THE CARTOONS THAT SHOOK THE PUBLISHER
by Daniel Ortner
Brandeis Hoot
Aug 28 2009
The infirmity of free speech became abundantly clear when Prof. Jytte
Klausen (POL) became the latest victim of the politically correct
assault on academic freedom and discourse. Klausen is a leading
expert on the growing Islamic population in Europe, and her latest
book, "The Cartoons That Shook the World," focuses on the Muhammad
cartoon controversy–arguing that rather than represent a truly deep
seeded cultural animosity, the explosion of violence that followed
the cartoons’ publication was incited by radicals looking to score
political victories.
Thus, one would expect that the book would allow the reader to view
images of the cartoons themselves as well as historic artistic
representations of the Prophet Muhammad central to the author’s
argument. However, Yale University Press, one of the supposedly most
reputable academic presses in the world, bowed to fear and potential
controversy when it exercised deplorable self-censorship. The press
stipulated that if the book were to be published, all images of the
Muslim prophet would have to be removed.
One of the arguments John Donatich, the director of Yale University
Press, used to justify his lack of integrity was shockingly inane. He
argued that because "The cartoons are freely available on the Internet
and can be accurately described in words, reprinting them could be
interpreted easily as gratuitous." Today, anything can be accessed
by the click of a track pad.
If all controversial images accessible online were to be removed
from books, we’d have few left. Biology textbooks would be relieved
of images of evolutionary descent because some creationists might
get angry and cause mischief. Health texts would not be able to
show visual representations of fertilization, because the "sexist"
nature of these images might offend some diehard feminists (as was
argued at length in an idiotic text I was assigned in a Women in the
Health Care System class). Should international relations texts not
feature images of the slaughter of Armenians by the Turks, in fear
of offending Turkish national identity?
Is this really the path that Yale University Press wants to see us go
down as a culture? Does the threat of violence justify the compromise
of standards, when so many "controversial" images are already in
print? The answer in this case is emphatically no! We cannot have a
marketplace of ideas if it is held ransom to every threat of violence
Even more absurd is the fact that Yale was responding to an imaginary
threat of controversy. There had been no reported threats and no actual
confrontation over the publication of this book. It has already been
several years since the publication of the cartoons. If the images
are as widely disseminated as Donatich suggests, then what harm could
their publication cause? Indeed, the images have been widely reprinted
and many scholars have lectured extensively on the topic. Several years
later, their publication and the violent reaction which followed should
be treated as a matter of historical fact deserving analysis. Moreover,
that a written analysis would be published without the images shows
cowardice based on an obsessive desire not to offend.
What’s even more frightening is that this wave of censorship is not
just being extended to new images such as the Danish cartoons from
2005. The book was not allowed to be published with historical images
of the Prophet that have been published without fanfare for hundreds
of years, including a 19th-century sketch by artist Gustave Doré
of Muhammad being tormented in Hell. The scene has been depicted
by Botticelli, Blake, Rodin and DalÃ. Thus, the nebulous web of
censorship extends not just to new discourse, but to already existing
works.
Our obsession with not offending has led to schools banning the
teaching of "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn." It is this same
culture of intolerant tolerance that led to a student at Purdue
University being punished for racial harassment for reading a book
celebrating the historic defeat of the KKK. When censors come and
attempt to enforce tolerance, they are not just going to try to limit
what can be said or written in the future, they will also want to turn
to the past and limit access to ideas that are viewed as unseemly in
the present. To have past images of the Prophet Muhammad censored,
when one of the very purposes of this book is to point out hypocrisy
by contrasting historical publication of the image of Muhammad with
current reactions, is mind blowing and proves Klausen’s point more
strongly.
The academic press and universities at large are supposed to be the
bastions of freedom. They are supposed to defend free speech even
when ideas are unpopular. Instead, when it comes to controversial
matters, specifically in regard to Islam, it seems that such principles
are conveniently ignored. In this culture, is it any surprise that
the editors of a conservative paper at Tufts were found guilty of
harassment for printing factually true statements about Islam, or that
at San Francisco State University, students were nearly disciplined,
were it not for the intervention of the Foundation For Individual
Rights In Education, for stepping on flags of Hamas and Hezbollah?
At its core, we have our notions of academic freedom in place
specifically to protect those writing about controversial
content. Prof. Klausen should be commended for tackling such an
important and controversial topic. Her writing should be treated as
sacrosanct precisely because individuals are willing to use violent
force to take away a privilege we have fought so hard for. Instead,
the very institutions that we expect to protect our rights have
cowardly betrayed them.