Boston College has decided to censor my debate with its star professor Alan Wolfe. After promising for months that the debate would be posted on its website, the college has decided not to air it. Moreover, Wolfe has denied permission for Boston College to make the video available to anyone. It's a strange story, and I was on the Hannity & Colmes show Friday night to discuss it. Basically the whole thing started when the editors of the New York Times Book Review decided to commission a hit job on my book The Enemy at Home. Their selected intellectual assassin was Alan Wolfe, who heads the Boisi Center for Religion at Boston College. Wolfe was only too happy to oblige, and he pulled out all the stops, calling me a "childish thinker" and my book a "national disgrace."
Whoopdee do, and who cares.
I mean, I am used to these kind of jejune accusations. But Wolfe went beyond the usual invective and called me a Bin Laden suitor. He suggested that I admire the Islamic terrorists, and implied that I agreed with them that America was a terrible place that should be attacked. I am an immigrant and a patriot, one of my recent books is titled What's So Great About America, and this year I got a patriot of the year award from a Midwest chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Naturally I was outraged that Wolfe had lied so blatantly about me and my book in an influential national newspaper.
When students at Boston College asked me to come and speak, I recalled that this was the institution where Wolfe teaches. So I asked the students to invite Wolfe to debate me, and to my delight, he agreed. Although I would be debating on Wolfe's home turf, I couldn't pass up the opportunity to confront him and call him on his outlandish accusations. We debated in April before a full auditorium. Prior to the debate, the media arm of Boston College--which calls itself Front Row--asked us to the participants to give permission for the debate to be taped for the school's website. We readily consented. But alas, the debate didn't go the way that Boston College envisioned.
First, I challenged Wolfe to substantiate his extreme charges against me. Not only had he suggested I was a Bin Laden disciple, but in the debate itself he claimed I support sharia law in the United States and that I want America to ally with people who deny the Holocaust. I demanded that he back up these claims, and he couldn't substantiate a single one. He didn't even try. At one point he said that what he wrote must be true because otherwise the New York Times wouldn't have printed it. Even the liberals in the audience found this laughable. So Wolfe's failure to support his outrageous charges exposed him as an irresponsible slanderer.
Second, I had the opportunity before his own students and colleagues to explore Wolfe's knowledge of Islam. During the cross-examination, I asked Wolfe a series of simple questions about the Muslim world. What percentage of Muslims around the globe live in a democracy? He had no idea. Which is the largest Muslim country in the world? He answered, "India," which is not a Muslim country at all. (The correct answer is Indonesia, which also happens to be a democracy.) I then asked him to name the world's second largest Muslim democracy? Once again Wolfe ventured, "India?" (The correct answer is Bangladesh.) And on it went. I looked into the audience and saw many students, including Wolfe's fans, with their mouths open. They couldn't believe that one of their college's most distinguished professors had been exposed as a complete ignoramus. Remember that this is a fellow who heads the religion center at Boston College.
Even two weeks after the debate, nothing was posted on the Boston College website. And when the student organizers inquired, school officials said they had quite a backlog and gave their assurance the debate would be aired in a couple of months. Now they have decided not to show it at all. Wolfe, of course, could easily give his permission for Front Row to release to the tape, in which case I will be happy to post it unedited on my website and link to it on this blog. But Wolfe has refused to give his consent. This way Wolfe can prevent the world from discovering how ignorant and irresponsible he is. And by colluding with him, officials at Boston College can prevent parents and others from seeing that their intellectual emperor has no clothes.
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 3)
16. Dinesh you got to downright stupid. I want you to answer me simple questions.
1. Why islamist countries are either corrupt or are single regime countries?.
2. Why do muslim reproduce like mice?.Are they expendible as human torches?
3.Why are muslim countries backward in science. Are they afraid that education will reveal the bullshit all religions are full of (I am beliver of God and follow simple rules of being a good person).
pablo at 12:02PM on Aug 27th 2007
17. While I hardly agree with D'Souza's assertion that the cultural left is the cause for 9/11, as he states in The Enemy At Home, I think it is important that the extremity of that statement not hinder the rest of us from the rational acknowledgement that it did, indeed, play a part.
