I'm a bit concerned about the new president of Bryn Mawr College. From today's Inquirer:

An internationally known scholar of Islamic studies whose expertise is in the Quran and relations between Islam and Christianity was selected as the eighth president of Bryn Mawr College yesterday.

The appointment of Jane Dammen McAuliffe was announced to the college community by pealing bells from Taylor Hall.

McAuliffe, dean of the college of arts and sciences at Georgetown University, said she planned to emphasize the natural sciences and multiculturalism when she takes over from Nancy J. Vickers on July 1.

She wants to beef up science offerings and actively recruit international students to the 123-year-old liberal-arts campus.

Bryn Mawr, McAuliffe said, has already diversified the 1,300-student campus "more than most institutions in the United States. I want to continue that work but reach out even more aggressively" to foreign students.

The college's international students come from 43 countries. Thirty-three percent of the student body are minorities or international students.

McAuliffe's specialty is the Muslim holy book and its interpretations, early Islamic history, and the interrelationships between Islam and Christianity.

I have nothing against building bridges in Qatar, nor against Islamic Studies. In fact, I'd probably find the subject very interesting, as I love history and I'm fascinated by religion. I'm worried, though, by a couple of things.

First, Bryn Mawr is one of those places with a history of restrictions on speech (in the form of draconian "speech codes," as well as worrisome "orientation" sessions bordering on out-and-out indoctrination):

...Bryn Mawr probed the most private experiences of every first-year student: difference and discomfort; racial, ethnic, and class experiences; sexual orientation; religious beliefs. By the end of this "orientation," students were devising "individual and collective action plans" for "breaking free" of "the cycle of oppression" and for achieving "new meaning" as "change agents." Although the public relations savvy of universities has changed since the early 1990s, these programs proliferate apace.

In recent years, hate crime convictions have become more frequent in this country as public and legal awareness have increased. In 1998, Mark Harding of Toronto was convicted for "promoting hatred against an identifiable group contrary to s.319(2) of the Criminal Code." Prof. Jane McAuliffe of the University of Toronto, an expert witness called by the Crown, said "there is no legitimate support in the Qur'an or Islamic religious doctrine for the position that Islam advocates violence."

The offending pamphlets discussed Islamic societies around the world where "Muslims are torturing, maiming, starving and killing Christians" simply because of their faith. Harding argues that Islam "is full of hate and violence," and that its holy books teach that it "will always be at war" with other religions. "Once a state becomes an Islamic state, no other religion is tolerated," he says.

His outspokenness last June landed Harding in trouble with the Muslim community, and he is going to trial next month to face criminal charges on three counts of "incitement to hatred." Complaints were also lodged with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. He was arrested and spent a few days in jail before a hearing last summer.

Harding is largely unrepentant as his trial date approaches, and he is confident that "the charges should be dismissed" under existing religious protection provisions in the law. He believes that judicial authorities succumbed to pressure because of vociferous complaints from the Muslim community.

"My free speech has been taken away," he says. "The government does not understand Islam and what it's all about."

Regular readers know that I am 100% opposed to any "hate speech" laws or restrictions. Aside from the obvious First Amendment issues, one of the reasons is that there is no way to define hate. We all hate a lot of things, and the idea of criminalizing "hate" is absurd, and invites double standards.

Would President McAuliffe consider this hate speech, for example?

How about anti-homosexual passages from Islamic texts? This is no idle question, and I'm surprised that some of Bryn Mawr's political activists don't raise it.

If they wanted to ask Dean McAuliffe about double standards, they might start by asking why, for example, she would on the one hand testify against a Christian cleric accused of anti-Muslim remarks while she was in Canada, and then exhibit a far different attitude towards anti-homosexual remarks -- by another Christian cleric in the United States. Unlike Rev. Harding, he didn't stand around handing out leaflets, but she selected him to deliver Georgetown's commencement address:

For ears tuned for a commencement address, what came later was much less familiar. Where graduates might have expected congratulations and warm counsel, they received, quite simply, a sermon. "In many parts of the world, the family is under siege," said Arinze, at the climax of his speech. "It is opposed by anti-life mentality as is seen in contraception, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. It is scorned and banalized by pornography; desecrated by fornication and adultery; mocked by homosexuality, sabotaged by irregular unions and cut into two by divorce."

"You don't solve a difficult algebra homework by burning the algebra book," he continued. "You don't solve a family problem by divorce."
During this part of Arinze's speech, Theresa Sanders, Associate Professor of Theology, got up from her seat on the stage behind Arinze and walked off. Sanders declined to comment on why she left.

As Sanders departed, Rachel Boutennot (CAS '03) was seated toward the front of the graduating students, "making faces," as she described it, to her faculty mentor, exasperated at what Arinze had said. The top of her black mortarboard, which she had prepared the night before, read "RESIST" in bright yellow paint. When she saw Sanders leave, she got up and left as well.

McAuliffe's introduction of Arinze at the ceremony confirms that impression. She spoke at length about his expertise in "seeking cooperation and relations with those of other faiths" and the "complex backdrop of interactions between Muslims and Christians across Subsaharan Africa." She closed by nailing home the significance of having a specialist in Muslim-Christian relations speak to a group of American university graduates: "We look to the leadership of Cardinal Arinze as a voice for the Catholic Church in envisioning the secure peace towards which the world must work."

[...]

