Posts

Mark Zuckerberg

Mark Zuckerberg Gets to Know American Muslims at the University of Michigan-Dearborn

by

by Syeda Arbab & Yousuf Ali

Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg visited Muslim students at the University of Michigan-Dearborn on May 12, 2017, and exemplified the mantra ‘listening comes before leading.’ As a part of an annual personal challenge to learn new things and grow outside of his work at Facebook, Zuckerberg aims to visit every state this year and engage with neglected communities. During his visit to Michigan, Muslim students at UM-Dearborn had the opportunity to share our personal stories, future hopes, and current fears as Muslim and largely immigrant students or people of recent immigrant heritage. It is this common denominator that the discussion flowed from.

“We all recognized the importance of democratic representation, or as Zuckerberg put it, “everyone deserves equal opportunity to have their voices heard”… and if it came down to choosing between censorship and freedom of speech, he’d prefer to “let everyone have a voice.”

We pointed out the danger in failing to recognize the pre-existing social conditions Muslims face, namely systemic alienation and marginalization. These dynamics are all too often replicated on social media. White dominance, in particular, often is left unspoken or unaddressed, and influential people like Zuckerberg need to realize how such power dynamics impact people in such different levels because opinions are never just opinions; all opinions are
not made or treated as equal. In our not-so-ideal world, certain opinions further marginalize vulnerable populations like Muslims, immigrants, and refugees. These cannot be simply battled through the idealized free market of ideas.Mark Zuckerberg

We also discussed the role that expertise plays in public discourse. Zuckerberg emphasized that you do not need to be an expert to have a voice on a matter, or to have basic access to platforms for expression. In response, one of us stated we should seek expertise in the representation of people whom the matter affects the most. In the context of the conversation, we noted that many of the people whom the media regards as experts on Islam and Muslim-American relations are completely disconnected from the day-to-day experiences Muslims face, be they in the United States or abroad. Foreign policy is a stark example in that most who decide whether or not to bomb Middle-Eastern countries do not understand, let alone speak, the language of the people whom they are bombing. Social media has tragically amplified the impact such people have at our expense.

When telling our personal stories, we chose to explain how our backgrounds affect our everyday lived experiences. For example, social media too often reflects the broader challenges of Islamophobia we face on a daily basis. One of us recounted how disgusted he was at witnessing Islamophobes troll the live streaming of the memorial service dedicated to the six victims of the Quebec City Mosque shooting earlier this year. For those of us who are visibly
Muslim, we recounted stories of daily harassment or even assault in the form of people forcibly removing headscarves. After we paused a moment to reflect, we recognized common lived experiences of overwhelmingly being children of war and all having hailed from transnational communities for generations. In sharing our most personal experiences, we wanted Zuckerberg to understand the challenges that Muslims in this country face every day and to recognize the ways in which they navigate those.Mark Zuckerberg

Importantly, however, Zuckerberg seemed genuinely optimistic about our shared experiences inherently being in a position to honor common humanity. After the personal introductions and narratives, he asked us questions such as the longevity of the Arab community in the area. He also felt the need to address some of our narratives relating to social media by saying that despite the difficulties of managing a network of 2 billion people, they would try to
better live up to their standards relating to hate speech. As the discussion winded down, we took the opportunity to explain what had become abundantly clear during the meeting: Muslims represent a variety of different backgrounds, experiences and viewpoints, and Zuckerberg’s ability to hear it all was particularly reassuring.

Photos provided by Syeda Arbab.

free speech

Free Speech and Security: Two Sides to a Three-Way Coin

by

by Saeed Khan

Are universities bastions of free speech, safe spaces or are they the new battleground for competing forces on the political spectrum? The answer, of course, is that it depends on who you ask.

Today, all three of these possibilities exist and are in play as students, student organizations, faculty that invite controversial speakers to campus, and activists from outside the university community converge on centers of higher learning across the country. Recently, some of these incidents have culminated in violence while others have caused the cancellation of lectures out of fear for potential mayhem and chaos. The rise in media coverage of late regarding campus speech appears to be less about this being a new phenomenon- after all, controversy and activism are as common to university life as fraternities and complaints about cafeteria food. Rather, the heightened attention on this issue is the very location of the most contentious examples of lectures leading to violent reaction occurring, ironically, on campuses long identified as being free speech epicenters.

