Crass and Class at George Mason University

Dr. John's Lewis' lecture last night at George Mason University on Islamic totalitarianism was one of the most surreal public experiences I have witnessed in all my years as an activist and advocate. It evidenced in no uncertain terms that rationality and common decency are under assault at even our most distinguished forums. Academic freedom means tolerating opposing views and countering them with reason and facts in an atmosphere of respect and civility. It is not an orgy of rude and abusive mindlessness—a description that defined the conduct of many in the audience that evening.

The philosophic theme of Lewis' talk was that individual freedom is a value and that the free have the right to protect themselves from the initiation of physical force. Lewis defended religious freedom on explicit grounds, including the freedom of those in attendance who stood up, turned their backs to him and attempted to shout him down to peacefully practice their respective creeds without fear of threats or physical coercion. Lewis contrasted the exercise of freedom in America with life in the totalitarian Islamic regimes, where there is no distinction between the power of the state and the practice of religion.

Quoting various Islamic theocrats in power today, Lewis showed how these theocrats define themselves as advocates for the initiation of force, including one chilling quote from the leader of the Indonesian Islamic fascists that called for Islamic control of the government and the ruthless imposition of Islamic law upon non-believers. Drawing upon the same right of self-defense that allows a woman to defend herself from her would-be rapist, Lewis argued that a free America has an unassailable right to defend itself by destroying the connection between Islam and the state. Lewis pointed to the example of post WWII Japan to show how fighting for such an enemy's willful surrender led to an era of peace, happiness and freedom, for both us, and the peaceful people who had previously suffered under totalitarianism's boot. War may be hell, but a quick and decisive war is far, far better than living in a state of permanent terror.

For this, Lewis was decried as a racial bigot and murderer, and was taunted with endless interruption, bile and obscenities. That Lewis was even able to keep his focus and not throw his hands up in despair was testament to his moral courage and his unwillingness to concede the floor to any heckler's veto.

The lowest point of the evening came during the Q&A, when a GMU campus administrator took the podium in an effort to settle the audience down. He chose his words poorly though, for he ultimately thanked the audience for their behavior, which was little more than failing to engage in an all-out riot. It is one thing to be thankful that there was no riot; it is another thing altogether to thank people for obeying the law and for (barely) respecting the rights of others in attendance. Furthermore, by thanking rude and abusive students for their thuggish behavior, this administrator all but guaranteed that the next controversial speaker will face a similar rude treatment from those who may happen to disagree with him.

The questions asked during the Q&A could hardly be described as that; rather then even attempt to challenge Lewis by a thoughtful or revealing question, many "questioners" simply grandstanded and repeated non-sequiturs that reflected their own refusal to consider any aspect of his thesis. And in a disgusting and contemptible display of arrogance and hypocrisy, an attorney from the Council on American-Islamic Relations frothed to Lewis that he was "too angry" and needed to "lighten up" a bit; it was this same gentlemen who had worked to press the university into denying Lewis a venue when his talk was originally scheduled for February.

Yet the most telling event of the evening was when Lewis, after being pummeled with interruptions and derogatory remarks implying that he was a lackey for the political status quo, simply noted that he did not support the current political administration in Washington on the grounds laid out in his speech. He was not without interruption long enough to be able to fully explain why he disagreed with Washington's war fighting-strategy, but knowing Dr. Lewis, his position can be distilled as follows: the President's religious sympathies have blinded him to fully realizing the pernicious threat caused of the union of religion and state, thereby weakening his resolve to defeat the cornerstone of religious intolerance today, which is the political union of Islam and the state as seen in nations such as Iran. Rather than propel him to lead America to victory against religious tyranny, Lewis argues that the President's philosophy undercuts his very ability to identify the enemy and fight him accordingly.

Such a statement criticizing the President's philosophy and policies may have challenged the ideas and comfort zone of many of the College Republicans in attendance, yet these College Republicans neither screamed nor howled, nor did they interrupt Dr. Lewis and yell that he didn't understand the president and his creed like others in the audience had done. Instead, the College Republicans were nothing but polite, respectful and thoughtful, even as their own thinking was being challenged by their guest before them and under less than ideal circumstances.

The politeness and thoughtfulness of the GMU College Republicans evidenced the key difference between the civilized and the savage in attendance that night. The civilized can tolerate differences of opinion and they seek to understand why these differences exist in the first place. In contrast, savages are simply unable to tolerate any thinking other than their own emotion-laden opinions. If the police had not been there to preserve order with their overwhelming presence, I am convinced that Dr. Liewis would have easily been strung up from the nearest tree. That from students at my alma mater.

