Young America's Foundation Letter About the GW Poster Affair:

It's online; I quote the text:

Seven students at your institution falsely attributed the “Hate Muslims? So Do We!!” fliers to The George Washington University chapter of Young America’s Foundation.When the fliers initially surfaced you said, “There is no place for expressions of hatred on our campus. We do not condone, and we will not tolerate the dissemination of fliers or other documents that vilify any religious, ethnic or racial group.”

We agree. Vicious personal attacks levied on students are intolerable, and should not go unpunished. The question remains: what will you do about such blatant character assassination now that the truth is out? How will you demonstrate that you don’t “condone” or “tolerate” the dissemination of hate?

To be clear, liberal radicals on your campus accused conservative students of engaging in racist activities, and to buttress those baseless claims, these same radicals manufactured actual racist activities to pin on the young conservatives.

Student Association Executive Vice President Brand Kroeger told the GW Hatchet that he “would support expulsion. These acts are completely heinous.” Again, we agree with this statement if Kroeger believes it is the job of The George Washington University to protect the reputation of students who are wrongfully maligned. In an open letter to you, the culprits admit to distorting the views of the conservatives on campus. They wrote, “We want to reach out to our Muslim brothers and sisters in the Holy Month of Ramadan in hopes that they will embrace our misrepresented, but honorable stand against racism” (emphasis added).

There is, of course, a clear difference between ordinary Muslims who positively contribute to society and radical Jihadists who boast about murdering people indiscriminately. It’s a typical left-wing tactic, however, to just call names, such as “racist,” rather than engage in a serious debate, in this case, over radical Islam. Only the intellectually deficient revert to such slanderous attacks.

The seven who put up the phony fliers are frauds.

You should issue an apology to the conservatives unfairly targeted. It was obvious that the fliers were spreading lies, but your administration, led by Bridgette Behling -- the assistant director of the Student Activities Center -- sent emails to the young conservatives pressuring them to sign statements disavowing any hate speech that may originate at any future Young America’s Foundation event.

That’s astonishing. Maybe she forgot that the presumption of innocence is an American hallmark? Or maybe your administration should pressure leftist groups to sign statements disavowing any future dirty tricks on conservatives?

The political profiling of conservatives MUST stop. You need to organize a forum immediately that embraces intellectual diversity and denounces the Left’s attempts to create hostile learning environments for conservatives. The campus leftists wrote that Young America’s Foundation “should not [be] allow[ed]” to host conservative speakers. These seven students are trying to squelch robust dialogue and free speech. We believe this to be the goal of their scheme. As president of The George Washington University, we hope that you will create an atmosphere where all students, including conservatives, feel welcomed.

Don’t waste the opportunity.

A little too much umbrage, it seems to me, given that the poster was pretty clearly a satire, rather than an attempt to deceive. On the other hand, some critics of the Foundation indeed seem to have been deceived, and did indeed think that conservative students were accusing Muslims of having "lasers in eyes" and "peg-leg[s] for smuggling children and heroin," on a poster labeled "Brought to you by Students for Conservative-Fascism Awareness." Oy.

Thanks to the Washington Times for putting the letter online.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Young America's Foundation Letter About the GW Poster Affair:
  2. Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week at George Washington University:
Ex-Fed (mail):
I just love the bind this puts them in. As you say, it was rather clearly a satire. If the administration and the groups from the Left that condemned the poster don't now call with equal vigor for punishment of the poster's authors, they must necessarily admit to being either (a) too dumb to recognize satire or (b) entirely hypocritical, or possibly both.
10.10.2007 9:23pm
Ex-Fed (mail):
Also, I have to ask: "Young America's Foundation?" Were they trying for "Young American's Foundation?" Are they implying that America is still young compared to, say, France? Or is it that the foundation has been around since America was inarguably young, say in 1798 or so? Or is "Young America" standing in for "The Youth of America," which is merely infelicitous? Laser-equipped peg-legged Islamofascists aside, it seems questionable whether the YAF had the command of palatable diction necessary to put the poster together.
10.10.2007 9:37pm
Thoughtful (mail):
EV: "Some posters...did indeed think that conservative students were accusing Muslims of having "lasers in eyes" and "peg-leg[s] for smuggling children and heroin," on a poster labeled "Brought to you by Students for Conservative-Fascism Awareness."

Perhaps they were merely erring on the side of caution, having already been taken in by the claim from "conservative[s]" that Muslims had weapons of mass destruction...

:-)

Truly, it IS amazing that university administrators in the grip of political correctness seem to loose any ability to analyze rationally or maintain a sense of humor.
10.10.2007 9:40pm
Henry Bramlet (mail):
I think a lot of people who claim "This was clearly satire" are missing the point.

