism. It's as simple as that. All others get a dispensation cuz the world's been hard on them and they don't have white privilege.

Like the privilege Jews had in Germany during WWII. That was worth a lot.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Conservative women are despised and vilified even more than white men because our sex makes us trailors to the cause.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I meant "traitor".
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If we do not think like leftists and act like leftists ... then leftists despise us because we are NOT like them It's that simple ... and it's called hatred.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Evan Sayet explains this phenomenon brilliantly in his book "The Kindergarden of Eden" -- liberals are committed to equality and indiscriminantness -- nothing can be good or bad. In order to achieve this, they convince themselves that good things (like a democratic Israel) are not that good and that bad things (like a despotic, theocratic, intolerant, and murderous Iran) are not that bad.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All

2 Trackbacks to “Ad Remembering Victims of Islamic Apartheid Deemed ‘Hateful’ by U.S. Campuses”