It was not lost upon me, the event's organizers or Dr. Lewis himself that our men and women on the battlefield have it far, far worse than anything we may have experienced last night. Our defiance and refusal to yield to any form of intimidation or heckler's veto is an act of solidarity with these men and women; it is our determined effort to say that we will fight for them just as they fight for us.

And bravo to Dr. Lewis and the GMU College Republicans for standing fast in the face of intolerance. More than anyone last night, they earned the title of GMU Patriot.

Islamic totalitarianism and academic freedom at George Mason University

NB: Below is a letter I submitted to the GMU Broadside regarding Tuesday's talk by John Lewis.

To the Editor:

On the eve of the US invasion of Iraq, I participated in a debate at George Mason University with Professor of Conflict Resolution and Public Affairs Richard Rubenstein over the propriety of the invasion. This debate, hosted by the campus Objectivist Club, was remarkable in that rather than yell past each other as is often the fashion in debate, Professor Rubenstein and I sought to explain our respective reasoning in calm, deliberate and principled terms.

Afterward, GMU President Alan Merten, who was in attendance during the debate, remarked that "this is the reason we have universities." I wholeheartedly agree with him and I have always been proud that an event that I participated in warranted such a complement, for it encapsulates a goal of my public advocacy. At root, I seek to identify and defend my values rationally. If one seeks to be persuasive (especially on a controversial moral question), I don't see how one can afford any less.

Fast forward to the present, and you can imagine my surprise when a speaking event that I was helping to organize at GMU was canceled this February in large part due to pressure from Mason's Islamic community. Dr. John Lewis, a classics scholar and military historian from Ashland University, was to address the campus on his strategy for subduing militant jihad and Islamic totalitarianism. In working to prevent Lewis from speaking, these Islamists attacked the very foundation of the university as a realm where controversial ideas can be discussed and debated.

First, it would help to understand just what Dr. Lewis advocates and why some wish that his voice be silenced. Paralleling today's battles with Japan's war against the United States in WWII, Lewis argues that today's conflict is between those who seek to preserve secular government and religious freedom and those who seek to impose the creed of Islam by force. As was the case with the Japanese and the emperor-worshiping suicide-cult of Shintoism, Lewis argues that the advocates for freedom must compel their enemy's total surrender, i.e. they must secure from the enemy the large-scale admission that his cause is utterly futile if freedom and peace are to be restored.

Furthermore, Lewis rejects the argument that Islamic totalitarianism is mere "terrorism" that lacks a distinct center. Instead, Lewis maintains that the Islamic Republic of Iran is the fountainhead of jihad against the West. As such, Iran must be defeated, and Lewis believes that such a defeat will only come as a result of a ruthless war against the Iranian government and the people whose tacit support makes that government possible.

At root, Lewis' argument is built upon a moral principle: the good have full right to their lives and full right to take the action necessary to defend their lives against evil and irrationality.

It is interesting (and ironic) that GMU's Islamic population believes that Dr. Lewis should thus be denied the opportunity to present his case on campus. After all, don't these same Muslims argue that those who seek to impose Islam by force are perverting their "religion of peace?" Shouldn't these Muslims then be just as appalled at the murder and brutality of the Iranian regime as is Lewis? Shouldn't these Muslims be just as concerned about the threat of a nuclear-tipped Iran—on the grounds that they have a firsthand understanding of the evils of the Iranian regime?

Or is it that some in GMU's Muslim community are more sympathetic toward Iran than they are toward America? Perhaps that is why they choose to ignore Lewis' actual thesis against totalitarianism and attempt to twist his argument into an assault against all Muslims, peaceable or not. And perhaps that is why these Muslims are implying that GMU students are simply too ignorant to make up their own minds about what Lewis has to say and that they should serve as censors for what is and is not discussed on this campus. Had members of Mason's Islamic community sought to engage Lewis in honest debate, I would have gladly supported it, yet they have not offered this. Instead, they have attacked the very premise of the university itself.

I am heartened to see that one group on campus has had the moral courage to do what is right and ensure that Dr. Lewis is able to present his arguments to students. Lewis' thesis is non-partisan, yet sensing the larger issue at stake, the College Republicans have risen up in defense of academic freedom and offered a venue for Lewis to speak. I admire them for it, because they have evidenced a better grasp of this issue than many of GMU's professors and administrators. No one has a right to bar anyone who seeks to peacefully discuss his or her ideas from speaking at this campus, and any attempt to do so is an attempt to hijack the mission of university in the name of a cause other than truth-seeking.