Of course it was clearly satire, but satire of what? Was it an unfair (and unfunny) joke at the expense of Muslims, or was it an unfair (hackneyed and cliched) joke at the expense of Conservatives? The administration thought the former, and I think many reasonable people who were not studying the poster closely (and who think so poorly of conservatives anyways) could have made the same mistake.

What is interesting here is not the message, but the reaction to that message. Was the content defamatory to Muslims or not? If it was (which the administration seems to claim) then the identity of the authors is moot. How does discovering that the Authors were liberals change the fact that there is a poster circulating that makes false and derogatory claims about a race or religion?

If anything, the attempt to pass off the poster as being the views of someone else (defamation and fraud) only compounds, rather than mitigates.

The only way the Administration can get out of that hypocritical pretzel is admit that they didn't read the poster very well and have only now read it close enough to realize that it was satire. But then they have to admit that they are willing to punish students (at least the conservative ones) based on cursory reviews of evidence...not a good place to be.

Bottom line: the administrators were willing to skewer the authors when they thought they were conservative. Once they were found to be liberals, the exact same message suddenly gets the benefit of context. Double standard anyone?
10.10.2007 9:42pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Ex-Fed.
You got the important point, there, sport.

The umbrage, it seems to me, is directed at the administration which started giving the YAF a hard time for something the YAF obviously didn't do. Or, if it wasn't obvious, then the people who did it are smarter than the administration. Let me see. IQ competition. Undergrads vs. university administrators....

The umbrage is justified.
10.10.2007 9:42pm
GV_:
That letter sounds like it was written by a 15 year old.

Can people also stop saying stupid things like "The Left" and "The Right"?

And what the hell is "political profiling"? And MUST (as opposed to must) it stop?
10.10.2007 9:44pm
Archon (mail):
I've got a novel idea!

Why don't universities just stay out of the business of policing speech instead of threatening disciplinary sanctions or denouncing unpopular speech. Just shut up about it all!
10.10.2007 9:45pm
Smokey:
The ball is now in clearly Brand Kroeger's court. Will he do the right thing?

Don't hold your breath.
10.10.2007 9:48pm
PersonFromPorlock:
The letter may be a bit umbrageous but it's justified because the YAF is trying to communicate with people who've already shown they have no sense and no sense of humor.
10.10.2007 9:54pm
Mike& (mail):
The umbrage, it seems to me, is directed at the administration which started giving the YAF a hard time for something the YAF obviously didn't do.

This is exactly right. They were falsely accused and threatened with expulsion. I'd be pretty teed off, too.

Sure, the letter does read a bit emotionally and it somewhat confrontational. But we are dealing with college kids who are persecuted in class, who are called racists, and who are threatened with expulsion for posters they did not even produce.

Who can blame them for being a bit emotional?
10.10.2007 9:58pm
Elliot123 (mail):
I suggest a contest. Develop a satirical poster and distribute it to conspirators at various universities. Then spread the posters around the different campuses at the same time. We can them watch to see which administrations tie themselves up in sentitivity knots, and which don't.
10.10.2007 10:02pm
Russ (mail):
My last point in the other post regarding this is still on target - had the YAF actually done this, you can bet they would have faced discipline, possibly up to expulsion.

Perhaps this makes the best case of all for the doing away with of speech codes on campus.
10.10.2007 10:04pm
Another guest:
To be fair, the YAF didn't go completely over the top - it's not like they blamed the bogus flyer on MoveOn.org.
10.10.2007 10:08pm
Anon21:
The author of this letter fails at parsing basic syntax. The quote from the satirists' letter describes their (the satirists who put up the fake posters) "stand" as "misrepresented," meaning others have sought to or have succeeded in misrepresenting it. The word the author of the letter from the YAF seems to be attempting to read into the letter would be something along the lines of "misrepresentatitive," which, in addition to not being a word at all, is clearly not what the letter they quoted from is conveying.
10.10.2007 10:10pm
neurodoc:
Thoughtful: Perhaps they were merely erring on the side of caution, having already been taken in by the claim from "conservative[s]" that Muslims had weapons of mass destruction... :-)
You are alluding to the fact that no WMD were found when we invaded Iraq in 2003? But of course, you are aware that Iraq did have WMD when we went to war with them in 1991 and they had used them to kill thousands of Kurds. (Prior to 2003, other Muslims, the Pakistanis, did have nuclear weapons and still do, while still other Muslims are working to get them now. And Muslims other than the Iraqis have used poison gas on those who opposed them.)

