Brandeis’ critics fail to recognize precedent of inviting Ali

On Monday, Brandeis University announced that it revoked its 2014 commencement ceremonies invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a controversial Somali-born feminist and political essayist known for her criticism of female genital mutilation and her anti-Islamic sentiments, according to Time. This revocation came as a result of outspoken objection by Brandeis students and faculty who likened the invitation of Ali to speak to an endorsement of her views. Though many have since denounced Brandeis’ decision as one that suppressed freedom of speech, the overall premise that universities ought to host controversial figures in favor of free speech overlooks the serious precedent such a decision could make.

 

Brandeis said the university had not previously been fully aware of Ali’s vilification of Islam. Had Brandeis done its homework, administrators would have discovered the extent of Ali’s activism, including her inflammatory criticism of Islamic fundamentalism and her overall critique of religion in general.

Ali’s opinions on Islam, however, go beyond critiquing just Islamic fundamentalism. Rather, her writings have debased the faith as a whole, which she describes as a “destructive, nihilistic cult of death” that needs to be “defeated,” according to The New York Times.

“Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful,” Ali said in a 2007 interview with Reason magazine. “There is no moderate Islam. There are Muslims who are passive, who don’t all follow the rules of Islam, but there’s really only one Islam, defined as submission to the will of God. There’s nothing moderate about it.”

The question, however, shouldn’t solely be limited to whether Brandeis’ decision to revoke Ali’s invitation was a good or a bad one, but rather why Brandeis chose Ali for its honorary degree in the first place.

“Just as Brandeis does not inquire into the political opinions and beliefs of faculty or staff before appointing them, or students before offering admission, so too the university does not select honorary degree recipients on the basis of their political beliefs or opinions,” Brandeis said in a statement.

Try as Brandeis might, it is near impossible to separate the political beliefs and opinions of an individual like Ali when those very same beliefs and opinions have made her known in the first place.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is without question a revolutionary figure. Her story of survival — from enduring genital mutilation to escaping from forced marriage — and her subsequent activism in opposition to the poor treatment of women make her an incredibly powerful voice. But bestowing an honorary degree comes with an understanding that the recipient is being honored for his or her work and ideas.

Universities such as Brandeis are free to bestow honorary degrees on whomever they see worthy of recognition. But to cop its decision to revoke the invitation out of supposed ignorance and, perhaps worse, to defend the initial decision in the spirit of free speech fails to acknowledge a fundamental truth: The precedent these arguments will make in favor of free speech won’t be selective to Islam alone. We cannot choose whose speech gets to be defended and whose doesn’t. Today’s dispute over Ayaan Hirsi Ali could be tomorrow’s dispute over another contentious figure known for their unpopular, yet strong, views. Whether the university likes it or not, Brandeis’ decision implies a moral standard that will extend beyond this one instance. What precedent they’ll leave is up to them.

 

Yasmeen Serhan is a sophomore majoring in international relations. She is also the Editorial Director of the Daily Trojan. “Point/Counterpoint” runs Fridays.