Allah And Money At Yale*

I have previously posted about the contemptible decision by Yale University Press, under pressure from the University administration, to publish a book about the controversy over the publication by various Danish newspapers of cartoons that were critical of Muhammad, by omitting the cartoons themselves, as well as other depictions of Muhammad. The University was afraid of the reaction that the publication of such depictions would have on Muslims. At the time, Yale’s art department had no similar compunctions about honoring a student who made “abortion art.”

The New Criterion has an article about the continuing cravenness of the Yale administration in knuckling under to Arab money and Muslim pressure. The article discusses the troubling propensity of too many offended Muslims to prove their detractors right by threatening them with death. Or to kill either them or whatever convenient targets happen to be nearby, such as Christian minorities in Muslim countries. But, the article avers, Yale president Richard Levin is less interested in political correctness than he is in money. It has to be said, of course, that, in this regard, Levin is no different from other university administrators. However, the suffocating smog of political correctness that  is part of the miasma of multiculturalism in academic institutions inevitably plays a part.

The New Criterion informs us that among President Levin’s decisions “was inviting Queen Rania of Jordan to Yale for a public chat with him in conjunction with Yale’s presentation of a traveling art exhibition (on view until December 12) called ‘Breaking the Veils: Women Artists from the Islamic World.’ To forestall any misconception, let us explain that this exhibition is not meant to criticize the veil and assorted haberdashery in Islamic society (the burqa, hijab, niqab, and other emblems of women’s status as chattel in many Islamic societies). On the contrary, the exhibition—what President Levin apostrophized as a ‘magnificent’ show—is intended to ‘combat’ what the curators see as ‘misperceptions about the Muslim world and Arab nations’ by the West. Item: a silkscreen by Leila Shawa, a Palestinian artist living in London, that ’superimposes a United Nations resolution that established a special committee to investigate Israeli practices in occupied territories with the image of rubble, possibly a destroyed home.’”

How yawningly predictable. As usual, these exhibits are attacks on the West in general, and Israel in particular. Sad to say, in that regard they are of a common denominator with other academic exhibits, panels, discussions, papers, articles, etc., that still reprise the tired tropes of Western racism, bigotry, imperialism, and so on, in a perpetual orgy of figurative clothes-rending and self-flagellation. Never would one point fingers at racism, bigotry, imperialism, and so on, by the official victim cultures. Such “judgment” must be avoided, lest one violate a fundamental canon of multiculturalism.

Unfortunately, the Western habit of submission in such matters to the demands of Islam’s followers (”Islam” means submission) is not limited to university administrations, which are, after all, not known for intestinal fortitude. The disease has spread well beyond. Another recent example is the movie 2012. As The New York Times explains, the movie’s director, Roland Emmerich, selected his scenes of destruction with one eye on the possible reaction of the excitable lads from what advertises itself as the religion of peace. Best to let Mr. Emmerich explain.

“Not lost on Mr. Emmerich was the potential outrage from showing realistic disasters hitting California, a state plagued by wildfires and earthquakes, or toppling city towers in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Still, he pressed ahead with annihilation as usual: ‘If I cannot destroy a big high-rise anymore, because terrorists blew up two of the most famous ones, the twin towers, what does this say about our world?’
He razed Rio de Janeiro; Rome; California; Washington, D.C.; Tibet; Las Vegas; Yellowstone National Park; and more but decided against destroying Islamic symbols. ‘My co-writer, Harald’ Kloser, ’said, “I’m not writing this to get a fatwa on my head,”‘ Mr. Emmerich said. ‘We have Jesus falling apart in all kinds of forms. The Vatican falls on people’s heads, and we can do that because we’re a free, Western society, but if there would be, like, Mecca destroyed, there would be an outrage. And so you don’t do it. At the end of the thing it’s entertainment.’”

Apparently lost on Mr. Emmerich is the parody his own statement has become. What does it say about our world, indeed? It is fine to ignore the sensibilities of Californians who suffer from natural disasters. Same as to the sensibilities of Americans, especially New Yorkers, who saw skyscrapers collapse as a result of the actions of radical Islamic terrorists. And the sensibilities of Catholics when he depicts the destruction of the Vatican. And the sensibilities of Christians in general when he shows the destruction of a prominent Jesus statue. And the sensibilities of Buddhists over the destruction of Tibet. But one group must not be offended. Yes, that one. So much for the preening of those Hollywood posers who congratulate each other at their many awards ceremonies, those orgies of self-adulation, for their imagined courage in speaking truth to power.

*The title is a play on William F. Buckley’s inaugural work, God And Man At Yale. As amazon.com describes it, the book “exposed the extraordinarily irresponsible educational attitude that prevailed at [Yale].” Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.