But you are certainly right that Saddam did do a good job making many think that he probably was sitting on WMD. And those not willing to take the chance that Saddam had them and might use them at some future time decided he had to be taken out. Like those who put up the "satirical" posters, Saddam didn't get the result he expect with his dissembling.
10.10.2007 10:23pm
Elliot123 (mail):
The letter probably does fail in any number of areas. But it succeeds in making the unversity administration look foolsh.
10.10.2007 10:23pm
PAULV (mail):
tis is far from the first time that a forged document has been produced or car burned so that "conservatives' could be called racists. Just a trend?
10.10.2007 10:26pm
neurodoc:
Anon21, "The author of this letter fails at parsing basic syntax."? Have another look. The author of the YAF letter was quoting from the apology written by those responsible for the poster, who claimed theirs was a "misrepresented (sic), but honorable stand against racism." Credit to whom it is do, please.
10.10.2007 10:29pm
Cornellian (mail):
If I could shoot laser beams from my eyes, like Cyclops of X-Men fame, I doubt I'd object to people mentioning that fact when talking about me.
10.10.2007 10:32pm
neurodoc:
The letter probably does fail in any number of areas.
Any very significant ones? None that I see.

But it succeeds in making the unversity administration look foolsh.
And that of course was the point. Of course, there was some posturing there, heavy on the umbrage. But less of it would have robbed the letter of force and effectiveness.
10.10.2007 10:38pm
Hoosier:
Henry--I think you have it exactly right. The decision by the GeeDub administration may come down to the question of WHO was planting an outrageous parody of WHOM.

And the result? When the hugely offensive posters were thought to be aimed at Muslims, they were Very Disturbing. But when the hugely offensive posters are seen as (a lame attempt at) parody of YAF? Dunno. But I can guess.

This is the same sort of reasoning that leads to speech codes and hate crime legislation. It is not the act alone that determines consequences. One also needs to ask WHY it was done, and WHOM it offended.

In which case, universities need to print up and circulate the rules during orientation week.
("You may only offend White Christians, heterosexual white males, Jews, and campus athletes[excluding Title IX grant-in-aid recipients]. Minorities can be insulted only if they are students in the College of Business, and then only if they are heterosexual 7 come from a household with pre-tax income over $100K[excluding rents collected, gambling winnings, and slavery reparations, if any].")

Otherwise it strikes me as a bit ex post facto. I mean, how was a student at Cornell to know that he wasn't allowed to call a certain fraction of the students 'water buffalo'? Can a Cornellian say "zebu"? "Fox bat"? "Oscelot"? One needs to know this sort of thing from the beginning.
10.10.2007 10:49pm
Anon21:
Neurodoc, my point exactly. The YAF letter quotes from the liberal satirists' apology letter, but either intentionally distorts or fails to comprehend what the phrase, quoted from the apology letter, means. The liberal satirists are claiming that their (that is, the liberal satirists') stand on behalf of solidarity with "Muslim brothers and sisters" was misrepresented. The YAF letter misstates that to be an admission that the liberal satirists misrepresented the YAF's views. Unless the broader context for the quote reverses the plain meaning (in which case the YAF letter should obviously have included that context, since the current version makes them look inattentive, uncomprehending of syntax, or deceitful), then the passage the YAF letter quotes from the satirists' apology letter does not support the claim that the satirists have admitted to misrepresenting anyone's views.
10.10.2007 11:00pm
Gary Imhoff (mail) (www):
I don't think it's correct to state that the poster was clearly satire. It was not just the university administration that was fooled -- the local media immediately reported that the poster was "racist" and "hate speech." Television and radio reports fell a little short of blaming YAF for producing the poster, but they clearly implied that it was responsible. To conservatives and moderates, the poster may have been an obviously poor parody of how conservatives think and write; but to many liberals in the university administration and the media it was convincing.
10.10.2007 11:03pm
neurodoc:
Hoosier, FWIW (not much), the "water buffalo" thing happened at Penn, not Cornell.
10.10.2007 11:33pm
Elliot123 (mail):
"To conservatives and moderates, the poster may have been an obviously poor parody of how conservatives think and write; but to many liberals in the university administration and the media it was convincing."

And that's why they look so foolish.
10.10.2007 11:37pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Elliot.

I'd be a bit more skeptical.

No one has less respect for the intelligence and common sense of university administrators than I, except for current students, of course.

However, there are some things that even a moron can grasp and this poster issue is probably one of them.

How's this: The admin knew it was a lame attempt by somebody besides YAF and conservatives--because, dumb as they are, they're not totally without a brain. But, knowing this, they were also aware that it might still be profitably pinned on conservatives. It was this that was the error. The misinterpretation was deliberate. The accusations and implications were done with the presumption they wouldn't be found out.

