The Daily Pennsylvanian :: Abby Huntsman and Zac Byer | Counterpoint: Ambivalence is not an option

This week, the Penn College Republicans have organized Terrorism Awareness Week. As some of you may know, on a national level this campaign is running under the title Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, sponsored by David Horowitz and the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

In mid-September, our board was approached by Horowitz about hosting IFAW at Penn. While he suggested participating in a number of events, we concluded that it was in the University's best interest to focus our efforts on promoting academic dialogue.

Thus, we agreed to hosting two events - a panel of three discussants (Stephen Gale, Ian Lustick and Daniel Pipes) and a lecture by former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum.

Further, in terms of the structure of the week, we spoke with the Muslim Student Association and agreed that it would be most appropriate to change the title to Terrorism Awareness Week. Controversy over wording would only serve to distract from dialogue on the real issues.

Though we removed "Islamo-Fascism" from the title, we still strongly espouse the belief that radical Muslims pose one of the most pressing threats of the twenty-first century.

It is important for us as the future leaders of America to realize that this radical sect is intent on purifying the religious moderates, as well as attacking Western democracies such as the U.S. and England.

We must make a distinction between the moderate and the radical, because the latter is too well-equipped to continue to ignore.

Whether you agree with his ideology or not, you cannot challenge the fact that Santorum is well-versed and well-educated on the subject of the War on Terror. His numerous travels to Israel and other countries throughout the region have only bolstered his knowledge about the imminent threats posed by terrorists. On Wednesday, Santorum spoke eloquently about the oppressive tactics employed by these radicals and challenged us to learn the real facts that are often not addressed on university campuses.

In regards to the panel held on Monday night, our intent was to engage fellow students in an open dialogue about the issue of terrorism.

It was important to have Lustick as a part of the panel, for his differing opinions presented other ideas for the audience to ruminate on.

One of the noteworthy aspects of Penn's Terrorism Awareness Week is the fact that we did have three different viewpoints represented in one room at the same time.

From what we know about events at other universities across the country, no attempt was made to invite those with dissimilar ideologies to participate in any discussion.

We hope that those in attendance used the panelists' arguments to help formulate their own opinions about terrorism and radical Muslims.

While the College Republicans do not agree with most of Lustick's points ("Iran is not an imminent threat to America"), we are glad he could be a part of the panel.

We realize that we have undoubtedly angered some people with the events held this week.

Just like national politics, the wind isn't always blowing your way, and in most cases over the last month, the College Republicans were walking directly into a strong headwind.

But we are incredibly proud of the fact that we could engage Penn in a dialogue about a serious problem that many universities - and people in general - are not willing to address. At this moment, ambivalence to terrorism is no longer an option.

Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, Independent or Libertarian, this is a topic that must be addressed and discussed openly.

Abby Huntsman is a College senior and Zac Byer is a College sophomore. They are the chairwoman and president of the College Republicans, respectively.

Comments (8)

Muslim students who are concerned about "Islamofascism Awareness Week" need to publicly address the substance of the allegations being made against Islam. I don't mean events that say "Islam means peace." I mean serious discussions about the Quranic verses and Hadith that the other side is questioning, and discussions about the mixture of religious and political grievances that have led some Muslims to react violently to decades of Western intervention in the Muslim world. These are the sorts of discussions that we promote through Muslims For A Safe America. For example, in the Religion/Identity area, we've put together "debate" handouts (one page, double-sided) on the following issues: DEBATES ABOUT RELIGION AND IDENTITY Why Should American Muslims Talk About American National Security? Should American Muslims Be Loyal To America? When Are Muslims Required to Fight, And Against Whom? Should American Muslims Join the American Armed Forces? Are Western Civilians Legitimate Targets in War? Should American Muslims Work As Government Informants? (All these handouts are available at http://muslimsforasafeamerica.org/?page_id=49 ) Our approach is unique, because we don't present our opinions on these issues. Instead, we just present arguments on both sides of the issues, so that each Muslim can make an informed decision. Muslim students can use such material to organize "fair and balanced" discussions about these issues. These events would actually begin to answer the real questions that many Americans have about Islam. These discussions would be a great response to the "Islamofascism Awareness Week" events that Muslim students are concerned about. For example, Harvard�?s Islamic Society hosted a discussion about different interpretations of The Qur�?an: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=520349 Kamran Memon, Esq. Muslims For A Safe America 200 S. Michigan Avenue Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 961-2354 http://muslimsforasafeamerica.org/

Eloquent and excellent!

