Zineb El Rhazoui, a columnist for Charlie Hebdo, recently gave a talk at the University of Chicago. She spoke about living under the constant shadow of death threats issued by the Islamic State.
Judith Shulevitz, in a New York Times article titled In College and Hiding From Scary Ideas, describes what happened next:
During the question-and-answer period, a Muslim student stood up to object to [Charlie Hebdo’s] apparent disrespect for Muslims and to express her dislike of the phrase “I am Charlie.”
Ms. El Rhazoui replied, somewhat irritably, “Being Charlie Hebdo means to die because of a drawing,” and not everyone has the guts to do that (although she didn’t use the word guts). She lives under constant threat, Ms. El Rhazoui said. The student answered that she felt threatened, too.
A few days later, a guest editorialist in the student newspaper took Ms. El Rhazoui to task. She had failed to ensure “that others felt safe enough to express dissenting opinions.” Ms. El Rhazoui’s “relative position of power,” the writer continued, had granted her a “free pass to make condescending attacks on a member of the university.”
Fortunately, other students at the university rallied to Ms. El Rhazoui’s defense. Still, isn’t there something backward about people feeling threatened by ideas, especially when the people voicing those ideas are being threatened with literal death?
Shulevitz also reports on a dust-up at Smith University over a speaker who refused to use the euphemistic “n-word” in a discussion about Huckleberry Finn. The speaker, Wendy Kaminer, is quoted as saying “It’s amazing to me that they can’t distinguish between racist speech and speech about racist speech, between racism and discussions of racism.”
It’s amazing to me too. Continue reading