Anyway, they are stuck with the MSM's defense when caught at a howler. "We're not crooks. We're stupid."
10.10.2007 11:46pm
neurodoc:
Anon21, those who put up the posters admit that it was they, not the YAF, that did so. They clearly were not expressing their own views with those posters, but rather trying to shame the YAF through satire, which relies on exaggeration or distortion. (You don't think they really meant to pass it off as the YAF's work do you, even if some fools took it to be the YAF's.) So confessing to the attempt at satire is confessing to misrepresenting, even if no one is expected to think it is the real thing, i.e., YAF's own. Those who are posted are trying to excuse themselves by saying they meant to fight racism, and they wanted Muslims to understand that because others (YAF) had "misrepresented" what they were really about.

I do understand your point about could be seen as a YAF "gotcha," without evidence to support it. There are equally plausible alternative readings of that paragraph, though, and I think the letter was competently drafted.
10.10.2007 11:54pm
neurodoc:
So the GW prez has this letter, what will he do now? My guess is that he will segue as quickly as possible. Quick apology for the stupidity of those lower down the food chain and let it go at that. Only if Fox, radio talk shows, and bloggers keep it in the public eye, will the prez do any more, and that won't be much no matter what. The YAFers will enjoy it as long as they can, and it will endear them to like minds, helping them with future employment. The ones responsible for the satire will feel still more righteous and come back for more later. The Muslim student organization will add it to their list of grievances, and CAIR is no doubt on its way, if it hasn't already arrived there.
10.11.2007 12:14am
Truth Seeker:
How about nobody get punished for anything verbal or written. (Sticks and stones and all that.) And let a free market of ideas sort out who's right?
10.11.2007 12:35am
Montie:

How's this: The admin knew it was a lame attempt by somebody besides YAF and conservatives--because, dumb as they are, they're not totally without a brain. But, knowing this, they were also aware that it might still be profitably pinned on conservatives. It was this that was the error. The misinterpretation was deliberate. The accusations and implications were done with the presumption they wouldn't be found out.


I have to agree with that. If the University truly thought that there was a possibility that the posters were genuine, they would have began a long, ponderous investigation and disciplinary procedures against the YAF (as Universities are wont to do). They would not have been sending out emails to the YAF on the same day asking for signed statements promising no future "hate" activities.
10.11.2007 12:38am
Freedom Fighter (mail):
you sons a bitches American terrorist fuckers, The world hates you, you are the real terrorists of the earth you kill millions.

How many bin laden killed?? [hundreds maybe thousands]
How many USA terrorists killed?? [MILLIONS including Native Americans, Japanese {hiroshima, nagasaki), Vietnamese, North Korean, Afghan, Iraqi, Philippines]

So much damn blood on your hands im surprized you have the nerve to talk?

you and your country full of terrorists will collapse soon enough, the muslim world have had enough of your shit, we will start selling our oil in the EURO and overcharge your snooty asses.

Damn terrorists cross the ocean to attack a nation that had NOTHING to do with 9/11, and you still want to get bombed from Iran. keep that shit up you terrorists, your nation is living off of borrowed time and borrowed money. Your shit immoral nation will collapse soon.
10.11.2007 12:39am
Hoosier:
Freedom, I'd like to get to know you better.

Do you want to go camping with me?
10.11.2007 12:53am
David Schraub (mail) (www):
It's worth noting that, having known Brand Kroeger since high school, I'm 100% positive he would be thrilled to come down quite hard on liberal radicals -- far more so than he would any supposed conservative group. He is, shall we say, not a man of the left.
10.11.2007 12:55am
Charlie (Colorado) (mail):
Eugene, I'm curious: how many false accusations of racism and threats of expulsion by school administrators would it take before this degree of umbrage is justified?
10.11.2007 1:04am
Freedom Fighter (mail):
LOL GO CAMPING WITH YOU, why don't you go camping with your VICE PRESIDENT hahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahah?
10.11.2007 1:05am
Kazinski:
Obviously if threats were made by the adminstration against those that created the posters, then the threats need to be carried out.

Most "hate crime" on campus is perpetrated by desperate progressives looking vainly for some real racism to be outraged about. I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that if they find the perp in the Columbia noose incident, that it will be in the outraged horde protesting the incident.
10.11.2007 1:29am
Kovarsky (mail):
I don't get it. The letter's author doesn't understand that invoking certain imagery for the purposes of satire triggers a different response than invoking that same imagery for the purposes of conveying the literal meaning of the poster. It's not very complicated.

