It turns out this article was written by NYU Stern professor Tunku Varadarajan, who also has a conservative weekly column with Forbes.com calling for things like racial profiling, Obama being a coward because he's politically correct, etc. Let me quote the professor on what it means to “Go Muslim” from his article: “This phrase would describe the turn of events where a seemingly integrated Muslim-American–a friendly donut vendor in New York, say, or an officer in the U.S. Army at Fort Hood–discards his apparent integration into American society and elects to vindicate his religion in an act of messianic violence against his fellow Americans.” Muslim groups all across America publicly condemned the shooting, ICNA, ISNA, MPAC, MANA, and CAIR all put out press releases or called a conference within hours to denounce the killings. The religion does not need “vindicating” by terrorists, as imams around the country loudly stated that the murders were flatly against Islam.

The difference between “Going Postal” and “Going Muslim,” he suggests, is that rather than someone snapping suddenly, they undergo a “calculated discarding of camouflage–the camouflage of integration.” I dislike this sort of fear-mongering; it only brings back the dark times of 9/11 where people were suspicious of their Muslim neighbors. The professor implies that Muslims in general, and not just the Major involved in last week’s shootings, are camouflaging themselves to fit into society. I am a Muslim-American who was born in this country and do public service work on Long Island; the implication that I and other Muslims are actually something non-American deep down is highly offensive to me. There are thousands of Muslim-Americans who currently serve in the armed forces, and they strongly condemned the murders of their fellow soldiers as well.

Professor Varadarajan goes on to claim that Muslims are more extreme than any other group “because their religion is founded on bellicose conquest, a contempt for infidels and an obligation for piety that is more extensive than in other schemes.” This is just a naked form of Islamophobia and hate speech. It’s certainly not the Islam any of the thousands of Muslims at NYU follow. He goes on to call President Obama “craven” because of his efforts to avoid a backlash against law-abiding Muslims like myself. Such hysterical statements put innocent people in harms way to be further victims of retaliation.

Let’s consider the facts; Out of several thousand Muslims serving in the military, one became violent. That is horrendous enough. The professor only hurts us all by hatefully overgeneralizing an entire religion and equating the actions of one to millions of American citizens. The professor is right in that we need to focus on finding people whose opinion is extreme, regardless of religion in the military, but singling out Muslims for such scrutiny and castigation is simply wrong. CNN reports of White Supremacist gang activity slipping into the army’s ranks, graffitti from the Latin Kings is popping up in military bases in Iraq, and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation reports dozens of cases of anti-semitic acts such as vandalism, swastikas, and insults. Charles Grainer, the leader convicted in the Abu Ghraib scandal, beat Iraqis to make them “pray to Jesus” according to court evidence. I’d like to see all extremism curtailed, but the Professor does a disservice to everyone by singling out minority Muslims. Such intolerant statements above bashing Islam weaken the resolve of our Muslim allies and those Muslim-Americans who courageously serve. Don’t compound the loss of our soldiers with intolerance and more vilification against the wrong people.

I hope that the NYU administration repudiates these hateful remarks that Professor Varadarajan made, and reaffirm their commitment to keeping NYU a place of open discussion and debate safe from hate speech against any of our diverse communities. Since the administration has not commented on current events, then this incident should compel the administration to come out openly in defense of Muslim students.

__

Are you outraged too? I wrote this up and sent it to NYU President John Sexton, as well as Dean Cooley of NYU Stern. I ask that everyone also writes to these people and asks NYU to repudiate the disgusting remarks.

NYU stands firm as a beacon of diversity and tolerance. When visiting Professor Thio Li-Ann was found to have made homophobic remarks, the students, blogs, and twitter rose up and she left the job over this past summer. Maybe we can do the same, or at least get an apology and clarification.

Addresses:

NYU President: john.sexton@nyu.edu

Dean of NYU Stern Business school: tcooley@stern.nyu.edu

Update:

Dean Cooley of NYU Stern copy-pasted the following email to those who wrote in to complain:

Your complaint is duly noted. I read Mr. Varadarajan's article very differently than you did. I think it is a very distorted reading to call this hate speech. In any event I would not censor it or rebuke him for having written it. We are, as you allude to, an institution that treasures free speech and open dialogue. You need to think more about what this means since you don't seem to understand it.

I would suggest that if you take issue with what Mr. Vardarajan wrote you take the issue up with him. There is space for feedback on the Forbes site. Thomas Cooley

There is so much wrong with this. First, we are engaging in free speech and open dialogue by having this back and forth email, and my position is that a professor bashing Muslims and saying they are a sneaky fifth column in America is beyond the bounds of reasonable discourse.

