A Rutgers University professor and frequent critic of U.S. "empire" said Tuesday during an interview with the Russian government-supported propaganda channel Russia Today that a campaign against former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's appearance as a commencement speaker was "a stand on principle" because of Rice's support for the Iraq War and the "torture" of detained terrorism suspects.

Professor Deepa Kumar, who teaches journalism and media studies at the university's New Brunswick, N.J., campus, apparently missed the irony of celebrating her victory over "imperialism" with an appearance on the propaganda outlet of a government that recently invaded and seized the territory of a neighboring country which had formerly been part of its empire, in violation of a written agreement not to do so.

Kumar had previously tweeted her joy at Rice's withdrawal Saturday as commencement speaker for the Class of 2014 after vocal protests by students and faculty.

We won! Condoleezza Rice will not be speaking at Rutgers. http://t.co/nPp3BStrRG — Deepa Kumar (@ProfessorKumar) May 3, 2014



Judging from her willingness to appear on RT, Kumar's frequent criticism of U.S. media methods does not extend to those of government-sponsored propaganda outlets. But that's not the only problem with her alleged "principles." They pointedly exclude the rights of those who criticize Islamist extremism.

She has written extensively on the "Islamophobia" she says is inherent in the U.S-led war on Islamist extremism, referring to it as "anti-Muslim racism" -- a phrase which ignores the basic fact that Islam, as a global faith, encompasses people of all races. Her most recent book, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, blames anti-Islamic sentiments in the West on imperialism, beginning the tale with the Crusades. This is a convenient starting point for her theory, since it avoids an important context: Up until the time of the Crusades, parts of Europe, including Spain, Portugal, southern France and Sicily, had been under Islamic colonial domination for centuries, and nearby states were threatened with the same fate by expansionist Islamic regimes.

Her defense of Islamist extremism is so extreme that in 2006, she angrily criticized leftists who decried militant violence designed to suppress publication of cartoons satirizing the Muslim prophet Muhammad, then doubled down on the criticism in another essay which referred to Muslim reformers such as Wafa Sultan as "indigenous collaborators with empire."

She went after liberals again in her RT appearance, saying she would also question the invitation of a Democratic former secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

Both examples show Kumar is just another tenured radical whose tedious, unimaginative writings betray her hypocrisy.

I pity her students.