Yeah, it's a shame that this was attributed wrongfully to the Young Americans group. But that doesn't mean that the administration should treat the poster the same when a revelation about its author makes clear that it's intended meaning was not at all what inspired the penalty.
10.11.2007 2:14am
neurodoc:
Kazinski: I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that if they find the perp in the Columbia noose incident, that it will be in the outraged horde protesting the incident.
Exactly what I thought. May not be the odds on favorite to prove out, but it wouldn't be the first time.
10.11.2007 2:29am
Jmaie (mail):
Troll alert - Freedom Fighter sounds EXACTLY like the al-Zawahiri character on South Park's "Family Guy-Muhammad" episode. So in real life, Freedom Fighter is actually Trey Parker or Matt Stone.

So, Freedom Fighter - who are you really?
10.11.2007 2:29am
neurodoc:
Truth Seeker: How about nobody get punished for anything verbal or written. (Sticks and stones and all that.) And let a free market of ideas sort out who's right?
Does public shaming count as punishment? I think some public shaming would be good for the GW administration.
10.11.2007 2:35am
Freedom Fighter:
"So, Freedom Fighter - who are you really?"

The Question is, who are YOU... really?
10.11.2007 3:00am
~aardvark (mail):
"YAF" sounds like a bark of a rabid chihuahua. Come to think of it, it seems appropriate for the letter as well. Do you remember Molly Ivins's reference to Dan Quayle duringthe '92 campaign? An attack schnauzer. So the YAFers are in good (bad) company.

By the way, when are we going to have the Cristo-fascism awareness week? We can start with an expose of Dobson or Bill Donohue or Ralph Reed. Or look at Billy James Hargis, Ted Haggard or Richard Roberts. They may not have lasers in the eyes, but sharks with freaking laser beams are definitely not out of the question. And their followers are at least as gullible as those who thought the fake YAF poster was real.
10.11.2007 3:16am
courtwatcher:

I just love the bind this puts them in. As you say, it was rather clearly a satire. If the administration and the groups from the Left that condemned the poster don't now call with equal vigor for punishment of the poster's authors, they must necessarily admit to being either (a) too dumb to recognize satire or (b) entirely hypocritical, or possibly both.

Well . . . actually, no. As you say, it was quite clearly a satire. So anyone who calls with equal vigor for punishment of the poster's authors is still too dumb to recognize satire. And yes, anyone who called for punishment in the first place must necessarily admit to being too dumb to recognize satire. Period. Satirists shouldn't be punished for the literal meaning of their words. And so there is clearly no hypocrisy in a decision not to punish them -- just a recognition that satire is satire.
10.11.2007 3:47am
dearieme:
"speech codes on campus": how about 'We honour the Law of the Land. And if you don't like that, sod off'? Though one might elaborate 'sod off' into something more graceful.
10.11.2007 4:05am
David M. Nieporent (www):
I don't get it. The letter's author doesn't understand that invoking certain imagery for the purposes of satire triggers a different response than invoking that same imagery for the purposes of conveying the literal meaning of the poster. It's not very complicated.

Yeah, it's a shame that this was attributed wrongfully to the Young Americans group. But that doesn't mean that the administration should treat the poster the same when a revelation about its author makes clear that it's intended meaning was not at all what inspired the penalty.
But since when does the p.c. movement care about 'intended' meaning? How many campus speech codes define unacceptable speech by the feelings of the listener rather than the intent of the speaker? (Lots, as one can see if one reads FIRE's website.) Given that, why should it matter what the author's actual views are?

If it bothered people -- and it apparently did -- then the author deserves the same punishment, even if his true intent was to slander a different group of people and then use that as an excuse to get that group suppressed.
10.11.2007 4:20am
Hoosier:
"So, Freedom Fighter - who are you really?"

The Question is, who are YOU... really?


Does anybody really know what time it is?/Does anybody really care?
10.11.2007 4:26am
John Nevard:
Another 'guest': Well, the poster was the product of the kind of wilful ignorance that spawned moveon.org. So yeah, they'd be opening up a chicken-egg problem to accuse that campaign of being responsible for this kind of rubbish.
10.11.2007 4:30am
Gaius Marius:
Today's neo-communist liberals are so stupid and gullible.
10.11.2007 6:56am
wfjag:
Is the YAF letter any worse written or less logical than the "confession letter"? See http://files.gwhatchet.com/i/071008/letter.pdf

I have to wonder why the poster's originators decided to confess. Were they about to be exposed, and then decided to claim that it was all satire?

