My children go to Jewish day schools where they teach the Hebrew language and Jewish culture. My daughters go to the local swim pool (at the Jewish Community Center) which has women only hours, my sons go to men only hours. I see no problem with Muslim's having the same opportunities. I do NOT think that public schools need to accommodate these needs however. If your religion has special requirements, then you need to meet those yourself, not require public institutions to meet those needs.

Sent by Moriel NessAiver | 2:14 PM ET | 05-15-2008

At this point, I don't understand what is wrong with a Muslim School, when we have had Catholic Schools and Christian schools. Your child, your choice if you have the means.

Sent by Erica Simons | 2:24 PM ET | 05-15-2008

"Pipes has written in the past few years of his support for the constant surveillance of Muslims and their organizations in American society, and he has defended the internment of Japanese Americans during World War Two."

Not long ago, NPR would rarely have considered inviting such a person to speak on air, let alone be part of an entire program.
Pipes is clearly against core American values embedded in our constitution, and he is contributing to its demise.

How dare he take issue with a valid question on a "responsible radio show"? Do not apologize for this!

Sent by Francesca Rogier | 2:25 PM ET | 05-15-2008

I am an American Muslim that accepted Islam in 1988. I graduated with a degree in elementary education and worked for nine years in the Islamic school system. I can only say that the two schools that I worked at, both having accreditation from the state of Illinois, were of very high quality and never encouraged students to be unpatriotic. On the contrary, the school encouraged students to be good role models and good citizens and stressed volunteering in the community. Unfortunetly, I feel that the media has done an injustice to Muslims by scaring the public. Yes, there are some out there that give Islam a bad name, however, if we focused on everything that people from all religions did, then we would fear everyone. Let's stop generalizing, every culture and religion has their bad seeds, educated people don't hold this against a people as a whole; those who do, bring down society.

Sent by Eve Mersch | 2:26 PM ET | 05-15-2008

I think it's a wonderful idea for children to study Arabic culture AND language, but a publicly funded school that REQUIRES a specific foreign language (and offers no other) smacks of discrimination and propaganda. I think it should come along with Spanish and Chinese and other cultures and languages, or not be required at all.

Sent by Lynn | 2:27 PM ET | 05-15-2008

While I am sympathetic to some of the positions of Mr. Pipes, I think the last caller got it exactly right: he is a biggoted polemicist prone to alarmism and self-promotion. He is an intellectual bully, and his appearance on TOTN is beneath the dignity of NPR.

Sent by Mark Goodman | 2:31 PM ET | 05-15-2008

The sad part of this controversy for me is the name of the school. All of this runs the risk of turning people away from Kahlil Gibran and his beautiful poetry and prose.

Sent by Rev. Mike | 2:32 PM ET | 05-15-2008

Do the Islam schools discourage suicide bombing? Why don't the proponents condemn this evil, offensive practice?

Sent by Harvey Wolfe | 2:35 PM ET | 05-15-2008

The important point here is that the colors of the fabric of the United States are changing. We are still one nation under God, but now everyone can define their own God. Note that hispanics are now the largest minority group. when will they be the largest group, all together? Islam is gaining momentum in this country, driven by the African Americans, not by the Arabs. Also, not, Arabs are only 15% of the Muslims worldwide.
as the bumbper sticker says "COEXIST." Arabic is an interesting language, and more useful, surely, than, say, French! (Although, I love French.) Also, yes, why should only private school students get an opportunity to learn Arabic?

Sent by Esther Calvo Chebbi | 2:36 PM ET | 05-15-2008

If the Arabic school is for teaching Arabic does not make it Muslim. In the latter it is a Muslim school not Arabic language. I am a Maronite Lebanese who would not like a Muslim school to deem themselves as universally Arabic. As the school is presented it is a private school.

Sent by Rick Krajenta | 2:36 PM ET | 05-15-2008

I don't understand Daniel Pipes response to the criticism that he received from the caller, and thus his transfered response to the show asking "What kind of show it was?". It's a forum for the guests and callers. Why does he feel that he's beyond criticism, and that by criticizing him, the show, is somehow cheapened? This is America. Sorry.

Sent by Daniel Ross | 2:38 PM ET | 05-15-2008

I am an endowed chair of counseling psychology, specializing in guiding gifted children. In 2002, in a fit of patriotism, my colleague Sandy Cohn and I developed a proposal to select gifted students for a program to teach Arabic for the DOD. All the military linguists we met embraced our proposal and we were sent all the way to the Pentagon with recommendations from General Marks of Military Linguistics and the Under Secretary of Defense Chu. At the Pentagon, we were also greeted warmly by the Assistant Undersecretary of Defense. Unfortunately, our meeting was interrupted by a young man who was clearly an Administration functionary who simply said, "We're not going to do this" We gave up after that. I would like to have known what it would be like now to have thousands of young people who could speak Arabic and understand that culture. This administration has had no interest in cultural understanding, from my point of view.

