Search News


Browse Archives

News

Muslim Cartoon Controversies at Harvard and Illinois

February 16, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

As violence continues in the Middle East over the publication in Denmark of cartoons showing images of Muhammad and mocking the Muslim prophet, two more American college newspapers have published the cartoons and the editors who went first were suspended from their positions.

At Harvard University, a conservative newspaper published the images. The Harvard Salient ran them with an editorial commentary called "A pox (err, jihad) on free expression." The commentary said that "it is shameful that these cartoons have led to the arson of embassies, death threats, and demands that 'whoever insults the prophet, ill him.' " The editorial predicted that Islam would eventually go through a "maturing process," part of which would be "not catering to sensitivity borne of fear of death that has plagued many would-be critics of radical Islam."

The Salient also published two examples of "truly vile" anti-Jewish cartoons that have appeared in the Arab press.

Khalid Yasin, president of the Harvard Islamic Society, called the newspaper's action "inflammatory and offensive."

Yasin, a junior majoring in applied mathematics and economics, said that Muslim students at Harvard had been pleased that American newspapers have not printed the cartoons, and so were disappointed to have a university publication print them. A forum is planned for tonight to discuss the cartoons.

"We don't want to talk about this as a free speech issue," he said. "We acknowledge that there is a legal right to free speech, but because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you have the obligation. It's not what's legal, but what is decent."

Editors at The Northern Star, the student paper at Northern Illinois University, have also published the cartoons, along with an article about the controversy. A note with the article says simply that the images were published "on the basis of their news value." The paper has received letters praising and criticizing its decision.

While The Salient was defending its decision to publish the cartoons, two editors who did so at The Daily Illini -- the student paper of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign -- were suspended. The editors who arranged to publish the cartoons said last week that it was important for the public to see what all the controversy was about.

But a statement published by the newspaper's publisher and general manager announced that the editors involved had been suspended pending an investigation. The statement suggested that the editors had failed to "engage other student editors" in "rigorous discussion" about the decision to publish the cartoons.

Acton Gorton, who was the top editor and is now suspended from that position, did not respond to messages. But he told The Chicago Tribune that he had been "betrayed" and that the investigation was an attempt to oust him.

Mark Goodman, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, said it wasn't surprising that the college press is going where the mainstream press is not. "It's obviously a subjective decision that reasonable people can disagree on," he said.  Student papers serve audiences that are open to material that would never appear in a local daily. For example, Goodman cited the explicit sex columns that have become a feature in many college papers.

"A significant difference between your average college newspaper and your commercial daily is the audience. College student editors recognize that there is an appreciation for and understanding of free expression on a college campus that is above that in the community at large," Goodman said.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Muslim Cartoon Controversies at Harvard and Illinois

  • Posted by Alejandro Gray on February 16, 2006 at 8:15am EST
  • Interestingly, Mr. Khalid Yasin does not mention the usual cartoons vilifying Jews and the West in publications all over the Muslim world. Neither does he mention the despicable murder by decapitation of bound Westerners and others in the name of Allah. His murderers had no problem using a Western invention, the camcorder. Muslim "rage" about this - zero.

  • Muslim cartoons
  • Posted by Feudi on February 16, 2006 at 8:35am EST
  • The cartoons are offensive to Muslims, just as the depictions of the Blessed Virgin Mary covered in cow dung, and the crucified Christ suspended in a vat of urine, are equally offensive to Christians. A free press is, by its very nature, often offensive.

    The article commented that Islam still has a ways to grow in terms of its maturation as a major world religion. Judging by the number of senseless deaths and massive destruction within the Islamic and European world caused supposedly by these cartoons, I have to agree with that sentiment.

  • Consultation
  • Posted by Stu Gittelman on February 16, 2006 at 9:00am EST
  • Gorton is being suspended, purportedly, for not being sufficiently consultative about his decision to print some of the cartoons.

    Anyone want to take any wagers on how "consultative" the investigation into him and his co-editor will be?

    This entire episode is like an onion. There's one layer after another and each one is enough to make you cry. Everything this story touches turns to hypocrisy.

  • Higher Ed and the Banality of Political Correctness
  • Posted by Chuck on February 16, 2006 at 10:20am EST
  • The college newspaper editors deserve medals for their courage and implementation of journalistic freedom.

    Instead, they suffer the wrath of the weasels and censors who rule the roost in academe.

    The violent, destructive behavior led by many radical Islamists in reaction to those cartoons affirms the yawning gap between modernists and medievalists.

    If some radical Islamists don't like those cartoons then they shouldn't view them and/or they should come up with their own ones.