Furthermore, Dean Cooley also is a columnist at Forbes.com. Isn't that a conflict of interest? Why should he criticize his underling at the school if they are both coworkers at their other job?

Update #2

NYU President John Sexton has weighed in on Friday:

“A core principle at any institution worthy of the name ‘university’ is academic freedom. For a university to be a meaningful and successful home to those that advance the frontiers of human knowledge, its scholars must be permitted to pursue ideas -- sometimes provocative ideas, sometimes difficult ideas that we find challenging to listen to -- free from persecution. This is not a limitless freedom, but it is a broad one. Because of it, every institution confronts from time-to-time the painful companion of academic freedom: the expression of an idea that is widely offensive. Public calls for institutions to punish faculty officially for expressing such ideas are all too common, and are deeply regrettable -- were we to do so, we would sacrifice what may be our greatest strength and discourage those who would think originally and challenge the conventional. “In this University, we also believe in the value of a civil discourse, a care for how and when and where we express ideas, because we know our ideas are not exchanged in a vacuum. We are a community of scholars, and ideas are formulated and exchanged by real people who are entitled to be treated in a decent and dignified fashion. “Another key principle is that ideas and their proponents must be open to intellectual challenge and testing -- opposing ideas have an equal entitlement to be aired. But let's be clear, this is not a form of relativism; in fact, it is just the reverse -- the premise is that the superior idea will prevail. “So where do we find ourselves today? A journalist and NYU clinical faculty member has written a piece for Forbes that many Muslims find offensive. I understand how they feel -- I found it offensive, too. I am teaching Muslim students now, and I have taught them in the past; the portrayal of Muslims in the Forbes piece bears no resemblance to my experience; I disagree with the Forbes piece and think it is wrong. “I say all this because as president I have not foresworn the rights I have as a member of the NYU faculty to challenge an idea that I believe is erroneous. But I do not say this lightly, because, first, I believe that university leaders should be circumspect about criticizing faculty work lest they chill faculty's pursuit of new knowledge, and second, our higher duty as university leaders is to be defenders of our faculty's academic freedom rather than proponents of our own ideas. For this reason, I must resist the calls for sanction against this faculty member; such an action would be antithetical to NYU's academic principles, and it will not happen. “What is appropriate, however, is for other views to be expressed and heard. It is the nature of a university to be home to opposing ideas and opposing views, even absurd and offensive ones. It is our highest tradition to meet ideas, especially absurd and offensive ones, with ideas in a process of civil discourse and through debate over the ideas at play. We will do that here.” – John Sexton

Well John Sexton is a good guy, he said he himself was offended by the piece. While I personally disagree with his actions (other professors like Norman Finkelstein and Thio Li-Ann were pushed out), I like that he repudiated the comments, and I suppose that's all I'm going to get out of him.

Dean Cooley, who it seems offended more people with his callous email (above) and metaphorically poured gasoline on the fire, seems to have updated his email response. While he hasn't apologized still, this is his new reply to those who emailed him after this diary went recommended:

Dear ________, Thank you for your thoughtful e-mail, and for voicing your concerns. I appreciate hearing from a member of the Stern community, and would like to share my thoughts. As you know, Tunku Varadarajan, a member of NYU Stern’s faculty, wrote an opinion piece for Forbes.com that offended many Muslims, including some of our students. His article has prompted a number of e-mails that have been sent to me as Dean of the School, asking that I rebuke and censor Mr. Varadarajan for the views he expressed. I recognize that the ideas expressed in Mr. Varadarajan’s op-ed are controversial and were offensive to many. As dean my duty lies in defending the academic freedom of the faculty as well as the rights of students to their own freedom of expression. This is true whether I agree with the ideas or not. It is true whether the idea is one that is widely embraced, one that challenges conventional wisdom, or one that is difficult to hear. My response not to censor Mr. Vardarajan reflects my responsibility to uphold the right of free expression. I regret if I gave the impression that I don’t take people’s concerns seriously; I do. As a university, we pride ourselves on being an open community that embraces and encourages differing viewpoints, and supports a lively debate in the interest of learning and discovering truth. I respect you and the other individuals who have made their concerns known and encourage them and Mr. Varadarajan to engage in a constructive dialogue. It is my hope that such a dialogue would lead to greater understanding, and reflect the values of diversity and respect that we cherish in the Stern community. Sincerely, Thomas F. Cooley

My reading (and feel free to weigh in) is that Cooley still doesn't get it. It's "offensive to many" but clearly not to him. Bah. My only comfort is that he's scheduled to retire this December. We don't need someone like that in the job