Sent by Barbara Kerr | 2:39 PM ET | 05-15-2008

"Japanese Internment---why It Was a Good Idea," by Daniel Pipes, can easily be found online ----the caller was quite correct about Mr. Pipes's support for the WWII program. She was not "calling him names."

Sent by Janice Koelb | 2:39 PM ET | 05-15-2008

Mr. Pipes indicated that he began the study of Arabic as an adult, but he would have liked the opportunity to learn Arabic at a younger age.

At the Middlebury-Monterey Langague Academy, part of the Middlebury Language Schools, we do just that. We offer four-week full immersion programs in Arabic as well as in Chinese, French and Spanish to middle and high school students. The response has been overwhelming.

Sent by David Toomey, Director Pre-College Programs, Middlebury College | 2:39 PM ET | 05-15-2008

Dual-language public schools have been around for a very long time. My wife was in a dual-language, public elementary school where half her day, regardless of subject, was spent in Spanish. I myself took 8 semesters of Spanish in my public middle and high schools.

Why is dual-language acceptable when it's Spanish or French but somehow threatening when it's Arabic? In all seriousness we need more Americans with fluency in foreign languages - especially Arabic and Chinese - to compete in tomorrow's global marketplace.

Schools like this are exactly what we need and the fear mongers and bigots who attack such efforts the real threat to our country.

Sent by Eric | 2:42 PM ET | 05-15-2008

I'm with Pipes when it comes to scrutinizing Arabs; blowing things up in the name of Allah is a bad habit for these folks. Just ask an Iraqi or an Israeli, or a London bus/tube passenger, or a passenger on ony one of the four commercial airliners used as bombs on 9/11; When I hear the words Allah Akbar! I duck and cover for the nail bomb or gasoline explosion or whatever dastardly device the purveyors of the religion of peace have created to mame and destroy.

Sent by MO | 2:42 PM ET | 05-15-2008

I am opposed to public funding of any school to create, promote, or celebrate a separate, non-American, identity, regardless if it be Arab, Jewish, Mexican, Italian, German, Chinese, or the like.

Arabic identity is not necessarily Moslem, and I am also opposed to a Moslem Arab school, as it promotes one religion over others. Furthermore, I am opposed to the formalistic practices of Islam and the treatment of other religious groups and women, civil/criminal procedure and family law (including the propriety of divorce) by the tenants of Islam, having studied Islamic law and with some knowledge of the Koran, the hadith, and the Bible (the holy book of Christian Arabs). I do not believe that these Islamic tenants congeal with American culture and values. It is dangerous to teach the youth any religion from a biased perspective or that separatism is appropriate.

Sent by Derek Lightner | 2:43 PM ET | 05-15-2008

Do not be deceived. Mr. Pipes understands the across-generational agenda of radical Islamists. They seek to establish a separate legal and educational system. They use fine people like MS. Almontaser to open a door that they rush in. I would tell her that in a few months if/when the school is open, she will be replace by those with other goals for the school. Ask if the school will have the same menu in the cafeteria as all other schools in the state.

Sent by Gerald Spaugh | 2:43 PM ET | 05-15-2008

daniel pipes is a flat out racist,and a lier. People who twist facts to suit their own and others racist agenda cannot be trusted one bit. When you see not yourself others discover you most plainly.

Sent by ali abd al rahman | 2:44 PM ET | 05-15-2008

Just wanted to say "Thank You" to the caller that correctly and accurately exposed Daniel Pipes for the anti-Islam bigot he is. His repeated efforts to paint the whole of Islam as evil and intent on world domination is intellectually dishonest and dangerous.

That kind over gross over-simplification of the real threats both the West AND Islam face from the minority of extremists within Islam will only serve to to broaden the divide at a time when we need increased dialog and understanding.

I suspect that is Pipe's goal no matter how much he protests.

Shame on NPR for relying on such an incredibly biased and partisan source.

Sent by Pino | 2:45 PM ET | 05-15-2008

I only caught the end of this show, so I apologize if you already stated this. It would be helpful for the liseners to understand that there are 1.1 million children in NYC schools; that there are hundreds of schools; that kids travel all around the city to attend schools of their choice; and that a recent initiavite has been to create a term we educators call "magnet schools," that have the regular NYS curriculum built around a particular theme as a way too attract high school kids in the city. A look at the names of the schools on the NYC Board of Education web site will provide info about the School for the Performing Arts, the Thurgood Marshall HS, Bread and Roses, the School for Collaboration and Leadership, and the Harvey Milk School to name a few. Each of these names represent a particular theme or focus around which the school's curriculum is built. I welcome the Khalil Gibrahn International Academy.

