Letters To the Editor

Editorial Has a Narrow Perspective and Conflates Islam and Fascism

To the Editor:
Chris Kulawik’s editorial, “Fascism is the Problem” (Oct. 22) displays a stunning lack of research and understanding. While he paints with strokes broad enough to describe a “global problem,” he rarely bothers to detail his charges with facts (let alone nuance). He mentions Iran but refuses to divulge the identities of the other nations he deems guilty. He writes, “Theocratic fascism exists in Islamic states.” Does he mean some Islamic states, or all?
He calls these nameless nations to account for the misery of their populations, but is again silent on specifics. Perhaps with good reason: according to the CIA World Factbook, Brunei, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia—all Muslim countries—are all in the 100 countries with the lowest infant mortality rates.
Kulawik makes the helpful observation that “Islamo-Fascism isn’t a pretty term.” It also isn’t a correct term. If we, as Kulawik asks us to, accept fascism at face value, it refers to the ideology of a group of 20th-century Italian nationalists (who originally organized to combat Communism). There are parallels between extremist Islamists and Fascists, but to conflate the two is to mischaracterize both groups and further degrade the latter term—already difficult to pin down in modern parlance—to a point of total confusion.
Extremism under any banner is dangerous and must be met with the forces of open debate and righteous opposition. In some Muslim countries, extremists hold sway. But all Muslims are not extremists. Kulawik—who displays an unwavering commitment to American conservative orthodoxy and an ignorant disregard for real research and analysis—might be.

Seth Berliner, CC ’08
Oct. 22, 2007

Islamo-Facism Is Legitimate and Ought To Be Taken Seriously

To the Editor:
Although “Islamo-Facism Week” may be crude in its message and delivery, it brings to light an important issue that deserves discussion at Columbia. Everyone who has taken Contemporary Civilization will have read Sura 2, verses 190-192 of the Quran, which state, “Fight in the cause of Allah,/ Those who fight you.../ And slay them wherever ye catch them,/ And turn them out/ From where they have turned you out;/ For tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter;/ But fight them not/ At the Sacred Mosque,/ Unless they fight you there;/ But if they fight you,/ Slay them./ Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.”
I am not intending to single out Islam as a religion of violence—the scriptures of all three Abrahamic faiths contain passages similar to this one. I am merely attempting to show that “Islamo-Fascism Week” does have a grounding in reality—certainly more so than “Israel Apartheid Week,” for instance. The issue of Islam’s link to violence is critical and deserves to be discussed in an academic forum. Whether or not we feel comfortable admitting it, the major terrorist threats America faces are grounded in the Islamic faith, and by attempting to come to terms with why that occurs, we might be better equipped to deal with the problem.

Jon Hollander, CC ’10
Oct. 21, 2007

Productive Discussion Doesn’t Happen in the Bathroom

To the Editor:
While Atossa Abrahamian recognizes the need for individuals to express their less-than-politically-correct viewpoints (“Leave Crap Where It Belongs,” Oct. 19), she fails to mention the fact that Columbia already offers many such opportunities—and that the programs already in place allow for a much more productive dialogue than that which she suggests can take place within a restroom stall. Yes, “people need to just let it all out,” but why not do so in a safe space such as ROOTEd’s weekly discussions, rather than scrawling messages of hate on our campus? Those who harbor sentiments of prejudice and bigotry would benefit much more from intelligent discussion about racial and cultural identity than from encouragement to pollute our community with words and symbols of intolerance.

Jeremy Schwartz, CC ’09
Oct. 20, 2007

Horowitz Speech Should Encourage Discussion and Free Exchange

To the Editor:
One month ago, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke on our campus. For the first time in my life, I wrote a letter to a newspaper, as I felt so strongly against his visit and speech. Thankfully, I was partially proven wrong, as the ensuing debate in my classes and in local media more than made up for the lack of intelligent points brought up by Ahmadinejad. Well, here we are a month later, and once again I find myself feeling just as strongly about another speech at Roone Arledge Cinema.
David Horowitz’s speech brought protests, green shirts, and many flyers spread around campus. While the rights of free speech and academic inquiry allow any person or group to disagree with Horowitz’s appearance and stating of his views here, I think that more importantly, they should be extended to view the issue at hand from a broader perspective. There is no denying that the attacks on Theo Van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the U.S. embassies in Africa, the USS Cole, the Marine Barracks in Beirut, the World Trade Center, and countless women, transgendered people, and dissidents in Islamic countries all have something in common. Whether anyone wants to label this as “Islamo-Facism” is completely beside the point as this issue is real, dangerous, and pressing for those of us who are concerned about the fate of democracy and the western world.
Horowitz’s appearance on campus could be a first step in the right direction when it comes to dealing with this maelstrom. My hope is that the University as a whole will allow for a free exchange of facts, since this is far too important to get weighed down by political correctness and distortion of the truth.

Pat Johnson, GS
Oct. 25, 2007