At this moment, ambivalence to terrorism is no longer an option. This statement is typical of the strawman argument republicans have employed since 9-11. Who is ambivalent about terrorism? Who says, hmmm, I'm not sure how I feel about innocent persons dying needlessly in fiery explosions? Nobody. Nobody is ambivalent about terrorism. At best, its a silly thing to say. People reasonably disagree about the best way to fight terrorism, the net effect of anti-terrorism policies and the true extent of the terrorist threat. Those are all issues that need to be discussed and answering those questions one way or another, does not mean one is ambivalent about terrorism.

we still strongly espouse the belief that radical Muslims pose one of the most pressing threats of the twenty-first century. Ridiculous! Our biggest threat is $2,700,000,000,000 federal monster with an unchecked executive and rubber-stamp congress.

First of all, no one should be allowed to name an off-shoot of Islam with the words like "Islamo-Fascism". Any Muslim living in America would agree that Islam has been hijacked by terrorists who happened to be extremists within Islamic faith. By giving such names as "Islamo-Fascism" adds fuel to a campaign which is not against terrorists but to defame Islamic religion. Secondly, the titles used for "terrorists" of Muslim origins should be such that mainstream Muslims are not provoked. What David Horowitz and Rick Santorum are doing is damaging relations between Muslims and non-Muslims in America. What they should do is to patch up their erroneous "Islamo-Fascism" week and convert it into "Terrorism Awareness Week" where they should also invite Muslim intellectuals to speak againt terrorism. Thirdly, concurrently fighting terrorism on one hand shall not cease the opportunities to provide an opportunity for those who wish to give up terrorism. Such to be reformed people in Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq should be provided with opportunities and hope against terrorism. Fourth, the evolution of terrorism should be studied and all reasons favouring terrorism shall be eradicated with wisdom. For example, Palestinians should be given a stable homeland with full rights, Iraq should be left to Iraqis with external support to its integrity and stability and Afghanistan should be encouraged to be a viable democratic state.

Well said, Ms. Huntsman and Mr. Byer.

Good replies, all. "Whether you agree with his ideology or not, you cannot challenge the fact that Santorum is well-versed and well-educated on the subject of the War on Terror." This is a laughable assumption. In fact, my first question when I heard that Santorum was coming to campus was the opposite: what makes Rick Santorum an expert on counterterrorism? This is a guy who, mere months before he was blown out by the treasurer of Pennsylvania, still was propogating the myth that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/dod-disavows-santorum/ Santorum is not a counterterrorism wonk, he's a partisan hack who's substituting one Evil Empire for another. It's entirely plausible that if this were 1987 instead of 2007, Santorum would be "well-versed" and "well-educated" on the existential threat posed to us by the Soviets. The guy has an MBA and a JD, and he's worked at law firms his whole life before getting into politics. He has about as much knowledge of terrorism as I do; meaning, we both started thinking about it post-9/11. With each utterance on the campaign trail of the word "islamo-fascism," Santorum's poll numbers steadily sank. The voters of Pennsylvania--many who, remarkably, voted for him the first time--didn't fall for Santorum's fearmongering. It's disappointing that the College Republicans did.

At this moment, ambivalence to terrorism is no longer an option. Wow, characteristic of this sort of person on two counts. First, ambivalence does not mean what you think it does. No one is torn between two options here. You mean "apathy". And even that's a ridiculous statement. See comment from "an alum" above. Come to think of it, hawks are more apathetic about terrorism than reasonable people-- they refuse to look at root causes (e.g., superpowers invading their countries) and refuse to entertain questions about anti-terror policies. Seems like when the wind is blowing the other direction, as the authors put it, hawks like these two have a sudden shift in mindset-- from "sit down, shut up, and agree with what we say" to "we should totally get a chance for our misinformed, unpopular opinions to be heard".

Comments are closed for this item.