Sent by Pat Russo, Professor of Education, SUNY Oswego, NYS | 2:47 PM ET | 05-15-2008

I cannot believe that Daniel Pipes was given so much time and afforded the facade of credibility by NPR. He is not credible.
However, Ms. Almontaser sounded like a person who was under attack. Neil contributed to the attack by being a mouth piece for Pipes during an interview with Ms. Almontaser. It sounded as if Neil did not know much about this story other than Pipes opinion.

Sent by K. S. | 2:47 PM ET | 05-15-2008

I have had the opportunity to listen to Mr. Pipes speak on various issues that concern militant Islam. I can attest to the fact that his views are not tendentious to the slightest degree.

Growing up in India - home to the second largest Muslim populace - I have observed that the hardline Islamic elements - and they are everywhere Islam is - put the education system under duress by making huge demands on the manner in which children are taught.

Bernard Lewis, the distinguished historian and noted Orientalist has written on this in his book "What Went Wrong? : The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in Middle East".

Sent by Rishi M | 2:48 PM ET | 05-15-2008

I am not against having a school that teaches Arabic to American kids from all backgrounds. What I am against is a School that incorporates Islamic religious education under the Arabic umbrella. I am a Christian Lebanese immigrant and when we went to school we learned Arabic without learning about Islam.

Second I have a problem with naming the School after a great Lebanese Christian Author and under his name they are teaching Islamic teaching. If they know who Joubran Khalil Joubran is and what he stood for they should know that he was anti religion and clergymen.

Lastly, when you want to pick a principle to a public school pick someone with no radical background.

Sent by Edgar | 2:49 PM ET | 05-15-2008

If we eliminate an Arabic school, then we have to eliminate all the other non-english language schools. I truly wonder at those criticizing this as a "Muslim" school. Do we criticize the Creole school as a "Catholic" school?

And once again, I'm pretty convinced that Conan is the worst host this show has had. He should take some hosting tips from 'On Point'

Sent by Keith | 2:50 PM ET | 05-15-2008

I don't understand Daniel Pipes response to criticism and his huffy rationalization that because he's being criticized, he inferred that TOTN is lacking in quality. Totally absurd.

Sent by Arthur Pockets | 2:51 PM ET | 05-15-2008

I'm troubled that Daniel Pipes would stoop to constructing a straw man of a supposed 'personal attack' to try and evade answering questions from a coherent, detailed, and interested listener. It does not bode well for his 'cause', nor for his integrity. I applaud NPR for maintaining decorum and following up on the question in the face of such a nonsensical display of cowardice.

Sent by Croc | 2:51 PM ET | 05-15-2008

If Andrea Elliott is a New York Times reporter, she needs to stick to print. She is obviously very opinionated; yet her speech is so peppered with uhms, and Ohs, and ees; that she is unable to articulate her points in an understandable manner. It was impossible to get past the immature, educated-style of speech to actually understand the point she was trying to make. This was a very irritating interview. This type of communication should be edited before placing it on air! Thank you.

Sent by Susan | 2:53 PM ET | 05-15-2008

I am a frequent listener to Talk of the Nation, but this program was painful to listen to. Your over indulgence of an obvious xenophobic anti-Islamic racist like Daniel Pipes was only less obsequious than your putting the thumb screws to the principal, Debbie Almontaser.

She was exactly right. In a time when understanding a critical part of the world, the Middle East, is more important than ever, offering Arabic language lessons and cultural studies is a valuable contribution to educating our youth. That is, unless you believe any such program is some devious plan by Al Queda to infiltrate our youth and convert them to Islam and murder there adulterous sisters. In fact that seemed to be the total mindset of Mr. Pipes. There was nothing good about Islam and the only way to portray it accurately was by having AK47 waiving zealots beheading their daughters while enslaving Christians.

This is the type of animousity I would have expected in the fifties if some principal had dared teach Russian to their schoolchildren. "Oh she's converting them to communists!"

When I was a gradeschooler, I took Spanish class. We not only learned the language "Mi casa es su casa." We also learned the culture, made tamales and even dressed up in traditional Mexican garb and held a school wide fiesta. No one in their right mind would have gone on NPR taughting themselves as a scholar and accused our principal of some secret plan to convert us all to being Hispanic or Catholic. Yeah, what a devious plot that would have been. Next thing you know the country would be flooded with Taco Bells and Chili's.

Worst program edition since you had that guy on promoting the wonderful economic benefits of mortgage backed securities.