    The anti-Holocaust contest being launched by the Iranian press offers to provide even more hilarious examples of Islamic banality and intellectual derivativeness in the realm of sketches, humor and satire.

    The threats, posturings, gunplay, physical intimidation, and endless marches by Muslims confirm that the stereotypes used in the silly cartoons have indeed a strong basis in fact.

    It is that, as Aziz Akhmad put it last week, "by burning embassies and threatening to kill people, the demonstrators have done more damage to the name of the Prophet Muhammad than the Danish cartoons."

    Moreover, Jackie Mason reminds us that "the cartoonists were not even condemning Islam, they were merely creating a satire of a terrorist. They weren't insulting their religion, they were satirizing a fanatic. But the Muslims have decided that there are no laws, limits, or boundaries that apply to their behavior. They not only have the right to take your life, they now have the right to rob you of your freedom of expression."

    No apologies are necessary for running or reprinting the cartoons. None.

    If some Muslims choose to behave like petulant thugs and ballistic crybabies over the cartoons, to kill one another, and to destroy the infrastructure of their countries, then let them.

    They are merely perpetuating the worst stereotypes often attributed to western Orientalists.

  • Good Thing
  • Posted by Steve on February 16, 2006 at 10:20am EST
  • The entire controversy would be sad if it weren't irrelevant. Sad because of the blatant hypocricy being displayed by the MSM with regards to the cartoons (piss Christ? Mary in cow dung?). Irrelevant, because the public understands the hypocricy. Anyone who wants to can see the cartoons-on the internet. If we need to go to the internet to get the story, we will. And we do. The MSM death spiral continues...

    Steve

  • Posted by Richard Hennessey on February 16, 2006 at 11:15am EST
  • To the point: "Mr. Khalid Yasin does not mention the usual cartoons vilifying Jews and the West in publications all over the Muslim world." If he had mentioned them, he would surely have had to have condemned them as at least indecent, if not, in some Western codes of law, illegal. And anyone who recognizes that they are such would have to grant him either his point, that the Danish cartoons are indecent or, at the very least, that they were insensitive.

  • Posted by TM on February 16, 2006 at 2:35pm EST
  • "Interestingly, Mr. Khalid Yasin does not mention the usual cartoons vilifying Jews and the West in publications all over the Muslim world." Why should he. Did you see any of the cartoons yourself? I have not seen them either but I bet you that they might vilify Jews but not Judaism. The Danish cartoons vilify the religion, not just Muslims. Muslims would not have been that offended if it were only Muslims that were vilified. "Neither does he mention the despicable murder by decapitation of bound Westerners and others in the name of Allah. His murderers had no problem using a Western invention, the camcorder. Muslim “rage” about this — zero." Again why should he. Did you apologize for what Tim McVeigh did? Did you also apologize for the more than 30,000 Iraqi's that were killed and maimed under your name?
    Most of the comments I saw about this are immature and racist. You should not expect of Muslims more that you expect of yourselves. Like everyone else, including Christians and Jews, Muslims have among them traitors, thieves, killers, rioters, liars, uninformed, prejudiced, racists, and you name it. Before asking for others to apologize, please make a self check and live by the virtues you claims to possess.

  • Posted by Rebecca Coleman , Why Can't People Just Grow Up? on March 1, 2006 at 8:30pm EST
  • Every religion has been subject to political cartoons. So has every race, as well as gender, sexual orientation, and disability. Do you see everyone who has been offended by a political cartoon that they feel was pointed at their particular group go out and kill people, burn buildings, or bomb embassies? Why should Muslims? If everyone performed these actions, our country would no longer be a safe place to live in, and people would never feel free to use their First Ammendment rights in fear of making someone angry that would end in the loss of life.
    True, depicting Muhammad is forbidden in Islam, but must the rest of the world be subject to the beliefs of Islam? Should a country that has a right to freedom of expression, which includes college newspapers, have to put limits on this freedom because it has offended a group of people? Christians have known for ages that their religion will be ridiculed by the rest of society and you don't see them getting all riled up because of Jesus being made fun of, do you? Why does Muhammad get to be so high and mighty and special? Muslims need to get used to the fact that in this day and age, they are not going to be exempt from public mockery simply because they may find it offensive. They should stop using violence as a way to express their anger and find a peaceful, diplomatic approach.

  • Posted by Simple-Ten on March 15, 2006 at 4:15pm EST
  • I agree with a lot of the statements here. What bothers me the most is, an American has been fired for executing freedoms he has a right to. How often has christianity been offended without a massive uproar? Watch one episode of south park and you'll see.
    Not all muslims are like this I'm sure, but the ones who over-reacted to this decpict islam as a religions that shouts "Respect me or else!!!"