On April 2, four gunmen belonging to the radical Islamic terrorist organization Al-Shabaab stormed Kenya’s Garissa University College and murdered 148 while injuring another 79.
The Somalia-based jihadists specifically targeted Christian students because they claim the university’s campus is situated on Islamic land.
“If you were a Christian, you were shot on the spot,” a Garissa University student told The Associated Press. “With each blast of the gun I thought I was going to die.”
Sheik Abdiasis Abu Musab, the group’s spokesman, told Reuters, “We sorted people out and released the Muslims.”
In response to the horrific attack, the White House released a lame statement failing to acknowledge the religious backgrounds of the Al-Shabaab terrorists and their victims.
Later that day, Cornell University President David Skorton also felt compelled to issue a statement titled “President expresses shock over attack at Kenya university.” The statement in full:
“I write today to express my shock over the attack on Garissa University College in Kenya. My heart goes out to all of those impacted by this senseless act. I am especially mindful of the many members of our community with ties to the region. As the full impact of today’s events continues to unfold, I ask that you please keep them, the victims and their families — as well as the entire Garissa community — in your thoughts. Universities should be safe havens for the sharing of ideas and embracing differences, not targets for violence.”
Notice, once again, the failure to acknowledge the fact that a specific religious group–Christians–were targeted and massacred. Whether or not you are a Christian is irrelevant when it comes to explicitly referring to the victims as Christians. That they were specifically targeted is a fact, and leaving out such facts is reprehensible. Skorton also fails to condemn the attackers and their aims.
Truly believing that “universities should be safe havens” requires the condemnation of what is clearly a threat to safety–radical Islamic terrorism–and the defense of not only the Christian victims at Garissa but also the idea of religious liberty, which groups like Al-Shabaab reject.
You may ask why I’m criticizing Skorton for these failures–arguably, his condemnation of the attack would be as pointless as the statement as it is now–and the response is because now the precedent is set for asking Cornell’s president for comment on all international events, especially those regarding religious terrorism. It also comes down to the fact that if Cornell’s president is so compelled to issue statements on international events, there should be no reluctance to be frank, to use the factual and necessarily specific vocabulary, and to leave out moral equivocation.
Unfortunately, Skorton decided to adopt the White House’s preferred vocabulary and bow down to the politically correct appeasement and apologist crowd.
This is nonsensical. I am a hardline conservative but why does he need to say that the victims were Christian when offering condolences? Should he also mention all of them by name?
And I don’t know what further condemnation is required beyond “senseless act.” Should he say “These acts were committed by terrible f***ing people”? Any more is just rehashing the obvious.
The point is he is bound by political correctness and cannot tell the truth.
I wrote that his condemnation of the attack would be as pointless as his current statement. But if he’s going to make a statement, he should make it an honest one.
What “truth” is he not telling? There is nothing false in his statement. I don’t know why a statement such as this would ever go into the details of such an attack. Whatever point you’re trying to make is straight up stupid.
These Kenyans weren’t killed because they were students. They were killed because of their religion. Why did Skorton leave this point out? Isn’t it important that people of all religions feel safe at universities?
And, as I’ve written in the article and to you, my point is that this statement as it was written is unnecessary. If you want to make a statement about the massacre, then make an honest one that doesn’t leave out key facts, such as why these people were targeted and who targeted them.
No campus today is fully stocked without the full liberal vocabulary that says nothing. “Community” is one word that means nothing.
Example: “university community.”
What is that? Have 4 earned degrees but never locatd the community. I did have friends and in organized groups.
I assume one might say “university” community if an event was staged an 500 of your closest friends attended the event.
The next odd statement is: a university is a place where learning is valued. I assume the Muslim killers of Christinas were not there to learning but killing.
If it is inane and ignorant, invite a modern university president to address the problem if he or she can locate the problem.