Richter has done well to offer links to some of D'Souza's critics, who mainly point out the author's inability to deal with criticism effectively. More importantly, they charge D'Souza with overstating the case against "the Left" and the lack (at least in their quoted snippets from his book) of weight he attributes to the internal struggle in the Middle East which obviously plays a huge part.
I would like to remind us that it is never good to get caught up in debate fever, but rather to observe the debaters and reflect for ourselves. To say that D'Souza "sympathizes" with terrorist bombers borders on invective, and draws the eye from a legitimate fact: 9/11 happened for a reason, and the closer we can get to understanding that reason the closer we get to peace. It is easy to laser-focus on the child killing bomber and say "there is nothing right about that". There is in fact nothing right about the act, do not misunderstand. but to then conclude that there is nothing valid behind the motive is not only an unintelligent dismissal, but a dangerous one.
The charge that an economist (D'Souza) is unfit to write a book on culture is plain silly. America's, as well as the rest of the industrialized west's, economic practice's abroad, though not as dark and evil as most of the world would assume, does place real pressure on underdeveloped countries that have different mores and traditions than we do. Their struggle to cope with a globalizing world is real, and will have to be rationally addressed, and soon. Terrorist bombings, though absolutely wrong, are based in what may be a legitimate motive. That deserves real investigation, and though I believe D'Souza went too far in placing the blame wholly on the American Left, it is far from a wholly inaccurate accusation.
tim at 6:28PM on Aug 27th 2007
18. Great job, Dinesh. I hope you can put enough pressure on them that they will release the video!
Should we start a "Free the video" campaign???? Ha! Ha!
Frogg at 1:13PM on Aug 27th 2007
19. To state that the Ayatollah D'Souza sympathizes with terrorists is to state a plain and simple fact. He describes the terrorist's attitudes towards America as "legitimate concerns" and freely admitted on television that he dislikes the same things about America that they dislike. Outside of French kissing Bin Laden, how much more sympathetic can you get?
And to blame ANYONE to ANY degree for the murders of 9/11 other than the murderers themselves is to put yourself on precisely the same level of political pimping as Ward Churchill -- which is to say that such an assertion displays all the morality of a bucket of vomit.
And finally, only an illiterate can read the articles I linked to and say that the basic complaint conservatives have against Dinesh is that he can't take criticism... which actually is something of a tautology. After all, how can you know that someone can't take criticism until you criticize them?
Richter at 1:16PM on Aug 27th 2007
20. Let me clear up some inconsistencies you seem to have found with my wording, Richter.
To say that someone is to blame for what they do, and to suggest that the motives for that same act might be drawn from a variety of sources (one being American culture) is in no way inconsistent, nor is it immoral.
More to the point, I did not issue a proclamation or a reprieve on blame because to do so is irrelevant. No one (rational) misplaces blame from murderers. Intelligent people however might benefit from trying to understand ALL the influences that lead to that behavior, rather than settling on something as comfortable as religious zeal or poverty induced mania.
If you reread my post you will see that I did not place the most weight on the unified stance that D'Souza cant stand up under pressure. Instead I offered that while they all pointed it out, they "MORE IMPORTANTLY" dismissed his overzealousness at blaming the American Left for 9/11 without taking into consideration other important factors, a dismissal I also agreed with. I dont see the need to quibble over my lack of stating their cases in detail here, you offered the links, and I was less than trying to summarize. I dont think I have left reason behind in that general analysis of their positions. If you can correct me I would appreciate it.
I have no problem with D'Souza disliking some things about America, and I have no problem if they are some of the same things that terrorists dislike about America. You'll find that many people that dont strap bombs to themselves have the same problems with our country. The only thing wrong with the people with the bombs is that they are using bombs. They have chosen the wrong action for what might otherwise be a "legitimate concern". Even if you yourself are completely satisfied with our country, surely you can at least appreciate the principle.
tim at 1:52PM on Aug 28th 2007
21. Attention D'Souza critics....You haven't read his book(s). He favors showing the video.
I've read a good number of D'Souza's books...He is bright, well annotated, and a great scholar, regardless of your political leanings.
twann9852 at 3:51PM on Aug 27th 2007
22. Does this really surprise anyone?! Looney lefty professors have always lived in a liberal bubble. They are nothing more than perpetual students who have, if they ever even tried, never made it in the real world so they become "Professors".