Sent by Chris Montgomery | 2:54 PM ET | 05-15-2008

I Aplaud Debbie :o)

I am rather ignorant to What is going on in the middle east. And perhaps I should make myself more aware...
However I am a dual citizen, I speak read and write in three langauges (fluently) and two other's broken.
I've lived in four different countries and experrience the joys of multi culturalism my whole life.
I was born an American, yet nothing has dicussed me more than to come back to my own country and see the vast ignorance from "all" levels.
My Grandfather was an Admiral who served this country, a science christian... My father christian, my mother christian... but I have decided to leave "all" faiths because I realized "all faiths" are the cause of "all pains".
Each faith (or religion) excutes extraordinary arguments on how their faith is better than the next.
I'm not against religion, I think it is healthy...however, it is the one source of thought that has caused more hatred, more death, more leadership, more ignorance, more pain.
So it is simple, don't step into fire, you'll get burnt.(period)
This country was this country long before the Europeans landed (of which I am a decendant) To expell Islamitic thought by Christians, Jews, Catholics or who ever you are must sound awefully funny to the native indians "don't you think?"
After all, this land is more theirs then the ellegal imigrants...and I don't mean the Mexicans.
I mean "all of us".
I know religions teach "share", "forgive" but so far it seems to me that the ten comandments only apply to you if you are of that particular faith and you only apply it to those of the same faith.
Maybe if we took "In god we trust" off the America dollar bill and replaced it with "trust" yeah, that might solve everything!

Good luck to all :o)

I "trust" you will "all" "trust" one another "one day", hopefully sooner than later.

Sent by D Benedict (no relation whatsoever) | 2:57 PM ET | 05-15-2008

This may not be relevant to the topic at hand, but Daniel Pipes felt insulted by a person speaking their mind and Mr. Conan was phenomenal in his expression of empathy and diplomacy. It's about free speech without (unreasonable) censorship. I feel the same about any school as well. It is our duty to teach our children in the ways of peace and understanding. This cannot be achieved by disallowing viewpoints other than our own to be heard. If our viewpoints are valid, they will emerge as such. Tolerance is critical and legitimate anything is just that -- legitimate. Anyone who has seen the kinds of discrimination and prejudice which has occurred throughout this great nation's history knows this. "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Should we be watchful of violence and promotion thereof? Yes -- in ALL our schools!

Sent by Paul Ciszek | 3:01 PM ET | 05-15-2008

Daniel Pipes is leading the swift-boating of Barack Obama with his accusations that the senator is in fact an apostate Muslim. My fervent hope is that under an Obama administration hate-mongers such as Pipes will have zero influence on our domestic or foreign policy.

Sent by David | 3:05 PM ET | 05-15-2008

It would be a benefit to our nation if the public education system were able to recognize the important arenas of change facing our society.

In the same way that technology is being brought into the classroom to prepare children for an inevitable future, beginning to offer Arabic language instruction is necessary now that we find ourselves entrenched in Middle East conflict.

One incentive for exposing our youth to the language and culture of others can be found by looking at the complex dilemma our troops are facing, being unable even to communicate in Iraq. Another reason was exposed today by the unjustifiable, xenophobic attacks Ms. Almontaser has faced.

Sent by Ryan Holandes | 3:06 PM ET | 05-15-2008

I just want to say that I'm a long time fan of Daniel Pipes with a much longer history being on the political left. Pipes is an excellent scholar and extremely creative, analytical and logical. This forum was not in depth enough to allow real understanding of this problem. I recommend you read his blog on this. http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2007/03/on-new-yorks-khalil-gibran-international.html
Pipes has always advocated civil discourse on issues, which is why he felt compelled to react to the rude treatment of the caller. The caller tried to make Pipes the issue and that wasn't the purpose of the show. I'm sure he could defend anything he's written given the right forum. It's weak to try to attack Pipes instead of argue with what he says. That call could have been reduced to 1 sentence.

Sent by Stephen Grossberg | 3:20 PM ET | 05-15-2008

Interesting and provocative show. Gave me a lot to think about, as a well balanced forum should.
Upon the urging of the caller from Oklahoma I did check Daniel Pipes out and read quite a bit about his positions on his site. While he may have been a key part of this controversy, he is clearly at the right fringes of American values. It is clear his bias is all things Arabic, despite what he may say. Divisive might not be a strong enough term for him.
Still I appreciate the topic

Sent by Rich | 3:23 PM ET | 05-15-2008

Although I was not fond of Mr. Pipes' ideas, I thought NPR handled both sides of this issue quite well. I don't think that your listeners really want just "ear candy". They want what you just delivered because no one else can (or at least "will") do it. If they didn't, they would have been listening to some music station on the airwaves. This has been a great example of NPR representing what they do best - protecting our freedom through communication.

