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 3 of 3)
31. "Most so called "intellectuals" are ignoramus!"
You have that right. A lot of the so-called 'intellectuals' are just spouting their own personal beliefs and dressing them up as scientific fact.
That's the case in child sexuality research, to name one of the most egregious cases of them stating their own beliefs and ignoring facts, but that's OAS.
A lot of intellectuals when you dare to challenge their beliefs with evidence, get angry at you and say things like "You are supporting pedosexuals! You are supporting racism! Etc. Etc. ad. infinitum"
When someone start saying things like that, I automatically discount everything that is said after they start spouting that nonsense.
Christopher at 11:29PM on Aug 27th 2007
32. ".....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
I have to disagree with this part of your post. While we have been "conditioned" by the media to think of "terrorism" as isolated acts by a few disgruntled "cells" the reality is far, far, different. In the past "terrorism" was known as sabotage or "5th columnists". Those terms are far more accurate since they convey that the "terror" is designed to advance a political purpose by a larger group.
Today's "terrorists" are 5th columnists is a very classic sense since they also represent a large group with political goals on a large scale.
Before both WWI and WWII there were acts of heinous sabotage by small "cells". These acts included dynamiting a school full of children, numerous acts of Arson, and placing poisons and other agents in water supplies, just to name a few.
It's interesting to note that many "progressive" newspapers, such as the New York Times, dismissed those acts as "isolated incidents" commited by a few disgruntled "foreigners". You might also note that from the 30s through the start of WWII the New York Times characterized Hitler as a progressive genius and the Imperial Japanese as righteously claiming ancestoral territory. (and no I won't post the info for you, if you're really interested go and read the New York Times archives like I have)
In short terrorism is not going to save America unless America looks beyond the simpleton explanation of "a few people upset by American polcies" and examines the actual political goals of the larger group the "terrorists" are acting on behalf of.
Darkmanwp at 11:39PM on Aug 27th 2007
33. You know Dinesh, when a person can't have his/her way with you, the first thing he/she does is start ripping apart your character...people do it to God ALL the time, because we as people can't have our way...we tear God down and tell everyone how bad God is...God Himself can't please them all
Bridget at 11:55PM on Aug 27th 2007
34. As a BC student, I am disturbed at this occurrence. I would certainly like to think that my school is a little more ethical than to patronize a professor simply because they lost an intellectual debate. I know I will be writing to Mr. Wolfe, and I hope more of you will as well. It is the moral responsibility of this man and the school to not censor a debate. Show the video and let the viewers formulate their own opinions!
Colin at 3:04AM on Aug 28th 2007
35. The only thing that I can add to Richter's excellent analysis is that nobody reads Dinesh's books, or those of Ann Coulter, except the whack jobs who already agree with them on everything (critics who get paid to review their books excepted). And the reason why the whack jobs read their books (as well as listen to the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, O"Reilly, etc.) is because they must keep the fire of their hatred stoked. These pathetic souls have to be constantly in a lather and hating on somebody ("liberals", atheists, gays, college professors, whatever) lest they calm down and realize how empty their lives really are.
emelpe at 3:20AM on Aug 28th 2007
36. i am curious as to why anyone would repress divergent views when democracy by it's very nature should encourage them? Alas, I think they practice in a democracy that is only for the self designated lions and not the rest of us; who they consider mosquitos. They refuse us the protection of free speech and engage in sophistry. I never cared about liberal or conservative designations, just the free exchange of ideas; even if I don't like them.
By the way D'Souza is probably a descendant of the Sephardic Diaspora. Curious if he has investigated his ancestors.
elka rachel at 5:17AM on Aug 28th 2007
37. Elka Rachel writes: "By the way D'Souza is probably a descendant of the Sephardic Diaspora."
Elka, please! We as a people have suffered enough -- don't burden us with Dinesh D'Souza as well!
Richter at 7:57AM on Aug 28th 2007
38. Neither Wolfe nor DeSousa can be expected to tell it the way it was. How are we to know who said what and importantly, in what context it was said. A plague on both your houses!
Bill at 8:12AM on Aug 28th 2007
39. WHY DO THEY CASTRATE YOUNG INDIAN GIRLS DINESH? CAN YOU ANSWER THAT? THAT WHOLE BACKWARD PART OF THE WORLD NEEDS THERMONUCLEAR CLEANSING.
Rhyno101st at 9:57AM on Aug 28th 2007
40. "The only thing that I can add to Richter's excellent analysis is that nobody reads Dinesh's books, or those of Ann Coulter, except the whack jobs who already agree with them on everything (critics who get paid to review their books excepted). And the reason why the whack jobs read their books (as well as listen to the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, O"Reilly, etc.) is because they must keep the fire of their hatred stoked. These pathetic souls have to be constantly in a lather and hating on somebody ("liberals", atheists, gays, college professors, whatever) lest they calm down and realize how empty their lives really are.
emelpe"
Don't take this too personal dude but I just called a right winger on the carpet for this same thing on another site a couple of days ago so I think it's only fair to let you have it too.
His post said almost word for word EXACTLY what you just said, except he claimed that liberals only read what they agree with, are rabid hate mongers trying to get stoked, empty losers and so on.
The reality is that only ignorant morons read just one side of things (if the morons read at all, most of them are parrots simply repeating talking points)
The reason it's called the marketplace of ideas is because an intelligent person can read and examine ALL points of view and then reason out which ideas have merit.
I've read books from all over the spectrum to learn what point of views the authors hold. I don't agree with extreme Islam AT ALL, but I've read several books by extremist muslims to learn just what their ideas really are in detail and what strategies they employ. I've read left winger books, right winger books ,and everything in between.
The idea that only "followers" would read books by a particular author is stupidity at its height. Beyond that if you don't read and then you run around claiming to know all about some author you just confirm the suspicion that you're a complete idiot who's just parroting some talking point fed to you by a political hack.
The only difference between a right wing moron and a left wing moron is which direction you'd need to face to laugh at them.
Darkmanwp at 12:53PM on Aug 28th 2007