Driving to a class at Tufts, my feet went cold. On I-95, I couldn't decide what to do. My hands felt shaky. Something was sloppily dripping on my cheek. I went back to J-Lot instead of class. I didn't find a shoulder, only a steering wheel. As a grown man, I wept. I couldn't understand why or how. The reason I was so disturbed were the events surrounding the Daniel Pipes' event on Nov. 18.

As Justice columnist Bezalel Stern noted on November 25, 2003, "facts, and not half-truths, are important when judging people and events." The more fascinating aspect of such an argument is its placement in the Forum section of the paper. Crushing any notions of subtlety, this method of argument absolves itself of any multi-faceted understanding of the nature of truth. The aim of this op-ed, therefore, is to examine with a greater degree of nuance the happenings of last semester. I have been a Co-President of the Brandeis Muslim Student Association (BMSA), though I am no longer one. My actions are not governed by or liable to that organization. Regardless, it is an insult to the collective effort of the many students involved from the BMSA and non-BMSA organizations to have their contributions belittled or misrepresented.

When reporting on the protest outside, it was mentioned that students were holding "banners and posters denouncing Pipes as racist and intolerant." This is simply not true. The posters that were being held up were broader, denouncing hate altogether. The exceptions were two posters held up equating Pipes and Joseph McCarthy. To this, a passer-by suggested that McCarthy did actually catch the communists. Given the sentiment expressed at the Middle East Forum At Brandeis (MEFAB) event, it seems like it would be acceptable to subject Muslims to McCarthyite tactics in the name of justice and security.

Prof. Dennis Ross noted, "Anyone who tries to discredit [Daniel Pipes] as scholar has another agenda." The Brandeis Coalition for Tolerance (BCT) continues to have another agenda, that of tolerance on campus. To that end, however, the idea has never been to discredit Pipes as a scholar. The BCT statement issued in response to the event, something no one read, very bluntly declared, "We are not disputing Daniel Pipes' authenticity as a historian or commentator on the Middle East crisis." That document also stated, "Daniel Pipes' bigoted attitude mars his scholarship of Islam."

The baby is not being thrown out with the proverbial bath water. When scholars make repeated remarks about one group of society in a singular manner, they draw attention to their means and ends. If Muslim immigrants bring "customs more troublesome than most" and must be "handled properly," then a critical eye would be wise to examine such comments closely and criticize them sharply when the need arises-especially if such scholars are oblivious to the history of religious extremism in this country and absolve organizations such as the KKK, as was done at the MEFAB event. We must understand what handling properly can entail. Minorities were "handled properly" in the Spanish Inquisition, slavery in the Americas, pogroms in Eastern Europe and the list goes on.

In an Nov. 25 article, "Pipes' visit garners strong support amid controversy," Elana Lichtenstein '06 said, "Instead of responding to important components of the speech, [attendees against Pipes] used prepared sheets complete with out-of-context quotes to corner him. In that effort, they failed. Had people asked questions relating to his speech, their case would have been far more credible."

This is another misrepresentation. The representative of MEFAB told the BCT that there would be an open forum for questions, and her one request was that we bring questions regarding all of the quotes to ask Daniel Pipes at the talk. That is why we had prepared questions with us.
We also had questions based on the talk that was given, however, since people were being chosen to ask questions arbitrarily, and not everyone who had questions got a chance to ask them (some people even being prevented from asking follow-up questions) we unfortunately didn't get a chance to participate in the "dialogue" that was promised us. This fact has been distorted as well.

Take Bezalel Stern's column, "Pipes protest shows left-wing fascism." In this column Stern writes, "They walked out right in front of Pipes, rudely and arrogantly disturbing an otherwise civil and incredibly important discussion." Pipes did not appear to desire a discussion since he didn't let some people finish their questions. He insulted people and restricted certain people's right to ask follow-up questions. Hissing and jeering during questions and cheering and clapping at insults is not civilized behavior where I come from.

Stern also incorrectly claimed protesters were "holding signs with statements like, 'We will not tolerate intolerance.'" The exact wording was "oppose hate, tolerate." He also claimed "the protesters took the low road, choosing name-calling instead of dialogue and incivility instead of discourse." I don't remember any name-calling, except by the person who ran up to us chanting, "You're all idiots" and by all the people hissing at us when we were asking questions. This is not to mention people saying things like, "Don't you feel stupid now?" as we were leaving. Understanding this, did the "forum" really look like an avenue for real dialogue to anyone? Honestly?

I am hardly a part of "left-wing fascism," as Stern claims. My sophomore year I was elected Secretary of the College Republicans. I've also served as a contributing editor of Concord Bridge. Pipes raises controversy on both sides of the political spectrum. Rationalized intolerance is something that concerns all people, Republican, Democrat, Muslim, Jew, Christian, black, white or brown. The BCT had been asked if the event should be prevented, and at all times the response was no. We supported free speech, and realized that the event had to occur to address the community's problems and foster dialogue.

This op-ed is an attempt to further this dialogue. While a discourse of the clash of civilizations is beyond the scope of this column, a discourse over clashes of community isn't. It's not racist to carefully probe the bin Ladenists. However, it is intolerant to require Muslims to be "moderate" and assume that all terrorism stems from some brand of Islam. Brandeis suffers from an acute case of this bias. There's terrorism in Sri Lanka, India, Northern Ireland and many other places and forms unrelated to Muslims or Islam. We must be against all injustice. Brandeis is an institution of higher learning committed to social justice. This vision is perverted through the unsutable and maladroit treatment of minorities.

Students that boo, jeer, hiss, or intimidate and are entirely unwilling to treat with equality those with differing beliefs do not belong at Brandeis. We must admit to ourselves that so many "incidents," such as the responses to the pro-tolerance rally, the Justice incident, the WBRS affair, the orientation hypnotist, the anti-Arab flier, the homophobic graffiti and many others are rooted in greater troubles. Students are deprived of the opportunity to learn when thrust into the defense of their identities. Polemics do not advance the cause of justice.