Sent by Mike | 3:35 PM ET | 05-15-2008

Muslim schools should be PRIVATE and privately funded. NOT public. It appears that Muslims want to recreate their society here much apart from identifying with America. If so, they should move to a Muslim country.

Sent by Ken | 3:51 PM ET | 05-15-2008

I don't see a problem if the Khalil Gibran Academy, or any public school teaches Arabic using secular texts. Arabic is just a language like any other. If we teach French, Spanish, German, Latin, Mandarin Chinese in our public schools, then why not Arabic?

However, if religious texts are being used to teach the language, or if "Islam" is being taught in a public school in the guise of teaching Arabic culture and language, that IS A HUGE PROBLEM!

The fact that the school's advisory board was packed with religious leaders, the fact that the school's original proposal included a plan to run a Halal kitchen, the fact that the school did intend to teach "Islamic Culture", the fact that they originally would not make public the texts they intended to use in their language teaching program, and the fact of the questionable religious & political ties of the principle ARE relevant. They raise concern that the school is not being fully honest in its secular declarations.

Sent by John, Ann Arbor, MI | 4:31 PM ET | 05-15-2008

It's almost laughable that the caller Jennifer (who insulted Dr. Pipes personally) admitted that teaching Arabic in a public school necessitates teaching from the Koran, so in fact, Jennifer is in agreement with Dr. Pipes! The establishment clause of the US Constitution requires the separation of religion and state, of mosque and state, and taxpayers??? money cannot, lawfully, be used to teach the Koran. It's that simple.

Sent by Brooke Goldstein, Attorney at Law | 4:36 PM ET | 05-15-2008

I was amazed but not surprised by Daniel Pipes response to the first caller. Many people with extreme views tend to by hypocritical and he is no different. One of his problems with Shia Government would be the apparent lack of democracy. Yet when an American exercises their rights under the constitution he finds it to be unresponsible radio. I think Neil was a little to nice in his response to Mr Pipes and should have made note of his hypocracy. And the first caller was spot on about Mr Pipes. I went online during the show and discovered some of his extreme literature.

Sent by Justin | 4:36 PM ET | 05-15-2008

To Brooke Goldstein, who said that "money cannot, lawfully, be used to teach the Koran": What about public universities, like UMass and the University of Texas? They offer courses on the Bible.

http://www.umass.edu/rscp/courses.html

http://web.austin.utexas.edu/cola/students/courses/department.cfm?dept=R%20S&YYS=089&crsLevel=Undergraduate

Sent by David Gura | 4:53 PM ET | 05-15-2008

It's almost laughable that Jennifer (the caller that personally insulted Dr. Pipes) admitted that teaching Arabic in a public school necessitates teaching from the Koran, so in fact, Jennifer is in agreement with Dr. Pipes! The establishment clause of the US Constitution mandates the separation of religion and state, of mosque and state, and taxpayers' money cannot lawfully be used to teach Islam in a public school. It is really that simple.

Sent by Brooke Goldstein, Attorney at Law, director of the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum | 4:54 PM ET | 05-15-2008

In every civilized country - except America - a person is not considered to be well-educated unless s/he can speak at several foreign languages. It makes citizens more competitive in the world market. It seems that folks fear that a school teaching Arabic will sneak in religious teachings. Yet, we give millions in tax dollars to Christian charter schools and don't seem to have any problem with mixing religion and the government. It is this kind of hypocrisy and xenophobia that drives international observers crazy. And, by the way, I LOVE the host of this show. He is always polite while still remaining on point.

Sent by Luna | 5:00 PM ET | 05-15-2008

The pejorative remarks about Daniel Pipes were obnoxious and, more importantly, false. Ms. Almontaser plays the victim beautifully, and she is aided by the "useful idiots" who like singing 'Kumbaya' rather than defending us against a real and serious danger. Ms. Almontaser has not been called names. That is a tactic used by her supporters. Wake up!

Sent by Stuart Kaufman | 5:20 PM ET | 05-15-2008

Quoting Brooke Goldstein's comment from above:

"The establishment clause of the US Constitution mandates the separation of religion and state, of mosque and state, and taxpayers' money cannot lawfully be used to teach Islam in a public school. It is really that simple."

I could not agree more.

Consider the following thought experiment":

Imagine we were talking about a public school teaching LATIN rather than one teaching ARABIC.

The board of administrators of this imaginary school consisted entirely of religious leaders (Rabbis, Imams, Priests, Pastors). The school Principal was a moderate Catholic well-known for his activities in organizing inter-faith dialogue.
Still, he also maintained close ties to more conservative, politically active Catholic organizations, even sharing office space with some more provocative, policitially active religious organization or other, while also sitting on their board.

