<Back

Keep the Danish out of The Salad

By the S&B editorial staff

By reprinting and commenting on one of the infamous Danish cartoon depictions of Muhammad, The Salad has opened up an important campus conversation on religion, hate speech and freedom of the press. We would like to contribute to the dialogue and express our discomfort at the re-publication of the cartoon and the misguided analysis that accompanied it.

We agree with The Salad's intent of unmasking the anti-Islamic hate behind the cartoon. The publication's final product, however, failed to reflect these good intentions.

First, The Salad's analysis did not benefit from printing the cartoon instead of just describing it. Most major American media outlets, aside from the ultra-conservative magazine The Weekly Standard, opted not to print it primarily for this reason. As the New York Times wrote in its Feb. 7 editorial "Those Danish Cartoons," this is "a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols, especially since the cartoons are so easy to describe in words." Printing the cartoon risked offending and isolating Muslims on campus at no benefit to The Salad's cause.

Second, the analysis of the cartoon disregards the relevance of Islam to the discussion. Instead of giving voice to the genuine pain and anger many devout Muslims felt because of the incident, The Salad seemed to be dictating to Muslims (and allies) how they should be outraged. They should be upset, it claimed, because the cartoon is akin to racist propaganda, and not at all because it assaulted religious values.

Indeed, it is troubling that nearly as many words proclaim the irrelevance of religious concerns as actually critique the cartoon.

Although the editors state that many Muslims view depictions of the Prophet as sacrilege, they abruptly dismiss this claim and assert a right to criticize religion. In addition, the next sentence subordinates this Islamic faith claim to that French saint of Western liberalism and religious skepticism, Voltaire. Just as the editors speak up for victims of racism, they should have championed (rather than dismissed) the cause of Muslims who felt that their religion was attacked.

In the aftermath of publication, The Salad has partially corrected its error. On their oft-updated Plan, its editors have admitted to religious insensitivity and pledged to not post the cartoon in their web edition. They, however, continue to erroneously insist that they must choose between printing the cartoon and ignoring the whole matter altogether. The Salad needs to explain why describing and criticizing the image is insufficient.

In the S&B's eyes, the broader cartoon crisis shows the importance for journalists to balance free speech with civic responsibility. Viewed in isolation, it may seem crazy and wrong that poorly drawn cartoons could provoke embassy burnings and bloodshed. Free speech, after all, is a fundamental right and essential for the functioning of democracies everywhere. If you are offended by speech, you should write a letter to the editor or picket a building. When journalists and artists are intimidated, they stop pushing society to improve and everyone loses.

Still, possessing the right to free speech does not mean we should invoke it in every situation. For example, when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten printed its cartoons ridiculing Muhammad, it knew that Europe was a tinderbox and many Muslims would be incensed. Western powers were waging war in two Muslim-majority states and anti-Muslim xenophobia was running rampant. In fact, according to the Danish Institute for Human Rights, racially motivated crimes doubled in Denmark from 2004-2005.

Given the delicate cultural context, the Danish newspaper probably should have refrained from printing the cartoons. Immediately after they were printed, the situation could have exploded. But, it didn't. Danish Muslims peacefully protested and pleaded with politicians for empathy. After seeing the public outcry, a socially responsible and unbiased publication would have: a) printed a retraction and apology, or b) used the furor to bring attention to the marginalization of Muslims and explore the reasons behind their resentment.

Jyllands-Posten chose neither. After months of being ignored,?local Muslims found a sympathetic ear among radicals abroad. Shared resentment quickly turned into violence. We don't condone the violence and intimidation that occurred, but we understand why it happened and how the press could have helped avoid it.

Unlike Denmark, America is an international behemoth that led the wars in Muslim-majority countries. Our sweeping and insensitive domestic and international policies have bred deep resentment in many Muslims everywhere. In our predicament, it is of vital importance that journalists act judiciously so as not to contribute to the reputation of American media as biased and insensitive. By not reprinting the Danish cartoons, mainstream American media took a step in the right direction.

<Back