On Monday morning, History Professor Tommaso Astarita drafted a "letter of concern" asking the University to make an explicit committment to inclusiveness and distibuted it to faculty members. By Wednesday, about 70 professors had signed the letter, and it was delivered to McAuliffe. Those faculty members would constitute the core of the protesters. "I'm proud of the extent to which the faculty stepped forward and registered its concerns about the speech and the larger events it illustrates," said English Professor James Slevin, who signed that letter.
That same day, McAuliffe released a brief statement acknowledging the controversy. "As an academic community, vigorous and open discussion lies at the heart of what we do," she wrote, "and there are many different voices in the conversation." She set aside two hours for a meeting that Friday, May 22.
The meeting was held that afternoon in a conference room below McAuliffe's office in White-Gravenor. About 30 persons attended, of which the majority were faculty, and nearly all of them were upset about the speech. A handful of students attended as well, including Holder, who described the tone of the meeting as "very serious, very formal."

The meeting opened with a lengthy speech from McAuliffe, who focused on the Cardinal's background and the differences in the perception of homosexuality in Nigerian culture. She was also concerned about a backlash against the Cardinal, said Holder, from conservatives who considered him "simple." Repeatedly, attendees said, McAuliffe spoke about "walking the tightrope" between the University's Catholicism and the concerns of students and faculty.

But most of those who spoke later about the meeting said that Arinze himself was not the issue, but rather how the speech highlighted the University's perceived pattern of marginalizing the LGBTQ community. Holder, for one, felt McAuliffe's words did not directly address those issues. She described the remarks as "political" and "very diplomatic." "[McAuliffe] had a script and she stuck to it," Holder said. "That was very frustrating."

According to attendees, Slevin was particularly concerned about McAuliffe's evasion of certain issues. Slevin declined to speak about what happened inside the meeting, but attendees described him as particularly disturbed by the University's response. At one point, frustrated with McAuliffe, he told her, "cut the crap, Jane." Later, Slevin walked out of the meeting.

During the meeting McAuliffe again expressed her surprise at the content of Arinze's speech. Numerous professors and students spoke; one professor deemed the Cardinal's words "hate speech." Only one person, Stephen Feiler (CAS '02), who could not be reached for comment by press time, spoke in defense of Arinze.

I'm of course a fierce advocate of free speech, and I think both Harding and Arinze have just as much right to freely criticize gays and Muslims as the latter have to criticize them. That's the whole idea.

What concerns me here is the double standard involved.

And what kind of standard is honors for Arinze, but jail for Harding?

I think the best way to build bridges and have honest and open dialogue is to respect all free speech -- be it pro or anti gay, pro or anti Muslim, pro or anti Christian, and yes, even pro or anti "diversity," and pro or anti "multiculturalism."

I hope my concerns are unfounded in the case of Bryn Mawr's new president, but I worry that the possible overemphasis on multiculturalism and diversity carries with it a growing threat to free speech.

(To say nothing of that subset of free speech we call "academic freedom.")

UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the link, and a warm welcome to all.

Agree or disagree, I appreciate the comments.

MORE: As there's been some discussion of Bryn Mawr's speech code (which is technically called the "Honor Code") in the comments, I thought it was worth taking a closer look.

Reading through the text of code, it is so vague that I'm not sure it was fair of me to characterize it as "draconian" because it does not spell out how exactly how it is to be be applied under all circumstances. It certainly could be applied in a very draconian manner -- and to almost anything -- with penalties including expulsion.

From the text:

We recognize that acts of discrimination and harassment, including, but not limited to, acts of racism, homophobia, classism, ableism, and discrimination against religious and political minorities are devoid of respect and therefore, by definition, violate this Code.

[...]

The Board has the authority to justify any sanction up to failure of an examination or paper, failure of a course, exclusion from a residence hall, exclusion from campus housing or expulsion from the College.

As to what is actionable, another provision of the code defines it as whatever might "offend" any student:

a. If a student is offended by the actions of another student, either personally or because she believes them to be detrimental to the community, she must confront the student directly as the first step toward conflict resolution. This conversation must take place in person unless the option is not available (i.e. the student is abroad). Confrontation is not a hostile action. The two students should engage in a constructive discussion to try and reach a common understanding. This does not imply an agreement but an "exchange of values" or "expression of concerns" which results in a viable solution for both parties. An Honor Board member may act on behalf of another student if this process would place the student involved in physical danger. In the case of an Honor Board member assisting in the confrontation, a clear line of communication must be maintained between the students involved in the confrontation.

[...]

d. If the issue cannot be resolved, the Head of the Honor Board should be contacted.

e. Both the confronting and confronted parties must write separate statements explaining the circumstances as they perceive them. In ordinary circumstances the statements should be submitted to the Honor Board within 72 hours after the confronted student and the Honor Board have made contact.

f. The Head of the Honor Board, along with the Senior Counsel and with one other Board member, will collect written statements and determine if a hearing is warranted and which witnesses will be heard.

The standard seems to be along the lines of "If you offend me, I can have you expelled."

Saying that anyone can be expelled for anything strikes me as a horribly vague standard, and a very broad one, with no notice of what is allowed, but with the ever-lurking possibility of boards, hearings, and possible expulsion.

I'm reminded of the whimsical "Don't Say This, I Won't Tell You What" standard at Brandeis.

If I were a Bryn Mawr student, I'd probably have to resort to anonymity.

UPDATE: I have another post here about President McAuliffe's views and interfaith dialogue.