The University of California at Berkeley is nearly synonymous with free speech and student activism. It has served as a nucleus for key social protest movements since the 1960s. Berkeley, as a campus and as a city, exudes liberal thought and expression. Twelve days after the election of Donald Trump as the country’s 45th president, the Berkeley College Republicans invited Milo Yiannopoulos, editor of the alt-Right media outlet, Breitbart. A self-proclaimed political flame-thrower, Yiannopoulos has been an unapologetic critic of political correctness, social justice movements, immigration, feminism, and Islam. He has also promoted his early endorsement of Trump for president.

To those on the political left- students and activists alike—the prospect of Yiannopoulos appearing at Berkeley was more than about a speaker with unpopular views; it was an act of deliberate provocation that defiled the sacred space of arguably the nation’s most liberal campus. Protesters confronted Yiannopoulos’ supporters mere hours before his scheduled talk and violence ensued, prompting police in riot gear to deploy tear gas to disperse the crowd. Campus and security officials then decided that in light of the chaos, it would be necessary to cancel the lecture.

Protesters claimed victory, that their actions ‘shut down’ a purportedly hate-filled voice, while his supporters decried the university’s alleged yield to violent assertions. Berkeley was caught in the crossfire of upholding its long-held transition to support speech, while seemingly acquiescing to violent reprisal used to pre-empt a speaker based singularly on the content of his proposed speech. But if Berkeley’s actions with Yiannopoulos were contentious, its challenge thirteen weeks later affirmed the university’s inadvertent metamorphosis from the marketplace to the battlefield of ideas.

Conservative author and columnist Ann Coulter was to speak at Berkeley on April 27, in response to an invitation from right-wing campus group Young America’s Foundation. Like Yiannopoulos, Coulter has a long history of targeting liberals, Muslims, immigrants, people of color. Given the shared ideology with Yiannopoulos and anxiety over another potentially violent reception, the university deemed it critical to cancel Coulter’s lecture.

Unsurprisingly, her fans were furious that Berkeley had once again bowed to even the intimation of violence, while Coulter’s opponents reveled in the fact they had yet again prevented a toxic talk, this time a week in advance by mere bark overbite. As the debate over free speech went ‘viral’ on conventional and social media both, Berkeley abruptly capitulated and reversed its decision, requesting Coulter to appear on campus with assurances of security measures given. Their solution was a new date, a week later, though Coulter castigated the move as harmful to attendance prospects, reminding her supporters and the university that her appearance would coincide with study week, a period of relatively low student participation in any activity outside preparation for final exams.

Berkeley’s shifting position on permitting controversial speakers on campus reflects the complex, at times unenviable and tenuous predicament of promoting free speech while being practical about possible violent reactions to it. Unfortunately, the recent incidents at Berkeley inadvertently create a false binary, placing expression and security at odds with one another. It has the effect of not only casting the violent opponents of a speaker as being a security threat but anyone who objects to the views of that speaker as somehow being against free speech as a right. It is a dichotomy that has been used time and again effectively, and oftentimes well away from the university campus.

The same argument has been made to securitize Muslims, during the Satanic Verses controversy in 1989, where the alleged death fatwa against the book’s author, Salman Rushdie, placed Muslims worldwide as potential judges, juries, and executioners in carrying out a purported death fatwa for the alleged crime of blasphemy. More recently, the so-called Danish cartoons controversy and the Charlie Hebdo incident were used to frame Muslims as intolerable to free speech and prone to violence at the slightest provocation of offensive expression directed toward them or their faith. Today, efforts are underway to redefine the political left as being the true opponents of a hallowed public right, coupled with the ironic reinvention of the hardline right as guardians of free speech that is toxic, racist and often itself an incitement to violence by their own supporters

The Berkeley lectures saga places in sharp focus an issue that has by its nature blurry lines. Free speech is one of this country’s most hallowed and constitutionally protected rights. College campuses have historically been oases of free thought and the very venue for the exchange of ideas no matter how controversial or provocative. Violent reactions to opposing, even offensive perspectives is still a relatively rare occurrence, all recent incidents notwithstanding. But what has changed is not the dynamic of the speech and the reaction to its content. It is the erosion of civility in society whereby speech is now used as a weapon as incendiary as the tear gas used to disperse protesting crowds or the bludgeons used by militants on either side for whom the speech is just an excuse to riot and commit mayhem. Perhaps universities should be the forum for discussions and debates about the relationship of speech and security. Hopefully, a safe space can be created for that.

