On Monday, Nov. 18, leaders from the Philadelphia chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) gave a presentation contextualizing the Title VI complaint they filed on Oct. 31. The complaint alleges a widespread culture of discrimination against Arab, Muslim, and Palestinian students, and was the subject of an email response sent out to the campus community from President Val Smith’s office just hours before the CAIR presentation was scheduled to begin. Ahmet Selim Tekelioglu, the executive director of CAIR Philadelphia and a lead presenter, noted the email’s timing wryly, saying, “I understand you all received an email today welcoming us to campus.” However, much of the presentation focused not on the particular details of the complaint, but on the broader social context in which CAIR operates.
The presenters shared, for example, that CAIR’s Philadelphia chapter has seen a 300% increase in legal intakes, with the majority of the increase in concerns relating to discrimination at work and school, along with First Amendment issues. Tekelioglu argued that at the root of anti-Muslim discrimination is often the false belief that Arabs and Muslims are inherently violent. This belief is enacted through state institutions in the form of over-policing and surveillance and, in CAIR’s argument, through colleges’ punitive use of student disciplinary systems. “[Colleges] use the rhetoric that students are not peaceful protesters, maybe [protests are] not up to the code of conduct of [a] particular institution, but they are not violent protests. But the school will say, ‘These are not peaceful protests.’”
Tekelioglu said the discriminatory environments CAIR exists to combat often stem not from bad faith administrators or conscious decisions to treat students differently, but rather from systemic pressures put onto colleges and universities. A particular concern he raised was the issue of wealthy board members and donors wielding outsized power in shaping policy. The impact of the policies, however, is clear in his eyes. Tekelioglu asked, “What is happening such that students and faculty feel targeted in this space?”
The email from Smith reiterated the school’s denial of the allegations in the complaint. “Without equivocation, I wholeheartedly condemn all forms of discrimination — including Islamophobia and anti-Arab hate. I remain committed to ensuring that everyone on campus can learn, work, and live in an environment free of intimidation, harassment, and discrimination. Through words and actions, the College has upheld its policies designed to support that fundamental value.” Smith’s email also mentioned that the school had yet to receive a notice of an open investigation from the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, the body tasked with addressing Title VI complaints against colleges and universities.
To CAIR, however, and many in attendance, the email rang hollow. Tekelioglu informed those gathered that Swarthmore will shortly be added to CAIR’s designated institutions of particular concern.
I agree with Tekelioglu’s argument that “at the root of anti-Muslim discrimination is often the false belief that Arabs and Muslims are inherently violent” and that a particular concern is “the issue of wealthy board members and donors wielding outsized power in shaping policy”
Take, for instance, the case of Columbia University. Edward Said was a professor there. He is best known for writing “Orientalism,” in which he described a centuries-long program of dehumanization of Muslims in higher education and through public policy in both Europe and the US, which includes the very phenomenon Tekelioglu is talking about. But who ultimately wins out when it comes to campus policy? Scholars like Said who have spent their lives studying the complexities of civilization, politics, history, science, and the human condition or random unaccountable board members and wealthy donors who threaten to withhold funding? We know the answer. We saw it unfold at Columbia last year.
It’s embarrassing as an alum that Swarthmore is no different. An utterly unaccountable, unelected Board of Managers and an administration that is terrified of taking a stand against the rhetoric and actions perpetuated by people like Trump stooge Elise Stefanik and her white nationalist buddy Tom Cotton, who gleefully drummed Claudine Gay (among others) out of a job at Harvard even as right-wing alumni threatened to blacklist student protestors from future employment.
So yeah, this is bigger than Swarthmore, but Swarthmore should strive to be better than getting hit with Title VI complaints. Because Islamophobia is racism. Period. It’s straight up racism and Swarthmore, according to this complaint, is being racist. Which, like I said, is embarrassing.