I hold that George Mason University has an important role to play in the upcoming debates that will challenge our nation. I hope that every one of its students and faculty, regardless of their philosophic leanings, will affirm their commitment to the academic freedom that is needed for Mason to successfully fulfill that role. Quite frankly, anything less is surrender to irrationality.

Nicholas Provenzo
Chairman
Center for the Advancement of Capitalism
GMU Alumni, BIS '05

No Substitute for Victory: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism

RESCHEDULED IN THE NAME OF

ACADEMIC FREEDOM

What: A live lecture by historian Dr. John Lewis, Ph.D.

When: Tuesday, April 24, 7:30 pm

Where: GMU Fairfax Campus, Johnson Center Cinema [Campus Map]

In the wake of 9/11, and in the face of rising threats to their freedoms and rights, Americans are uncertain about what a proper foreign policy should be. Crippled by this uncertainty, America has failed to address the cause of the threats against her.

This talk consults the historical precedent of American policy towards Shintoism in post-1945 Japan to show that a proper policy today would first identify Islamic Totalitarianism as the cause of the threat facing the West, and then direct American resources toward eliminating the political imposition of Islamic Law.

If Americans want to end the danger to their lives and liberty, they must first identify the advocates of political Islam (those who seek to impose Islamic Law by force) as the true enemy, and then destroy that enemy—beginning with the Islamic State of Iran.

Sponsored by the GMU College Republicans, GMU Objectivist Club and The Objective Standard.

Diana Hsieh's list of media & blog coverage.
Gus Van Horn's list.
GMU CR's Facebook entry.

Daniel Chester French—Consummate Idealist

What: A Live Lecture by Art Historian Lee Sandstead

When: Wednesday, March 21st, 7:30 PM

Where: GMU Fairfax Campus, Johnson Center 3rd Floor, Meeting Room A [Campus Map]

With the dedication in 1922 of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C., the United States saw its last great monument rooted in the Renaissance. It was at this time that the world was turning away from the artistic principles of the previous 600 years for the new esthetic of Modernism. This makes sculptor Daniel Chester French doubly fascinating to study; not only does his genius place him on par with the great Renaissance sculptors as seen in the Seated Lincoln of the Lincoln Memorial, but as the world was transitioning to a new era of art—French held fast to his artistic principles.

While French was a house-hold name in his own day, particularly from works such as the Minute Man (1875) and Death and the Sculptor (1893), today little is known of him. He is not studied in academia and books have not been written about him. This is particularly striking as his artistic hand can literally be seen in almost every major American city.

For the past eight years, Professor Sandstead has travelled from coast to coast locating, documenting and photographing the works of this forgotten master. While he has learned a great deal, there is one fact that stands above the rest. That from historic city center, to forgotten cemetery to distant university chapel--French was at all times a consummate idealist.
Attend this stirring, illustrated lecture and survey the many works of Daniel Chester French. With themes of love, beauty and heroism, see for yourself why French is a consummate idealist.

About Lee Sandstead

Professor Sandstead specializes in late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century Academic art of France, America, Spain, Italy, England and Canada. His lectures on art history and art appreciation have been heard nationally and internationally at over 30 universities and institutions, such as: Harvard, New York University, Yale, and Duke. His art-historical photography has been published in numerous books and publications, including: The New York Times, Fortune, Ms., Preservation Magazine, Style 1900, The New York Post, and American Cemetery Magazine.

When he documented the art and stained glass in the interiors of 1,300 mausoleums at Woodlawn Cemetery in NYC, he has literally traveled where no other art-historian has ever been.

He has studied art history at the University of Memphis’ graduate program, and most recently, the art history doctoral program at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. He was a Visiting Scholar of Art History at Montclair State University from 2001-2006. Today, he serves as Chair of the Department of Art History and Fine Arts at Founders College in South Boston, Virginia.

The Associated Press covers the canceled John Lewis talk

Matthew Barakat of the Associated Press reports on the canceled (and soon to be rescheduled) John Lewis talk on totalitarian Islam.

Note how the spokesman from the Council on American-Islamic Relations claims that Lewis is an "unfit" public speaker--as if it is his right to vet who speaks and who doesn't speak on an American college campus.

An Evening with Novelist Edward Cline

What: a live lecture by novelist Edward Cline, author of the Sparrowhawk series of revolutionary war-era historical fiction.

