This piece examines a Georgetown professor’s defense of Islamic practices and the wider consequences when critics of those practices are dismissed.
The Me Too era promised to center consent and protect survivors, but many on the left have shifted from that rhetoric into what feels like selective moral blindness. Instead of insisting on consistent protections for women, some now prioritize ideological alignment and cultural relativism over accountability. That shift shows up starkly in debates over Islam and sexual violence.
Across Europe and here in the U.S., cases of Islamist-perpetrated sexual violence have been met with muted responses or excuses framed as cultural differences. Victims get sidelined while institutions worry more about accusations of racism or Islamophobia than about justice for survivors. That dynamic corrodes trust in public institutions and leaves communities vulnerable.
In Spain, the story of Noelia Castillo Ramos is a haunting example: her attackers were placed in a state-run group home and, after her attempted suicide left her paralyzed, authorities later described her death as “death with dignity.” That line sticks because it captures how systems can fail the most vulnerable while defending policies that import risk. When victims are treated like a problem to be managed rather than people to be protected, outrage is the reasonable response.
The U.K. grooming scandals exposed similar patterns: tens of thousands of young women abused by Islamist perpetrators while officials hesitated to confront the cultural and religious dimensions involved. Too often the reaction focuses on silencing critics instead of pursuing predators and reforming the institutions that enabled them. That reluctance fuels resentment and makes prevention harder.
Here in the United States, Georgetown professor Jonathan Brown recently offered a blunt retort to critics of Islamic sexual assaults: “Get over it.” Those three words revealed a contempt for public concern and a willingness to bluntly dismiss survivors. For many conservatives, that dismissal reads as emblematic of a broader left-wing tendency to excuse or minimize harms tied to non-Western cultural practices.
Brown’s past comments only deepen the alarm. In 2017 he caused controversy with statements like “I don’t think you can talk about slavery in Islam until you realize that there is no such thing as slavery.” He also wrote, “But it’s not possible to say that slavery is inherently, absolutely, categorically immoral in all times and places, since it was allowed by the Quran and the Prophet,” which many saw as historically and morally tone-deaf. Those lines forced people to reckon with whether his academic lens obscures basic moral judgments.
On sexual consent Brown argued, “And it’s the consent of that autonomous agent that makes a sexual action acceptable … If you take away the consent element, then everyone starts flipping out. At that point, then you get rape, you get sexual acts done by people that are too young – we perceive as too young to consent. And these are sort of the great moral wrongs of our society … For most of human history, human beings have not thought of consent as the essential feature of morally correct sexual activity. And second, we fetishize the idea of autonomy to the extent that we forget – again, who’s really free? Are we really autonomous people?” Those words prompted predictable outrage because they undercut the moral clarity required to protect victims.
Brown then connected the dots by suggesting that if women are seen as property, “their owner can have sex with them.” That chilling logic collapses the protections modern societies have fought to build for women and children. Conservatives see this as not just a bad academic argument but a dangerous posture when voiced by an influential scholar.
Questions about Brown’s affiliations and influences have also circulated. Observers have pointed to alleged funding connections to Saudi sources and raised concerns about his family ties, including that his father-in-law is Sami Al-Arian. Al-Arian was deported to Turkey in 2015 after years of legal battles tied to accusations of supporting Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a detail that complicates public perceptions of Brown’s judgment and associations.
Brown’s wife, Laila Al-Arian, works for Al Jazeera, a media outlet often accused of promoting Islamist perspectives, which adds another layer to the discussion about biases and networks. These personal and professional links fuel skepticism about whether Brown can or will criticize Islamist abuses candidly. For many on the right, it underscores the need for transparency and accountability from campus elites.
Critics argue the problem is not only a single professor but a campus culture that prizes ideological conformity over rigorous moral debate. When dissenting views are shouted down as bigotry, legitimate concerns about safety and cultural integration get pushed into the shadows. The result is a public conversation that privileges feelings and identity politics over straightforward questions of law, safety, and human dignity.
Some observers go further, insisting that the left’s reflex to defend non-Western practices without scrutiny amounts to cultural relativism that excuses abuse. One commentator put it this way: “They were the wrong race of girls rаpеd by the ‘right’ race and religion of immigrant men … so these people don’t see it as bad, no more that the Muslim rаpе gangs did. Both groups think, in their heart of hearts, that those girls deserved it. They were White, they were oppressors. So that’s what they get. This man reaches the same conclusions as Muslims,” Keneinan wrote. That quote captures a fury that many feel when institutions appear to protect ideology over victims.
From Europe to the United States, the pattern is clear to those paying attention: crimes minimized, victims sidelined, and critics branded as bigots. Conservatives argue that defending traditions or communities can never be an excuse to tolerate sexual violence or to silence those who demand justice. This debate will not go away until institutions choose victims over narratives and protect citizens consistently.
Public trust depends on equal application of moral standards and the courage to name harms regardless of the perpetrator’s background. Where moral clarity is replaced by relativism, the vulnerable pay the price and social cohesion unravels. That makes this not just an academic quarrel but a pressing civic matter.
