Tufts Daily

Issue date: 1/31/08 Section: Op-Ed

Regardless of how noble the ends might be, government-funded programs often fail to achieve their stated objective. One such example has resulted in federally funded support of jihadists at Tufts University.

In 2006, Tufts' Hillel received part of a $1.6-million Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grant to promote "inter-faith and intercultural dialogue." The program's intentions are noble and its goals laudable, since it is best to resolve conflict through dialogue.

But this past fall, Tufts' Interfaith Initiative, "Pathways," used its federal money to sponsor a dinner and dialogue by Edina Lekovic on "Women, Faith, and Women."

The problem is that Lekovic is a radical Islamist sympathizer who has gone so far as to defend Osama bin Laden.

A former managing editor of "Al-Talib, a Muslim publication at UCLA, Lekovic was on the masthead when it published an editorial - signed by the Al-Talib staff - praising and defending Osama bin Laden.

The editorial stated, "When we hear someone refer to the great Mujahid, Osama bin Laden, as a 'terrorist,' we should defend our brother and refer to him as a freedom fighter; someone who has forsaken wealth and power to fight in Allah's cause and speak out against oppressors. We take these stances only to please Allah."

When confronted on national television about it, Lekovic initially denied any participation in the publication. Yet recently, she has admitted her involvement - claiming, however, that her position was insignificant, though it was listed as second highest on the masthead. She furthermore remained on the publication for the next three years and attributed the editorial to a printing mistake.

It is no excuse to say that, at the time, she might not have known that bin Laden advocated terrorism. In July 1999, when the piece was published, bin Laden had already issued a fatwa urging his followers to "kill the Americans and their allies - civilians and military" and proclaimed such murderous acts to be "an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."

Hence, even if one believed Lekovic's story - which seems at best dubious - clearly the DHS should not be funding her to speak on America's college campuses.

When the Pathways program is not advancing radical Islamists, it busies itself by objecting to those who encourage moderate Islam. When director of the Middle East Forum Daniel Pipes spoke at Tufts, he urged Muslims to "redeem their religion and to put it back on a proper footing" from extremists who hijack Islam to promote their political cause. And what was Pathways' response? A protest.

In truth, it should not be too surprising that Pathways has gone so astray. One of the facilitators of Pathways, Najiba Akbar, was quoted in he New York Times as saying, "I am Muslim first, not even American Muslim. Because so much of the American culture is directly in conflict with my values as a Muslim, I can't identify solely as an American, or even as an American Muslim." Akbar has given no indication that she has since changed her views.

And she was hired to promote interfaith dialogue by a DHS-funded initiative?

The Tufts case, unfortunately, seems to be only an example of what is happening around the country. Government funds at other universities are supporting Islamist sympathizers elsewhere.

When Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia University earlier this year, one of America's most prestigious universities implied that his views have academic merit. Additionally, Hezbollah supporter and Holocaust denier Norman Finkelstein maintained a certain amount of undue credibility thanks to the support he received from DePaul University. And New Black Panther leader Malik Shabazz recently spewed anti-Semitic vitriol at Carnegie Mellon University.

Each of these universities - Tufts included - receives government funds in some capacity. Is it too much to suggest that such universities be more mindful of who speaks on campus? And to propose that government monies fund - either directly or indirectly - moderates instead of extremist, anti-Americans?

These individuals are uncompromising extremists who are not really interested in dialogue. By inviting such extremists to speak at Tufts, the Pathways program gives them stature and publicity; moreover, such dialogue leads Muslims away from accepting American values like human rights and freedom for all. Moderation and dialogue are laudable goals, but the Pathways program works against them.

Indeed, it is by talking with the wrong people that we raise their elevation in their own communities - thus promoting a particular form of extremism at home, instead of the much needed moderation that those like Pipes aim to promote.

Daniel Halper is a junior majoring in political science.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools