Let’s take a look at the source of this controversy, namely Professor Swain’s remarks. She wrote, “What would it take to make us admit we were wrong about Islam? What horrendous attack would finally convince us that Islam is not like other religions on the United States, that it poses an absolute danger to us and our children unless it is monitored better than it has been under the Obama administration?” She continued, “If Muslims are to thrive in America, and we are to be safe, then we must have ground rules that protect the people from those who disdain the freedoms that most of the world covets.”
Some students automatically went into Maximum Indignation Mode, calling her comments “hate speech.” Vanderbilt’s provost, Susan Wente, issued a groveling statement: “We in no way condone or support the views stated in the editorial, and understand that they are deeply offensive to many members of our community — Muslim and non-Muslim alike. We are fully committed to ensuring our compus is a safe and welcoming environment for all. Closely related to this commitment is our support of free speech, which is put to the test when polarizing speech such as this is shared. It is in these time more than ever when we must keep dialogue open.”
(Read more about this on Inside Higher Ed.)
Has the language eroded so far that “hate speech” includes such observations as Prof. Swain made? True, she might have added that many followers of Islam denounce violence and oppose their co-religionists who espouse it, but her thoughts on Islam do not in any way incite hatred of Muslims generally. As for Provost Wente, her reaction is exactly the kind of mush we’ve come to expect from academic administrators. What it means is that the university isn’t going to punish Swain but that the “deeply offended” students have a real gripe because they expect a “safe and welcoming environment.” Apparently, a college has to shield the hyper sensitive from hearing any criticism of ideas or institutions they revere or else it’s not “safe and welcoming.”