Stanford Daily defends student who vowed to “physically fight zionists on campus,” lies about Robert Spencer again
Hamzeh Daoud vowed to”physically fight zionists on campus.” If he had been a member of the College Republicans vowing to “physically fight Leftists on campus,” or a Jewish student vowing to “physically fight Palestinians on campus,” he would have immediately been expelled without a second thought, but since his views coincide with those of the Leftist academic establishment, that isn’t even on the table at Stanford. There is some talk about his losing his position as an RA, but the budding Leftist “journalists” at the Stanford Daily are rushing to his defense and trying to paint Daoud as the victim, and those who are calling for some action to be taken to prevent the spread of fascist thuggery on the Stanford campus as the real villains.
As so we come to the estimable Hannah Smith, who confidently asserts: “The words ‘physically fight’ from an activist and peaceful member of our community will never result in harm.” How she knows this, she does not deign to explain. “The real threat to Stanford’s community,” she asserts with equal confidence, is the Stanford College Republicans, despite the fact that they have never threatened to assault anyone. They’ve committed thoughtcrime, you see, and that must not be tolerated at what she claims is Stanford’s environment of “intellectual, respectful, meaningful and welcome debate.” Stanford values respectful intellectual debate? Hannah Smith should consider a career in stand-up comedy.
A Stanford Daily op-ed would apparently not be complete these days without a new libel of me. Smith claims that the Stanford College Republicans have been “bringing speakers who challenge our worth according to our religion…” Once again, the link makes clear that she means me. Now: have I ever challenged anyone’s worth based on his or her religion? No, and Hannah Smith does not and cannot provide any evidence for her claim.
What the faculty advisers of the Stanford Daily are doing to these student “journalists” is unconscionable. Apparently without any correction or any limits, they are allowing the students (and the faculty) to spread the most egregious falsehoods about people they hate. There seems to be no commitment whatsoever to truth, accuracy, fairness, or even civil discourse. And the self-righteous fascists they’re training in “journalism” will go out to take their place in the leading “journalistic” establishments in the nation, which have a similar lack of commitment to truth, accuracy, fairness, and civil discourse.
No wonder we’re in the fix we’re in.
Much more below.
“Op-Ed: The real threat is the SCR’s tactics,” by Hannah Smith, Stanford Daily, July 26, 2018:
The targeting of rising junior Hamzeh Daoud is emblematic of an ongoing pattern of the Stanford College Republicans’ (SCR) use of bullying and fearmongering tactics in lieu of engaging in intellectual debate. I have the great fortune of calling Hamzeh a dear friend, and have for two years.Those who know him recognize his deep passion and determination for achieving social justice. His tireless work with Students for Justice in Palestine,
No surprise that Hamzeh Daoud would be involved with the Students for Justice in Palestine: members of this group “advocate for Israel’s destruction, admire terrorists, and are making Jewish students feel unsafe on campuses across the country.”
on the ASSU Senate pushing for need-blind aid for international students and countering Islamophobia on campus earned him recognition by Stanford Politics as the fourth most influential student on our campus….
“Islamophobia”: a propaganda neologism designed to intimidate people into fearing to oppose jihad mass murder and Sharia oppression of women, gays, etc.
The SCR, upon seeing Hamzeh’s initial post threatening to “physically fight” Zionists on campus, didn’t recognize it as the impassioned hyperbole it was nor contact Hamzeh to debate this idea….
“Debate this idea”? What kind of a debate does Hannah Smith envision? “Resolved: Social Justice Warriors Should Physically Attack Supporters of Israel On Campus”? With Hamzeh Daoud arguing yes and someone from the College Republicans arguing no? How exactly does one debate with someone who has vowed to assault you physically?
It is clear to me where the real threat to Stanford’s community lies: in the SCR’s tactics. While for four hours Hamzeh’s Facebook wall read of physical fights, SCR has been engaging in vindictive and harmful targeting of Stanford community members for years. They didn’t redact Hamzeh’s name, instead blasting a portrayal of him as a violent Muslim Palestinian into the vicious world of the internet. While Hamzeh recognized the pain caused by his post, the SCR has never apologized for the students they expose to hate mail, death threats and cyberbullying. The words “physically fight” from an activist and peaceful member of our community will never result in harm.
How does Hannah Smith know that?
The SCR’s actions have emotionally and mentally harmed people of color, activists and women on our campus. The administration should recognize that the larger threat to students is not a political fist fight, but rather cyberbullying.Beyond the threat that SCR poses to the Stanford community, their tactics fail to rise to the standard of intellectual, respectful, meaningful and welcome debate that Stanford espouses and requires in its Fundamental Standard.
I can’t stop laughing. Here is the kind of “intellectual, respectful, meaningful and welcome debate that Stanford espouses”: Stanford deans Nanci Howe and Snehal Naik engineered destruction of Robert Spencer event
They engage in ad hominem attacks, dodging genuine arguments and opportunities for discourse.
Just before I spoke at Stanford last year, I ran an ad in the Stanford Daily, inviting discussion and debate. All I ever got from Stanford students, faculty and administrators were ad hominem attacks, dodging of my genuine arguments and contempt for any opportunity for discourse.
…Our campus needs discourse. When the Stanford College Republicans are ready to debate us on our ideas — instead of bringing speakers who challenge our worth according to our religion or gender identity or diminish our arguments as “victimhood mentalities” — we’ll be here to listen, debate and demonstrate what free speech and intellectual vitality truly mean.
Posts
