2 of 2

The critics' argument are beside the point, argues The Christian Science Monitor. "It's hard to imagine that student discussions won't delve into the contrast between what they've read and radical Islamists' call for jihad against perceived enemies of Islam. That's a useful discussion. … The hate-filled interpretations that try to justify the taking of innocent life impel a harder look at just what this world religion teaches." Regardless, says the Monitor, "Learning about another religion should be no threat to one's own."

This isn't an isolated case, argues Slate's William Saletan. Instead, it's part of religious right activists' efforts to cast themselves as underdogs:

What do these complaints add up to? Let's see: The university is coercing students by requiring them to write about why they don't want to write about any of the open-ended questions the university asked them to write about. The assigned reading … is unconstitutionally pro-Muslim because it's insufficiently anti-Muslim. And it's insensitive not just to require such reading, but to allow it.

This is what "intimidation," "discrimination," and "sensitivity" have come to. Words that once accurately described cross burnings, housing covenants, and slurs are now being used to describe the superficial emotional wounds that come from living and debating in a free society. This dilution is being perpetrated not just by the left but by the right as well. … Religious bigotry isn't gone. It just goes by the name of religious freedom.

Only The Wall Street Journal sides with the freshmen. "Apparently the guardians of the Establishment Clause decided that compulsory religious study is OK if it helps a university promote the politically correct view of Islam," the paper said. "It's hard to imagine the ACLU exhibiting the same large-mindedness toward a state university that demanded all freshmen read the New Testament or the Torah and meditate on the teachings and liturgical music."

As for the argument that the students shouldn't focus on the Qur'an's violent parts because the Bible has them too, the Journal replies, "The next time a terrorist cites Joshua as his rationale for murdering thousands of innocent civilians, let us know."

Actually, says James Bowman in National Review Online, the entire argument that students should study Islam because of 9/11 is spurious. "We don't even know if the hijackers were believing Muslims. Certainly, some of the things they did while living undercover in this country were inconsistent with such belief," he says. "The sad fact is that, like most academic studies these days, the UNC teach-in is all for the sake of making the teachers feel better, and more virtuous, for showing off their own tolerance in public. And why does the state sponsor that?"

The debate isn't over yet. On Thursday, a committee of the UNC Board of Governors will debate academic freedom. The college is still reeling from the board's failure to affirm it earlier this month. And as for the school, the more controversy the better, says the university's chancellor, James Moeser. "The faculty has succeeded in choosing a book that is provocative in the best sense of the word, provocative of inquiry, even controversy," he told the Associated Press. "Universities thrive on controversy."

Copyright © 2002 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

What is Weblog?

See our past Weblog updates:

August 16 | 15 | 14 | 13 | 12

August 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5

August 2 | 1 | July 31 | 30 | 29

July 26 | 25 | 24 | 23 | 22

July 19 | 18 | 17 | 16 | 15

July 12 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 8

July 5 | 3 | 2 | 1

first page |  2 of 2

share this page

August (Web-only) 2002, Vol. 46