The GWU students behind the poster all seem to have interesting backgrounds:

"The GW newspaper the Hatchet received an e-mail confession late Tuesday night from seven students admitting to hanging hundreds of controversial fliers around campus. ***
The students -- Adam Kokesh, freshman Yong Kwon, senior Brian Tierny, freshman Ned Goodwin, Maxine Nwigwe, Lara Masri and Amal Rammah -- said their motives were misinterpreted." See 7 GW Students Admit To Posting Anti-Muslim Fliers, www.nbc4.com/news/14306010/detail.html

Adam Kokesh: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Kokesh
"Kokesh was a Sergeant for most of his enlistment, but was demoted to Corporal immediately before being discharged in late 2006 for illegally bringing a pistol he purchased in Iraq back to the United States
***
Kokesh and other IVAW [Iraqi Veterans Against the War] members wore elements of their Marine Corps Combat Utility Uniforms for a street theatre action marking the fourth anniversary of the Iraq War in March. Kokesh and several other IVAW members were contacted by the Marine Corps and warned of possible disciplinary action for violating military uniform policies by wearing their uniforms to a political demonstration. Kokesh felt that they were being subjected to selective prosecution because of their war protest activities, and replied with a defiant letter (ending it with "[I] ... ask you to please, kindly, go fuck yourself."). In May of 2007, a hearing was convened to consider changing Kokesh's military discharge from "honorable" to "other than honorable" on two points: "Disrespect toward a Superior Commissioned Officer", and violating "Wearing of the uniform" regulation
***
On June 4, 2007, the panel recommended Kokesh be given a general discharge under honorable conditions, a discharge status below honorable. Kokesh appealed the decision[10], and that appeal was denied 7 June."

Yong Kwon: It is unclear if he is related to the "Yong Kwon" who was named in the Grand Jury indictment E.D. VA. referring to a "Yong Kwon" of Fairfax, VA.
www.milnet.com/terr-prosecutions/al-Timimi_indict.pdf
and who made a plea agreement and became a government witness. http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/rate/121155

GW Campus Anti-War Network
Officers Matthew Brokman
Ned Goodwin
Lara Masri
Amal Rammah
Brian Tierney
Listed on http://studentorgs.gwu.edu

Lara Masri: Signature No. 57 on Petition to Reinstate Ward Churchill

Maxine Nwigwe: Signature No. 61 on Petition to Reinstate Ward Churchill

Overseas, the poster is being taken seriously. One report:

"CAIRO - University campuses across the United States are becoming the stage for an anti-Islam campaign that includes hate posters and a series of activities to rally students against the alleged threat Islam poses to the US and the world.

George Washington University administration, faculty and students came back from the weekend to find the campus painted with posters and fliers with the message: "HATE MUSLIMS? SO DO WE!!!"

The fliers, posted even on kiosks and mailboxes on standard letter-sized paper, featured a picture of a man next to a diagram describing a "typical Muslim."

***

Fifteen student organizations led by the GW Muslim Student Association, the Islamic Alliance for Justice and the Jewish Student Association issued a statement expressing that they were "appalled at this incidence of hate and Islamophobia."

I can hardly wait to see how it's reported by the Islamic Republic News Agency.
10.11.2007 8:26am
Federal Dog:
"I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that if they find the perp in the Columbia noose incident, that it will be in the outraged horde protesting the incident."


Was Keri Dunn paroled?
10.11.2007 8:42am
Swede:
Bridgette Behling should sign a statement disavowing any stupidity that may originate in her brain and fall out of her mouth in the future.

And Freedom, I'm interested in your product and would like the free brochure.
10.11.2007 8:53am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
How many e-mails do you think Ms. Behling got about this?
A bazillion, I hope.

Moron.

I also e-mailed the prez of Texas State about their harassment of a conservative student mistakenly thought to be involved in inviting Islamo-Fascism Awareness activities. Lots of things are called Kafka-esque, but this one really qualifies.
10.11.2007 9:14am
Ken Arromdee:
The letter's author doesn't understand that invoking certain imagery for the purposes of satire triggers a different response than invoking that same imagery for the purposes of conveying the literal meaning of the poster.

Don't you get it? It's satire either way. Nobody thought that Muslims really have laser eyes. The difference is in the target of the satire; is it conservatives satirically accusing Muslims of ridiculous things, or is it leftists putting the satire into the mouths of conservatives?
10.11.2007 11:04am
Jweaver (mail) (www):
This is why we need to fear the future. These universities are awash in this type of inane thought police.
10.11.2007 11:14am
Mr. F. Le Mur (mail):
"...We do not condone, and we will not tolerate the dissemination of fliers or other documents that vilify any religious, ethnic or racial group.”
We agree.


