Rushdie Doesn’t Speak for Me—and That’s Fine

Sir Salman Rushdie at the 2014 PEN America/Free Expression Literature Conference (credit: Ed Lederman/PEN American Center)

On April 25, Hiram Chodosh announced that Claremont McKenna College (CMC) had selected Sir Salman Rushdie to give the keynote address at its 77th Commencement. The selection of Rushdie has spurred controversy, with students expressing their disapproval through social media and in The Forum. The Claremont Colleges Muslim Students Association (MSA) even issued a statement condemning Sir Rushdie’s invitation. As someone who has deep disagreements with Rushdie, I believe that the MSA is misguided and that Rushdie should be allowed to speak.

The MSA states that Rushdie “is known for disparaging a global religious community.” They are correct, but Islam is not the only religion he has disparaged. Rushdie is a self-described “hardline atheist” and an outspoken critic of all religions, including mine, Christianity. Rushdie is part of a cultural phenomenon known as New Atheism. New Atheists prize secularism and deride religion, focusing their fire on the world’s largest: Christianity and Islam. This movement, represented by figures like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, is characterized by vitriol against and disdain for religion, especially in its fundamentalist forms.

Rushdie’s speeches reflect this vitriol and disdain. He has delivered two previous commencement addresses—one at Bard College in 1996 and the other at Emory University in 2015. Both speeches disparage religion. His Bard address is best known for his charge to “defy the gods.” (Though Rushdie used the term “gods” metaphorically, the invective against religion was implied.) In his Emory address, he says, “I sometimes think we live in a very credulous age. People seem ready to believe almost anything. God, for example.” Between the two speeches, he mentions Jesus once and Muhammad not at all.

As a Christian, Rushdie’s criticism applies to me as much as any Muslim. Though Rushdie’s derision of Islam is perhaps greater in degree, his scorn for Christianity is no less in kind. As a believer in God and a follower of Jesus, I say and do things that Rushdie would find ridiculous and oppressive. In turn, I find Rushdie’s ideas wrongheaded and his style caustic. But Christ calls me to turn the other cheek and bless those who curse me.

It’s this call—to love one’s enemy—that makes even New Atheists appreciate Christianity. Dawkins recently dubbed himself a “cultural Christian,” saying he is “at home in a Christian ethos.” The West’s tradition of free speech and tolerance in some ways depends on Christianity, both historically and intellectually. The early liberal tracts, like Milton’s case for free speech and Locke’s case for toleration, argued for freedom from Christian premises. 

To be fair, both the MSA expresses admirable support for Rushdie’s right to “free speech” but argues that choosing a commencement speaker demands concern for student unity and the values of the College. They moreover claim that inviting Rushdie amounts to an “endorsement.”

But the best commencement speeches aren’t about unity, they’re about exhortation. My favorite commencement address is David Foster Wallace’s 2005 address at Kenyon College. In the speech, Wallace lambasts the knee-jerk selfishness and passivity of most college graduates. Wallace says, “I know this stuff probably doesn’t sound fun and breezy or grand and inspirational, the way a commencement speech is supposed to sound.” Great commencement speeches aren’t meant to make you comfortable, they’re meant to make you think.

A commencement speaker should embody the principles of the College, and Rushdie has done just that. CMC is neither a Christian college nor a Muslim one. It doesn’t stand for religious dogma or some vague notion of belonging. CMC does stand for freedom of expression, which Rushdie has embodied through his tireless defense of free speech in the face of violence. He continued to write following an Iranian fatwa demanding his execution, a saga that culminated in a 2022 attempt on his life that left him blind in one eye. Inviting Rushdie is not an endorsement of the content of his speech, but of his right to speak.

In fact, I’m sure I’ll disagree with much of the content of Rushdie’s speech. I believe that Rushdie-style New Atheism is faltering. In the view of New Atheists and in the words of Dawkins, our universe has “no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” This tragic and false view precipitated our contemporary meaning crisis, which has spurred a renewed hunger for transcendence and faith. Several prominent public intellectuals—even a former New Atheist—have converted to Christianity. Closer to home, over a dozen of my secular friends have attended church this semester, some consistently.

As the elected class speaker, my fellow graduates have granted me the opportunity to deliver remarks on their behalf. My speech will likely sound very different than his, but I’m honored to have the opportunity to hear from him. When I speak, just minutes before Rushdie, I look forward to standing opposite him, both onstage and in spirit. 

This article was published in conjunction with The Forum.