When: Wednesday, March 7th, 7:30 pm

Where: GMU Fairfax Campus Johnson Center 3rd Floor - Meeting Room A [Campus Map]

Edward Cline has been writing since graduation from high school in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Primarily a novelist, he has written fifteen novels and nearly one hundred published nonfiction articles, book reviews, monographs, and essays for such publications as The Wall Street Journal, the Colonial Williamsburg Journal, Marine Corps League, The Social Critic, and the Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science on subjects ranging from censorship to politically correct speech. His articles have also appeared on websites such as Capitalism Magazine, The Rule of Reason, and Dougout. His article on John Locke in the Colonial Williamsburg Journal was reprinted twice in McGraw-Hill Dushkin’s Western Civilization II, a college textbook, and also served as the basis of a course in political science at Virginia Wesleyan College in Norfolk.

Of his novels, First Prize, the second in a series of stories that feature a detective who solves murders based on moral paradoxes, was published in 1988. Whisper the Guns, the first in a suspense series featuring an American entrepreneur hero, was published in 1992. In 2001 the first of his Sparrowhawk novels, set in Virginia and England in the decades preceding the Revolution, appeared. The sixth and last title in that series debuted in December of 2006.

Sponsored by the GMU Objectivist Club and The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism.

Club update

One of the tricks used to shut down the John Lewis talk was the fact that the club leadership was unaware that its university registration had expired. I personally thought this paperwork was submitted last spring, yet apparently it was not. Live and learn . . .

More to the point however, we need to meet to reassemble the club so we can secure a campus venue for John Lewis that cannot be withdrawn because some pressure group doesn’t like our speaker and/or his subject.

I propose an ad hoc meeting this Monday, March 5th at 7:00 PM at the info desk of the JC so we can put together the paperwork and get the club reorganized. If you familiar with Ayn Rand and her novels such as The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and would like to be part of a club that meets to study and discuss Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism (overview here), I invite you to join us and help re-launch the club. (Please RSVP if you plan on helping out to: gmuobjectivistclub@gmail.com).

From there, we can all work together to restore a voice of reason back to the GMU campus where apparently only intolerance and indifference now exist.

(And if you are wondering just who I am, I am something like the alumni den mother to the club. I have supported this club before I was a student at George Mason, I ran it while I was enrolled as a student (BIS ’05), and I have subsequently supported it as an alumnus). Feel free to visit my work bio here.

GMU cancellation update

We are not exactly sure who orchestrated the effort that removed us from our venue for the talk, or if the action was the result of a few individuals or a coordinated group. Apparently, in trying to determine who sponsored the talk, these individuals revealed that the venue was extended to us as a courtesy through the department of an on-campus supporter rather than as an outright sanction of the event by that person’s department. Once the pressure was placed, that department decided it did not want to be involved with any sort of controversial event.

Due to the oversight of the club not having filed the requisite paperwork so it could secure a room in its own name, we were left without another means to secure a venue. Accordingly, the club takes responsibility for the event cancellation and apologizes for the error in not ensuring that we had an ironclad lock on a venue.

Tomorrow, I’m going to campus to see what we have to do to secure a room in the club’s name. I obviously propose that we reschedule the talk. Whatever it takes, John Lewis will speak at GMU on the threat of totalitarian Islam and why America must accept nothing less than victory against it. The stakes are simply too high to allow anything or anyone to squelch this important message.

Since we ultimately believe that we will be able to reserve a room at GMU in the club's own name, we are looking to tone down the heat rather than increase it. (At the same time, if someone was willing to go though extraordinary efforts to press the university to shut down our event once, they will more than likely will be willing to try again. We would like to load the requisite outrage there rather than here.)

Again, I would like to personally apologize to all for this situation. Give our long history of thoughtful lectures and debates on controversial subjects at GMU, this cancellation was simply was a twist that we have never encountered or would have ever expected.

Lewis talk to be postponed

Due to unexpected controversy, the lecture 'No Substitute for Victory: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism' by Dr. John Lewis has been canceled.

It is our intention to reschedule this event for a later date. Updates will be posted as details become available.

No Substitute for Victory: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism

What: A live lecture by historian Dr. John Lewis, Ph.D.

When: Wednesday, February 28, 7:30 pm

Where: GMU Fairfax Campus, Johnson Center 3rd Floor - Meeting Room C [Campus Map]

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, America has struggled over how best to answer the threat of Islamic terrorism. Drawing upon lessons gleaned from the history of human conflict and the nature of freedom and theocracy, classics scholar John Lewis argues that America must assert its right to self-defense and ruthlessly crush totalitarian Islam.

In one of the most thought-provoking and controversial presentations of the year, Lewis will explain how history shows us that the current US strategy to win the so-called war against "terror" is doomed to failure, and why anything less than total victory over totalitarian Islam should be rejected on principle.

Sponsored by the GMU Objectivist Club and The Objective Standard.