They sit in their glass towers hurling boulders of ignorance and intolerance while being protected by a wall of steel called tenure.
Mr. D'Souza, please post email addressees of the powers that be so that we can write them and share our collective disgust with them. Maybe a little pressure will bring this travesty to the light of day for all to see.
Live free or die, Michael Robert Sawyer
Michael R. Sawyer at 4:46PM on Aug 27th 2007
23. Leftist propaganda excepted of course, people like Richter don't seem like the type who read or get out much.
Ken Berg at 4:51PM on Aug 27th 2007
24. Wolfe,the way D'souza explains the debate seems to be an academic irrational crackpot.Equating D'souza to 911 or a Bin Ladden sympathiser or a sympathetic observer of the event, proves that if you say something often enough you can get uninformed students and others to buy it without proof.I've heard opinions like Wolfs dozens of times and they are not from luminaries.College debates should centre around seeking the truth rather than being told what the truth is,this amounts to being in a religious class,of whatever religion.In this case the professor is increasing the numbers to his dogma to a point where others in the global political world may get the impression that the American balanced view is on the decline and going down fast.Wolfe should take a sabaticle and scratch whatever part of his anatomy that gets his brain into todays gear.
Kevin at 6:00PM on Aug 27th 2007
25. A professor in the religion department at Boston Univeristy has written a book about the woeful state of knowledge of religion.
Perhaps Prof. Wolfe needs to audit some religion classes at BU, even though BC faculty and students think they are vastly superior to their counterparts at BU.
By the way Dinesh, perhaps you ought to get a group of BC students to start bugging Prof. Wolfe, either e-mailing him, phoning him, or dropping by his office, regularly to get him to give consent for the debate to be put on the BC website. You should also have them send letters to the editor of the BC school paper, as well as the school papers at BU and Harvard, and the Boston Globe.
Kent at 6:06PM on Aug 27th 2007
26. OK, some people are on here bashing Dinesh for defending his own honor. I personally do not see anything wrong with confronting someone that is making bold and destructive accusations against you. One would think that this professor would have been more prepared to back up what he was saying to prove his point. This man is supposed to be considered a type of religious expert. Islam should be part of his studies. Why agree to a debate if you don't plan to have people see things from your view. Also, just because the New York Times prints something, it does not make it a justification for not backing up your big mouth.
E at 6:16PM on Aug 27th 2007
27. I urge all who would like to see this debated, write the fine professor:
wolfe@bc.edu
Here's a copy of the letter I sent to him:
Professor Wolfe,
Is it true, what I hear in the press, that you debated Mr. D'Souza and you agreed to make the video public and now refuse to release it? Please say it isn't so!
When reading your review in the New York Times of his recent book, you wrote off his ideas as if you knew the "truth" and he was an enemy of the United States, quite frankly, you were less than kind to him. Mr D'Souza stepped up to the plate and offered to debate you...you agreed...and now are afraid to let all who are interested in it see for ourselves who won the debate.
Did you have an "off day" were you confused by the questions? I don't expect anyone to be perfect...I don't think anyone is but I do expect intellectual honesty...especially from a much respected Professor, from a much respected University.
What kind of example are you sending our youth? Free speech and the sharing of ideas is the backbone of education. By censoring this debate, you are only showing the students that putting your head in the sand is the way we get to the truth...how pathetic. Please rethink your position on sharing this debate.
Live Free or Die, Michael R. Sawyer
Michael R. Sawyer at 7:26PM on Aug 27th 2007
28. So they cut and ran, whats new?
Mary at 7:44PM on Aug 27th 2007
29. Radical egalitarian liberalism is worthy of terror. REL undermines freedom and family. It seeks to plunder the true American through the arm of government. It condones and defends a hellish foul culture and seeks to bring down virtue through force and merger. It destroys what the founders and pioneers of America sacrificed thier lives for trying to defend and establish. Since conservatives have lost their spines and sold themselves to power, terror may be the only abrupt tool to save real America and the minority who is true to her.
Robert Decell at 9:00PM on Aug 27th 2007
30. I am always impressed by Mr. D'Souza's writings and his logical flow of ideas. I suggest that all would benefit from ignoring these blogs, which are only used to incite and enflame. Read some of his works instead. They speak eloquently for themselves.
CK at 10:46PM on Aug 27th 2007