The curriculum for the school met state standards. However, most, if not all, of the texts used to teach Latin would be religious - either straight from the Bible, or written by Catholic thinkers. Moreover - "to foster greater inter-cultural understanding" - history would be taught exclusively through the prism of the Catholic Church: its institutions, sponsorship of great works of art, the philosophical ideas of great Catholic thinkers, contributions of the Catholic Church to the Western legal system, Catholic novelists, etc. "Civics" would be taught by looking only at those countries such as Italy or where the Catholic church plays a much more direct role in public, political life, and has a direct, unapologetic impact on shaping the country's laws to conform with Catholic doctrine.

To my mind, however well-intentioned, such a school would be a religious school. In the United States, the public does not finance religious schools. so, we could not publically fund such a "Latin Language" school here. This has nothing to do with fear of the Catholicism, fear of Catholic culture, of fear of Catholics. The American tradition, whatever the tradition may be in other cultures and countries, is a strict separation of church and state.

Replace Latin with Arabic, Catholic with Islam in the above "thought experiment", and that is the problem I have with the Khalil Gibran Academy. It really is that simple.

Sent by John, Ann Arbor, MI | 5:25 PM ET | 05-15-2008

I thought that both Daniel Pipes and the first caller had something to say. I do not think it was proper to apologize to Pipes for what the caller said - what she said was valid and he did not basically answer the questions that she raised. I think he is probably used to talking on right wing radio where other views are not tolerated.

Sent by Roger D Christensen | 5:39 PM ET | 05-15-2008

By the way, I note that Mr. Regan's introduction to this blog piece is as biased and atrocious as anything that one could hear from CAIR, the NY Times or, for that matter, NPR. 'Lawful Islamists.".... It's a term being used by people like Daniel Pipes... to describe attempts by Muslim Americans to assume a great role in the life of the country.'

Gee, Mr. Regan, I wonder where you stand on this. The only thing that one can say is: "what's new?"

Sent by Stuart Kaufman | 5:40 PM ET | 05-15-2008

First of all, Doug Feith was on the Daily Show this week. The question that arose in THAT forum was how could such an intellectually weak person achieve the career successes he has? The answer is that his dad had alot of money and gave alot of it to the far right wing, especially in support of extreme Zionism. He went to Harvard as an undergraduate and studied under Daniel Pipes, whose positions on middle east politics mirrored his own. When Pipes was offered a position in the Reagan administration, he took Feith (who had, by that time gone to law school and was in a practice with a lawyer based in Israel) with him.

Now I have no problems with people expressing their views on NPR, even if they are offensive to me. But I DO expect NPR to tell its audience who it is they are listening to.

Pipes is known as having strong strong support from those on the right, and is demonized by everyone else. Given that he is so divisive and apparently so unskilled at dealing with disagreement, I am actually quite surprised that he was on Talk of the Nation.

Finally given his own association with the Zionist movement, I would imagine that some research into his background would have led NPR to question his ability to speak on the subject of Arabic-as-a-second-language schools objectively. Did someone here drop the ball?

Sent by impatient | 5:51 PM ET | 05-15-2008

There is a point that we have to say stop. Rather than being accepting to differences, we point fingers get offended and cast labels. This school is only making headlines because the majority of this country, associate anything middle eastern, (language, religion, what not)with terrorism. The problem is allowing common stereotypes to influence ones opinions, its one sided and ignorant. Let it go. If someone wants to teach Arabic, let them, they teach, Spanich,German, French, etc. Its almost as if we are too politically correct for our own good. Also, wasn't this country founded because of religious persecution, and the freedom to worship how one wishes?

Sent by Kyna | 6:35 PM ET | 05-15-2008

Language is a powerful tool for understanding cultures. Islam is a part of our world and we need rational, unbiased people who can comprehend Arabic if we are to understand the people who speak it. Furthermore, pre-adolescence is when languages are learned most easily. Offering Arabic to American children in the early grades sets them up to pursue fluency with a greater ease than waiting until university to offer "Introductory Arabic." I see an unsettling tendency in American society to try to silence opposing views. Instead, we should be listening to those views carefully, even if they are in other languages.

Sent by Brenda Calder | 6:46 PM ET | 05-15-2008

to Brooke Goldstein, director of the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum (coincidentally Daniel Pipes' organization, imagine that!) How about public high schools that teach the bible as literature? Should that be outlawed?

Also, how can America complain about a shortage of Arabic speakers and translators while at the same time treating anyone who wants to learn Arabic with suspicion? About cheapest way to learn Arabic is to join a mosque, but we don't want people to do that either.

Sent by Maddie | 7:37 PM ET | 05-15-2008

I would argue that the host is rarely polite to his callers. He consistently cuts them off while giving lunatics like Pipes free reign. Could you have apologized anymore to this guy? What kind of show is this indeed.

