...is in the eye of the beholder
Here is Coverage from the Cincinnati Enquirer:~
Adams' responses, according to the screenshot of the Facebook post, included:
- “The U.S. President’s first sworn duty is to protect America from enemies, and the greatest threat to our freedom is not the President, it is radical Islam. Review this list of Islamic terrorist attacks and then tell me about your hurt feelings.”
- “Now, about Muslim females. As you well know, young Muslim women are murdered by their father or a brother for dating – or for holding hands with – a non-Muslim boy …”
- “Muslim females are safer in America than in any Middle Eastern country. How dare you complain while enjoying our protection!”
- “And just FYI: July 4th is not the day we tape a sign to a damn stick and go out and march with smug college brats and dysphoric drama queens, it is a federal holiday commemorating the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. I am glad you took my class; you really do need to shut up, listen, and learn. Welcome to America, and welcome to college. – Adams”]
Adams publicly apologized for his remarks two days after The Enquirer's story.
"As I reconsider what I wrote from an online student’s vantage point, I now realize that I did come across like a religious bigot and that makes me feel horrible," he said in a letter to The Enquirer. "I have inadvertently hurt feelings and offended many and for that I am deeply sorry."
The Council on American-Islamic Relations [Graeme: Why anyone still listens to this Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood tied group of "advocates" I do not know], Cincinnati Chapter (CAIR-Cincinnati) filed a complaint with UC against the professor for his comments. The organization said it filed the complaint on behalf of the student, who chose to remain anonymous due to fear of reprisal.
“No student should be attacked or bullied because of his or her faith,” CAIR-Cincinnati attorney Sana Hassan said in a statement Thursday. “A teacher’s job is to educate and protect students, not subject them to harassment or attacks because of their faith. We welcome the university’s decision to stand against bigotry and hate ... .”
Now that fourth "FYI" bullet point above is fairly straight and probably inappropriate coming from a lecturer, although - and context is a very big issue here - we aren't privy to any previous exchanges between student & teacher which may make sense of the statement's bluntness - perhaps she had elsewhere been just as blunt with him, perhaps more so. The other 3 points, I mean - who could argue with their accuracy? So I suppose then that tone is the issue here. But at what point does a person grow up and accept responsibility for what offends them and what is actually intended for their good? Maybe both can occur at the same time.
If I go back and compare Mr Adams' statements to those corrections I received at a similar age, when I started work in a Line Gang after leaving High School - planting telephone poles & digging trenches - they are hardly upsetting. She wasn't sworn at once. There was no underlying threat of physical violence - indeed quite the opposite. Despite the Islamist group CAIR's statement, she wasn't brow-beaten or bullied (bullying was commonplace with some foremen & senior men). She wasn't ejected from a gang because the foreman thought she was not up to scratch & refused to work with her. All the above was simply normal life for myself and my fellow Trainees.
Isn't the lecturer simply forthrightly making a case against the obvious & demonstrable weak points of Islam & the culture it gives rise to while noting the many & equally obvious freedoms Muslims - particularly Muslim women - enjoy in the US? And aren't you being particularly naive in both your denial and your recourse to official channels in asserting your "rights"?
With the greatest respect my dear: you need to toughen up. It's a bit like the old soldiers discussing their time as a new recruit: "This doesn't offend me, I've been insulted by professionals". Grow up, maybe your lecturer has a point.
Rather than getting him fired maybe we could listen and argue those points of criticism. That would really reflect "equal opportunity and access" wouldn't it? This is the most pathetic aspect of this affair, the University's draconian decision to fire the man. They could have played the part of the grown-ups in this. Instead they missed the opportunity graphically. The lecturer probably should have received some sort of correction or even discipline over the 4th of July comment, but dismissal? Wildly disproportionate IMHO.
There was no "attack, bullying harassment, bigotry or hatred" as the local branch of the Ihkwan asserts. None at all. There were simply ideas that she didn't like being presented with,which, if similar criticisms of the beliefs of a white, male, Constitutionalist, Christian student had been presented - as they so regularly are in Universities - would not cause so much as the bat of an eyelid.
Below is Robert Spencer's brief take on the matter.