I disagree. All popular religions are stupid and primitive and should be freely vilified and mocked. Some religions, i.e. Islam, are more destructive and incompatible with cilivization than other religions, and should be villified and mocked even more.

Vicious personal attacks levied on students are intolerable, and should not go unpunished.

The fliers weren't "personal" (try the dictionary), and, IMHO, they weren't vicious.

Delicacy and daintiness of speech are appropriate in some cases, but not necessarily when the subject is politics or religion. Grow a skin.
10.11.2007 11:31am
JosephSlater (mail):
"So, Freedom Fighter - who are you really?"

The Question is, who are YOU... really?


Does anybody really know what time it is?/Does anybody really care?


Brilliant, brilliant, and brilliant.
10.11.2007 11:38am
Duncan Frissell (mail):
I always assumed that Young America's Foundation took that name to cause confusion with Young Americans for Freedom which pre-existed it but was floundering at about the same time Young America's Foundation was growing.
10.11.2007 12:02pm
Henri Le Compte (mail):
Interestingly, it seems to matter somehow whether or not the authors of this piece of silly satire are "right-wing conservatives," or "left-wing liberals." The university administration was willing to severely punish the authors if they were shown to be of the "conservative" persuasion, but suddenly offer a "pardon me!" chuckle, when the authors turn out to be "liberals."

How does that work again? And why isn't that a double standard???
10.11.2007 12:47pm
wfjag:
Henri Le Compte

Let's see if I can explain why "that isn't a double standard".

If the GWU YAF members decide "to protest," they'll write out something, call and make an appointment to see the Dean, dress up in sports coats, ties and dress slacks, and go sit and wait in the Dean's waiting room till the Dean has 3 minutes to see them. They'll hand him/her what they've written and thank him/her for taking time from his/her busy schedule to actually pay attention to them as GWU students. The door won't quite hit them in the back side as they exit. That will be it.

If GWU decides to take action against any of those who actually made and distributed the posters, Adam Kokesh will call his fellow IVAW members and someone will call Code Pink and get them to stop harassing the wounded vets at Walter Reed for a while. First they'll call the WaPo and TV stations. Then, when they show up outside the Dean's office, where they'll read a statement, and maybe some of the Code Pink members will disrobe. The statement will describe the fascist oppression of free speech by GWU, along with other standard accusations. It will be full of quoteable one-liners for the TV crews. Then they'll hold a die-in or some other event. GWU alumni will see the press coverage and at least some won't send money to fund raising drives.

Of course, if the YAFers arranged for a Rolling Thunder(R) motorcycle ralley in the Dean's office, the treatment might be different. Someone dressed in leathers with a chain for a belt, who has a ZZ Top beard, and who parks his HOG on your desk, isn't someone you P.O. He's probably a perfectly nice, law abiding citizen. But, why find out? And, a Rolling Thunder (R) ralley will also attract press attention -- and that also might affect alumni giving.

Understand the difference?
10.11.2007 2:10pm
Smokey:
Gary Imhoff:

I don't think it's correct to state that the poster was clearly satire. It was not just the university administration that was fooled -- the local media immediately reported that the poster was "racist" and "hate speech." Television and radio reports fell a little short of blaming YAF for producing the poster, but they clearly implied that it was responsible. To conservatives and moderates, the poster may have been an obviously poor parody of how conservatives think and write; but to many liberals in the university administration and the media it was convincing.
Which is conclusive evidence that the libs are actually the stupid ones.

As for the Freedumb Fighter troll:

I understand your frustration with getting your butt kicked by the U.S. military. Sucks to be you.
10.11.2007 3:35pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
I e-mailed Ms. Behling yesterday asking why she went after YAF, demanding promises of future behavior. Why not the actual perps?

No answer yet, but I had another question. How about a list of other student organizations from which she had demanded similar promises?

But, when I went to GWU website, searched for her name, the e-mail and phone numbers were not there. That's strange. Could have sworn they were there yesterday. Huh.
10.11.2007 3:45pm
That Lawyer Dude (mail) (www):

Archon said:
I've got a novel idea!

Why don't universities just stay out of the business of policing speech instead of threatening disciplinary sanctions or denouncing unpopular speech. Just shut up about it all!


Exactly.
There is no "hate speech" there is speech that proves the speaker may hate. There is rhetoric there is hyperbole there is sarcasim and satirical speech. What the speaker's motive does not matter. It is speech. Sticks and stones may break bones but words will never harm... until some idiot tries to catorgorize it.