Sent by Jefferson Lujin | 11:34 PM ET | 05-15-2008

After hearing Daniel Pipes appear on TOTN I wondered who will be the next extremist on NPR? Will you be inviting the grand wizard of the KKK to speak on issues of race in the democratic contest between Barack and Hillary? Amazing...

Sent by Yunus Brevik | 7:43 AM ET | 05-16-2008

What a threat to free and open society Daniel Pipes is! His fear-mongering over the "legitimate" introduction of Islamist ideas and Sharia law into US consciousness amounts to an attempt at censorship within the public discourse. If our civilization is to progress and thrive, it must be willing to examine and weigh information so as to make informed, unprejudiced choices. It is precisely the "legitimate" introduction of ideas that allows this deliberative process to function. Mr Pipes represents an insult to the promise of a rational democratic culture and politics upon which this country was founded.

Sent by Mike Bukowick | 9:21 AM ET | 05-16-2008

Where in the world is the Kalil Gibran school identified as a Muslim school except in the US Media.
The school bills itself as an Arabic-language school. Do critics know what the difference is?
Maybe they'll be surprised to know that the majority of Arab-Americans are NOT muslims, that in the Arab world, more than 30 million people are NOT muslim.
Maybe too much information for people who have a closed mind.

Sent by Sherif | 12:04 PM ET | 05-16-2008

As long as they are not trying to push their religion on people, what's the problem? As for shariah law being a problem for this Daniel person, one of the laws of shariah is to give charity. So, are we suppose to keep from teaching students that in this school because it falls under Islamic Law? We learn so how to make Christmas trees and easter baskets in public school so if they teach some things that have to do with islam,let them.

Sent by Emily Mohamed | 12:11 PM ET | 05-16-2008

we have lost our ability to differentiate between racism and recognizing the enemy.islam is not only a religion,islam is also a political ideology.right from the start islam conqoured huge areas and subjucated their people.how many of you who are such rabid defenders of all things islam have any idea of islams hisstory?are you willing to give nazis the same anti racist approval? do you believe that only white man is capable of being cruel and abominable?daniel pipes is quite right to point out the danger of islam:islam is the enemy of all the modern values we hold dear:freedom of speech,womens rights,the right to live your life as you choose etc. daniel pipes is not a xenophobe,he is a realist.

Sent by desheutan | 1:19 PM ET | 05-16-2008

"One should never underestimate the power of an overwhelmingly large group of very stupid people."
"Know your enemy as you would know yourself."

How are these two statments related?

They require stupidity. Such as that shown by the xenophobic, ultra-nationalists like Dr. Pipes.
Now, I believe in Free Speech, but some speech isn't even worth that.
Dr. Pipes IS entitled to his opinion(s), but that does mean those opinions are valid!

Sent by Harold | 3:58 PM ET | 05-16-2008

I didn't get to hear the entire show, but only a portion of it. I was fascinated with the politics of it all. In Cheyenne, Wyoming, where I live, we have public schools and several church-run private schools. We just don't have the population to support having a separate school with a separate focus such as arts or language. However, I do not believe that teaching a language necessitates learning the predominant religion of its speakers. In fact, when I lived in Denver, I went to a Temple that taught Hebrew, but there was no teaching of Judaism. I learned Spanish and French in high school and college, but never learned the religions of France, Spain or any other French- or Spanish-speaking countries ... wouldn't that be Catholicism? I am a Southern Baptist and, even though I was taught both languages, I couldn't tell you what Catholicism is about, except for what was taught in history class and what has appeared in the press surrounding the Catholic Church and its impact on modern society.

Therefore, I am led to believe that learning Arabic can be taught without transforming someone into a Muslim. What one CAN learn is the rich diversity of Arab-speaking countries, the cultural, religion and history of Arab-speaking people, and the food, geography and clothing. Learning these kinds of things lends to a greater understanding of the language and of a great number of people who are fascinating in their beliefs, desires, passions and even in their everyday life.

However, I don't think it's necessary to have an immersion school for this purpose. Learning a foreign language in Middle School is like tasting foods at a buffet or scanning a radio ... find what interests and excites you. By High School you can find other ways to increase your understanding of the language, such as advanced classes offered at even one particular school. But having an entire school immersed in one language is not completely necessary. I don't believe that there are a high enough number of folks who come out of the school who decide to be Arab-speaking professionals to rationalize the school's existence.

And I do believe there would be people against any kind of "focused" school ... whether it be Spanish or Italian or Arabic or Russian. Because there are always people who hate or distrust one or all other cultures.

