How can academic institutions address the fallout from acts of terror, such as the January 7 Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris? Should they?
During a recent HDS forum, "Violence, Freedom of Expression and Justice," panelists raised questions about free speech and its limitations, and why some lives are perceived as less valuable than others.
In moderating the discussion, Hershey Professor of Buddhist Studies and Academic Dean Janet Gyatso set the tone by saying she hoped the forum would allow for many perspectives on such controversial issues.
Professor Charles Hallisey, who teaches on Buddhism at HDS, focused on the responsibility scholars and academic institutions have in the creation of a just world. He noted that freedom of expression belonged to individuals and justice to institutions. Thus, he said, scholars need to think about “how universities take their place in the world and not just be neo liberal institutions.”
He reminded the audience that those at Harvard were the inheritors of liberal religion, but also of the “factory that made the clash of civilization.” He asked how Harvard could be an institution that creates a different kind of world.
“We can begin here," he said. "How is it that among ourselves we learn to listen to each other?” He added that it was important that those at Harvard pass on an institution “that in the future people will say is still for justice.”
Jocelyne Cesari, who teaches contemporary Islam at HDS, urged more attention to the history, context, and dialectic in western societies on the tensions between both Islamophobia and "Westphobia," as she describes it.
In Europe, she said, there was a belief that Islam was not compatible with liberal values of secular democracies. And in response, European governments attempted “to contain, curtail, and sometimes limit the practice of Muslims to practice their religion.”
Commenting on the practice of free speech in Europe, Cesari argued that there was no “free ticket.” She noted, based on the trauma of the Second World War and the holocaust, that there were legislations preventing people from inciting racial hatred. However, she added that when Muslim groups wanted to be protected by these laws, as in the case of the Danish cartoons, “they were never heard.”
Ousmane Kane, scholar of Islamic studies at HDS, said most Muslims in Senegal, where he grew up, did not think the Charlie Hebdo images were just about freedom of expression.
Islam is not opposed to satire, he said.
“The question is the degree of satire. Is it about making people laugh or about marketing and selling more? Is it Islamophobia or racial hatred?” he asked.
Anila Daulatzai, an anthropologist of Afghanistan and Pakistan and currently a visiting assistant professor and research associate at the Women's Studies in Religion Program at HDS, pointed to the difference in outrage against recent acts of violence in Peshawar and Nigeria vis-à-vis the Paris attacks.
"I am trying to understand what explains the differential outrage toward the 148 children and teachers, the reported thousands dead at the hands of Boko Haram, and 12 journalists," she said.
She also highlighted what she believes to be the hypocrisy of the current freedom of speech narrative, saying that at the gathering of the world leaders in France, many had their own histories of both silencing journalists and of ignoring human rights violations.
Prefacing his talk by declaring his Christian faith, Mark D. Jordan described how blasphemy was not peculiar to Islam. There is a blasphemy law in Massachusetts, he said. He then told the story of the arrest of the editor of a newspaper in London in 1970 for publishing a graphic poem describing same-sex acts with Jesus. The "graphic and terrible poem," as he described, professed that Christ will redeem those rejected in his name. Jordan then added that the “deliberate provocations” of the poem do aggravate him.
"Strong reactions to blasphemy are not hard to understand," he said. "If you love God, God’s prophets, or messengers, you will react to insults … The challenge is to learn to live together peacefully, with strong religious convictions. This challenge has to be faced inside a religious tradition as much as outside it," he said.
He also added that a strong religious tradition should be able to “practice patience with blasphemy."
Jeff Seul, a lawyer and chairman of Peace Appeal Foundation, expressed optimism about the possibilities of shifting the polarized narratives over time. He said his organization helps stakeholders think about how to sustain genuine, action-oriented dialogues.
He emphasized three qualities of genuine dialogue: an honest, analytical attention to context and history; the spirit in which people meet; and an openness to compromise. He said tradeoffs are unavoidable in life, but it is important to structure and sustain such dialogues purposefully and skillfully.
—by Kalpana Jain