Ziad Ahmed

Muslim Teens Writes ‘#BlackLivesMatter’ 100 Times is Accepted to Stanford but Not Everyone is Happy

by

by Hira Uddin

Growing up desi, many youth trying to find their purpose in life can relate to hearing “you are not (insert an array of demeaning adjectives here) enough.” Young, desi men and women are told by elders from within the community that their career choices are not good enough, their skin color is not light enough, their struggle is not real enough, and now, that their social activism is not sincere enough.

Zaid Ahmed is a Muslim teen who was recently accepted into Stanford University after he wrote “#BlackLivesMatter” 100 times for the essay portion of the application. The prompt asked, “What matters to you and why?” In addition to Stanford, Ahmed was also accepted by Princeton and Yale. Clearly, his application was credible enough to achieve that distinction, regardless of his essay. However, members from within the desi community were on the forefront of dismantling Ahmed’s method of activism on their own social media platforms.

It is important to consider the fact that Ahmed’s academic record is clearly substantive enough to get him accepted into two other Ivy League universities (so far), and his participation in social activism warranted an invitation to the annual White House Iftar by former President Barack Obama. These social media activists chose to ridicule Ahmed for exploiting the BLM movement for his own benefit with comments stating that Ahmed was using this as a way to “profit” from the larger social movement even though he does not directly confront the daily struggles of black Americans. While he chose to make a statement by writing #BlackLivesMatter to prove a point on his application, it is important to realize that it is most likely not the sole reason for his acceptance.

The essay was more likely an added unique facet of his application along with his other body of work in the eyes of the committee reviewing it. It’s also important to note that writing #BlackLivesMatter 100 times without any thoughtful construction of a traditional essay was a risk and could have backfired—being seen as not putting enough thought into answering the prompt.

This raises another important issue that non-black people of color grapple with while supporting the Black Lives Matter movement: is our support of #BlackLivesMatter insignificant if we are not ourselves black? Non-black minorities are not certain how to properly navigate the nuances of supporting the voices of our black brothers and sisters without assuming that we know their daily struggles. Each time I or my network of friends have attended a Black Lives Matter rally or protest, it is to further amplify the voices that are being stifled – it is not to reduce their tone or their volume by adding struggles unrelated to the black experience. As someone committed to social justice within my capacity, it is my hope that Black Lives Matter doesn’t morph into an “us vs. them” rhetoric where “them” includes other non-black minorities trying to support the movement. Silencing conversations or from writing about this social movement will only facilitate this because there are only a few ways to relate to a movement if you are not permitted to discuss the implications of how it affects you.

Ziad Ahmed

Would desi activists rather our youth remain silent on the Black Lives Matter movement and not write about it or discuss how it also impacts their lives as allies because they are not themselves black? But then these same activists would be preaching from their social media pulpits that “youth are not doing enough” if they remain silent. Should we not expect desi youth to be on the frontlines of protesting social injustices against oppressed brothers and sisters of color because they themselves are a different kind of minority? Using this same logic, does an American woman then not have the right to feel outraged at the documented instances of American males snatching off the hijabs of Muslim women because she herself does not wear a headscarf? Surely, the problem with this exclusionary logic is evident and troublesome if we extend this to other social movements.

The snag with the mentality of only supporting movements that relate to one part of our identity is that it is very divisive. We cannot pigeonhole social justice to only unify ourselves when one part of us is being persecuted. The strength of social activism is often found in the numbers of diverse people who understand the value of those communities that are being oppressed within our society and seek to put an end to that bigotry. The Muslim Ban, for example, affects many different racial and ethnic groups, but if only Muslims were against the ban, that would reduce the strength of the movement which has unified people across countries, states, and cities. Would it make sense for these same desi activists to criticize non-Muslims for speaking against the Muslim Ban because they are not Muslims? Of course not; instead, we would want people from all walks of life to understand why they should protest it at whatever meaningful level they can.

Desi community members who have a considerable social media following need to be mindful before they ridicule youth from within their own community, especially when they have not done anything egregious. How many more generations of young men and women will have to fill in the blank: “you are not (blank) enough”?

Hira Uddin is the editor of her blog InsideAmericanMosques.com and a staff writer for Brown Girl Magazine.