Perhaps shoving Arabic down the nation's throat is not a good idea at this time. Shoving Japanese culture and food and language down America's throat during or at the end of WWII would not have been a good idea either. The truth of the matter is that it was radical Islamists who were from the Arab-speaking world who carried out 9/11 and have declared jihad against us. To expect anything dealing with that part of the world to be non-controversial is naive. Being politically correct is "nice," but it's better to have realistic expectations and act accordingly.

Sent by Lisa Kindel | 4:23 PM ET | 05-16-2008

Where's the public school that is sensitive to my religious beliefs and values? How fortunate for Muslims to have a school that is so sensitive to their feelings. I have given up time and income to homeschool my children (who,by the way, study Chinese and the history of Islam). Perhaps, one day Christian children will be afforded the same consideration as these Muslim children.

Sent by chris | 10:44 PM ET | 05-16-2008

In the radio program Ms. Almontaser mentioned (@ 27:12) the curriculum of the school [KGIA] was to teach Arabic as a second language and she wanted children to learn about "this culture".

Which culture is Ms. Almontaser referring to? How would the education of "culture" be presented as to NOT include "religion" and "politics"?

One of the countries where Arabic is one of the official languages is Israel, yet Ms. Almontaser describes a "creative activity" which developed the most inclusive and ideal school to incorporate the Islamic Sharia laws of halal. How is this inclusive of "all" students? Are Jewish students not included in the "inclusive" definition of KGIA.

Ms. Almontaser has a sweet voice with sweet words .....but the agenda is not sweet.

Sent by Rochelle Michaels | 10:53 PM ET | 05-16-2008

I recently heard Ms. Debbie Almontaser's statement that you can't study the Arabic language without falling back on the Qur'an, which is disingenuous at the very least.

Our American schools teach English and are forbidden to refer to or use the Bible and they seem to do quite nicely. So it would seem that handling Arabic instruction.

Of course, American learning Arabic is a good thing, if for no other reason than to understand and be able to infiltrate terrorist organizations easier.

One of the bigger problems is the inability of many to acknowledge the militant invasive nation of the Islamic military forces of centuries gone by. The religion of Islam was spread by the sword for centuries, much in the way that Christian missionaries follewed in the wake of "Christian" armies. the one difference is that this Christian conquest is readily acknowledged by historians and common knowledge, whereas anyone mentioning anything that can be interpreted as "negative" towards Islam is threatened and in some cases killed.

Sent by John K. | 10:04 AM ET | 05-17-2008

I listen to NPR daily. and I usually enjoy Talk of the Nation. Because I teach a foreign language and learned the language I teach originally orally and then later studied and received a Ph.D., I am always interested in where, when, and how language is learned and taught. I read through the BLOG that addressed the problems of the NYC school that teaches Arabic (I live in Tucson, AZ and hadn't even heard of these problems). NPR was criticized in the BLOG for favoring Daniel Pipes and for supporting a "Muslim" education and the former principal of the school. I find these criticisms very supportive of what is PUBLIC RADIO is about: both sides of questions. However, I do agree with a blogger (Sent by Susan | 2:53 PM ET | 05-15-2008) and another (that I haven't cited) that the intro to the BLOG that quoted Elliot lead the discussion towards religion and not language. This focus is obvious in the first responses to the BLOG where listeners thought that the discussion was about a religious school, or a private religious school and the few responses from language teachers. One blogger (Sent by John, Ann Arbor, MI | 5:25 PM ET | 05-15-2008) compared the teaching of Arabic and Latin and equated both with the teaching of religion: Islam and Catholicism and does not know that both Latin and Arabic have secular literature and that Latin is taught in public schools at the secondary level. A few bloggers (maybe one) expressed that learning the 'culture' of the language did not mean that one had to eat the food, convert or wear the native dress. As a native speaker of English (well, in England they thought I was an English language learner) and as a reader of literature of a language other than English, language and culture (which includes religion, not indoctrination, but a study of the beliefs of others) is essential to the understanding of the literature and the current expressions of a people. I have had a dream, which I have never tried to promote, that in every grammar school across the USA, there has to be at least ONE non-English speaking parent who could share her/his language with the students. We have the greatest resource in the world for language learning, if we could get beyond the idea that to speak a second language is treason. The history is long. The new republic was afraid that German might overtake English. I am very proud that my country, is there another?, does not have an official language.

Sent by Susan Sotelo | 11:19 PM ET | 05-17-2008

if we're going to be teaching intelligent design in our school, or anything biblically related, why not Islam?

And when it comes down to it, if you're a parent that doesn't want your kid to learn anything Arabic, just enroll them in a different school.

Sent by Allen Seol | 6:28 PM ET | 05-18-2008

It is obvious to me no not one of these commentators has read a word of the Koran.

Sent by bobby wright | 8:34 PM ET | 05-18-2008