As a GW Parent, I am not suprised by the facts surrounding this incident nor am I shocked at the poster. When I first saw the headline "Hate Muslims? So Do We! I immediately knew it was someone taking a pot shot at a conservative organization. It doesn't matter who wrote it or why. As a campus conservative at Tufts in the 70's I was accustom to the ridicule that was thrown my way by campus "libs". I didn't need to call them names, because I became good at throwing there barbs back at them with facts. Learning to use language to persuade was probably the most useful thing I received from my college "experience."

The only bias on campus that bothered me was if a professor would use their bias to affect my grade. To their credit, I had very liberal Profs, who not only encouraged my speaking out for "my side" but who actually rewarded me for taking the those positions and having the guts to express my ideas in face of potential ridicule. Sadly recent events at Tufts have proven that things there have changed for the worse.

Student's need the freedom of speech to learn how to become better persuaders. Someone taking a potshot like this one, marginalizes himself when he is confronted by reasoned opposition. Too much of what passes for debate today has come to pass because political discussion havee been stifled to the point where speakers are afraid to say things that listeners can hear. Expulsion in a case like this is not a real option even if this poster expressed honest thought and not satire. Reprimand not for using YAF as the signatory but for not adding that the words were not thiers but another groups. A simple "Brought to you by 7 left leaning students who are humor challenged" would have been enough.

Sterotyping of any one shows bias and intellectual inferiority on the part of the person who hurls the sterotype. YAF is not sterotyping Muslims. It makes the point that in the Muslim world today, many people, whether for political, ethnic, or religios reasons not only engage in terrorism but support it.

Do all Muslims support it? Clearly not. Do many who hold majorities of power, support it in some countries? Yes. If I am wrong, confront me with facts. If you wish to call me names, you will lose the hearts and minds of the listener far sooner than you believe possible. As for campus administrators, let them argue, yell, poster, debate, think thoughts, and most of all learn not to censor others, but to censor themselves. You will not be there to save them from themselves later in life when it matters. Let them make mistakes now so they can learn from them later. If they fail to learn, that is on them. If you fail to provide a safe place where they can fail to learn, that is sadly on you.

It has been on campus administrators for way too long now. Do not attempt to make your campus' Politically correct. Make them the cauldron pots for learning that they were originally meant to be.
10.11.2007 3:47pm
That Lawyer Dude (mail) (www):
My bad!!! I just saw the bottom of the poster and it does say who posted the poster. This should have been a non event. Shame on the idiot administrator who failed to either read the thing before speaking out, or to realize satire when he or she sees is..."Lazer Eyes" indeed! (Head shaking in disbelief.)
10.11.2007 5:24pm
MatthewM (mail):
The conservative students blew it. They should be saying that no one deserves punishment here, that speech of both the YAF and their opponents sort should be tolerated, not abolished. Instead they've lapsed into victimology.
10.11.2007 8:51pm
Henri LeCompte (mail):
wfjag:
"Understand the difference?" Ahhh... perfectly. I thank you for enlightening me.

henri
10.11.2007 9:33pm
Freedom Fighter:
Smokey thats why your soldiers are running and hiding in iraq, they hiding in the "green zone" though i doubt there is any "green zone" for invaders.
10.11.2007 11:06pm
Hoosier:
"Green Zone"? Where have I heard that name before . . . ?
Oh, Yeah! That's the gay Muslim nightclub on Halstead Street (Chicago), right?

What are you trying to tell us, Freedom so-called Fighter?
10.12.2007 12:13am
davod (mail):
Mathew: Free speech? The "Satire" has been portrayed around the world as another atempt to attack Islam.

How may will die this weekend because of another attempt to portray some group as anti-Muslim. How many newspaers will report the deaths as a result of anti-mulsim groups poster instead of the real reason - Pro-Muslim group incites racial violence.
10.12.2007 11:43am
davod (mail):
Sorry for the spelling mistakes. I Need more coffee.
10.12.2007 11:44am
Freedom Fighter (www):
"Green Zone"? Where have I heard that name before . . . ?
Oh, Yeah! That's the gay Muslim nightclub on Halstead Street (Chicago), right?


hahah HOISER TYPICAL YANKEE WHO CANT THINK OF ANYTHING BESIDES WHATS BETWEEN HIS/HER TWO LEGS.

lol "MORAL SUPERIORS" eh?
10.12.2007 12:26pm
Hoosier:
"HOISER TYPICAL YANKEE WHO CANT THINK OF ANYTHING BESIDES WHATS BETWEEN HIS/HER TWO LEGS."

HIS/HER TWO LEGS?

So would you say your gender-confusion 'issues' are the root of your hatred of America?
10.12.2007 9:40pm