Was concern over Ahmed Mohamed wholly unjustified? Some critics aren't so sure.

The 'hoax bomb' incident in Texas has incited a myriad of public discussions on the culture of fear, public safety, and prejudice.

LM Otero
Ahmed Mohamed, 14, gestures as he arrives to his family's home in Irving, Texas. Ahmed was arrested Monday at his school after a teacher thought a homemade clock he built was a bomb. He remains suspended and said he will not return to classes at MacArthur High School.

It’s been nearly a week since 14-year-old Ahmed Mohamed was arrested for bringing a homemade clock to school, an incident that sparked an outcry on social media. Since then, hundreds of thousands have rallied behind the Texas teenager. Twitter offered Ahmed an internship. Mark Zuckerberg said he’d like to meet him. President Obama even invited Ahmed to the White House.

Despite the outpour of support, however, some public figures have taken to defending – or at least not outright condemning – the actions of school officials and local Irving County police. On the HBO talk show Real Time With Bill Maher, for instance, the outspoken host weighed in on the decisions that led up to Ahmed’s arrest.

It looked exactly like a bomb, Maher says.

“Look, this kid deserves an apology — no doubt about it,” he continues. “They were wrong. But can we have a little perspective about this? Did the teacher really do a wrong thing?”

Scientist and writer Richard Dawkins also voiced his suspicions about the overwhelming public support for Ahmed’s and his clock. “If the reassembled components did something more than the original clock, that’s creative. If not, it looks like hoax,” he tweeted, linking to a blog post that debunks the legitimacy of Ahmed’s creation as a so-called “invention.”

In addition to doubting Ahmed’s technical steps in assembling the clock, the writer of the blog post poses the question of whether it was brash and excessive for the school and police to have responded the way they did.

“If we stop and think – was it really such a ridiculous reaction from the teacher and the police in the first place?” he writes. “How many school shootings and incidents of violence have we had, where we hear afterwards ‘this could have been prevented, if only we paid more attention to the signs!’”

Dawkins later elucidated his claim, saying Ahmed’s arrest was wrongful but the praise he received was excessive. “I'm not putting down the child. I'm putting down myself & the rest of us for being fooled. And the police for arresting him for nothing,” he tweeted Sunday morning.

Tech reporters Farhad Manjoo and Mike Isaac of The New York Times remind readers that social media can be counterproductive to discourse, as certain quotes or incidents can be conveyed without context.

“To be clear: What happened to Ahmed was wrong, regardless of context,” Isaac says. “But my greater point is that online mobs are insatiable in their rush to deliver justice, and more often than not, that justice can itself be unjust.”

In Education Week, Jill Berkowicz and Ann Myers penned an opinion blog piece on the overarching culture of fear, safety, and prejudice in American education. Rather than affirming or denouncing the disciplinary procedure to which Ahmed was subject, they urge for the recalibration of school safety values so preventative measures such as the bomb hoax policy can still maintain an element of trust among the school, police, and individual children like Ahmed, who says he will not be be returning to his high school. 

Ahmed’s apprehension by the school and eventually the police is a symptom of our “current atmosphere of fear,” they write. “But let us not allow that atmosphere pull us as educators away from the role of in loco parentis. It demands we act as the parent of every child, even Ahmed Mohamed. Hurting one child sends a message to all.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.