NEWS
Cartoon debate heats up at forum
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Michael Gendall:
- School detox numbers highest in nation (October 20, 2005)
- Michigan fans claim UW students grossly inappropriate at game (October 20, 2005)
- Regent Walsh looks for swift committee findings (October 21, 2005)
- In-Depth: Criminalizing hate (February 2, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Daily Illini suspends editors (February 16, 2006)
- In-Depth: Drawing controversy or debate? (February 23, 2006)
- Columbia president condemns campus race-related incidents (March 1, 2004)
- When entertainment becomes news (May 2, 2002)
- Jesuit university faces fresh heat (October 20, 2006)
by Michael Gendall
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
A wide range of panelists assembled Tuesday to discuss the wisdom and ethics of the decision to reprint a controversial cartoon in The Badger Herald last week.
The cartoon, which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, accompanied an 800-word editorial advocating the "sacred right" of freedom of speech.
The cartoon's original Sept. 2005 publication in a Danish newspaper continues to spur a heated reaction — sometimes violent — from Muslims worldwide.
"I believe a newspaper, when possible, should give people the information they need to conduct intelligent, well-informed debate," Mac VerStandig, editor in chief of The Badger Herald, said at Tuesday's forum.
While none in attendance questioned the Herald's right to print the cartoon, several panelists — including University of Wisconsin history professor emeritus Kemal Karpat — argued the newspaper abused that right.
"Here is the danger of freedom when it is in the hands of people who are not sufficiently understanding of the world in which they live," Karpat said. "Such freedoms can be abused when people have the means to utilize them to express their own personal preferences, likes and dislikes."
But VerStandig insisted the Editorial Board's decision to print the cartoon was based on its newsworthiness, rather than any religious or political statement the Herald itself wished to convey. Specifically, he said, the decision came after University of Illinois Chancellor Richard Herman reprimanded the college newspaper there for reprinting six of the original Danish cartoons, bringing the issue from an international focus to a regional one.
"I believe in the libertarian principles that say that we gave you all the information, you can each draw your own intelligent conclusions about what's going on in the news, what's going on in Illinois and what's going on throughout the world," VerStandig said. "We printed this cartoon to help give you that information. We printed this cartoon because other people weren't."
Suri Kempe, the MultiCultural Student Coalition's representative on the panel, said the Herald made an editorial decision to endorse the anti-Islamic speech the cartoon represented.
Implied in the protection of freedom of speech, Kempe argued, is that the defender of speech — The Badger Herald, in this case — is protecting speech that it believes in.
"I mean, what is the point of publishing something just for the sake of publishing it?" Kempe said. "By reprinting this picture, The Badger Herald — as an institution — claims the right to clearly express that it believes … [that Muhammad] is a terrorist, and that by extension it's calling all Muslims terrorists."
VerStandig, however, continued to defend the ethics behind the newspaper's decision, referencing the accompanying editorial.
"The editorial we wrote alongside this cartoon … made absolutely clear that we think it is a repugnant and disgusting cartoon and that we don't endorse the ideology that comes with it," he said. Following the formal panel discussion, VerStandig entertained questions from an audience largely critical of the newspaper's stance.
UW Chancellor John Wiley attended the discussion, and in his introduction to the event he promised all attendees would leave with memories and increased understanding the likes of which would not be encountered in any ordinary classroom experience.
"This is really in many ways what a university is all about," Wiley said. "This kind of debate about real issues that are on us at the moment — not things that are considered in a theoretical context in a classroom — things that are actually happening and affecting people's lives."
Anonymous (February 22, 2006 @ 4:23am):
I have a question for the Editor, and although I don't expect a reply, I at least want you to think about it (and all who read this). How many times in the history of the BH has the N-word been published in an article or political cartoon. No doubt it has been talked about as the N-word, but has it ever been published as the full word? How many times has this word been printed to "give people the information they need to conduct intelligent, well-informed debate."? I don't know the answer to this but I doubt that it ever has. Why not? Don't you have the right to use this word in your articles? I'm not aware of any law prohibiting you from using it, but it is your moral judgement that stops you. You know that just by writing it you will offend most if not all of the African-Americans that read your paper and live in the Madison area. However you see no problem in re-printing a political cartoon depicting the messenger of Islam as a terrorist, the unfortunate steroetype Muslims try to deal with everyday. Why is that? What is the difference between these two situations?
On a separate note, I would also like to say that I'm a little disappointed in the way the forum ended Tuesday night. Instead of working together towards a solution to help deal with this problem, all we did was point fingers at each other and widen the gap that already exists (sadly) between Muslims and the rest of the world.
In conclusion, I would like to say that not addressing the stereotypes and prejudices portrayed by the cartoons could help spread the hate towards Muslims, but also it is important to realize that by drawing so much attention to it, we as Muslims are helping fuel this raging fire too. By protesting, we are exposing more people to these cartoons than would otherwise have been exposed and all the violence overseas is only confirming the suspicions of the Western world that Muslims are a violent and unreasonable people. There must be some other way to tackle this, but we can not do it alone. We need the help of the educated...we need the help of the media. The best solution at this point would be for the BH staff to first apologize for unintentionally and perhaps unknowingly offending so many Muslims in such a profound way by re-printing this cartoons, and second to help inform the uninformed about Islam. We are not trying to take over the world after all(as a few uniformed people have stated in previous posting on previous articles). We are only asking to be accepted into the international community and respected for the views and ideals that may be different from yours and everybody else's.
Thank you for reading this opinion with an open mind and an open heart, and may peace be with you all.
Anonymous (February 22, 2006 @ 9:49am):
Yeah, where's the news value of printing a cartoon that has caused so much death and destruction? Why should anybody be able to see just how lame an excuse the cartoon is for all the Muslim murder and mayhem.
Put Muhammed in a jar of urine in your next art project and see if the Muslims are as retrained as the Christians were when their God was given the same treatment.
Anonymous (February 22, 2006 @ 10:59am):
"Put Muhammed in a jar of urine in your next art project and see if the Muslims are as retrained as the Christians were when their God was given the same treatment."
When was our God ever given that treatment?
And if he was, does that justify retaliating now? You know, the whole "turn the other cheek" thing... For all the talk about respecting other religions, and especially persecution of Christians, so few (on both sides really) actually apply their own religion to how they're handling this.
Dennis Novak (February 22, 2006 @ 11:31am):
I am a Danish Cartoonist. We are all Danes, today.
By protesting, and burning and murdering because of a cartoon, the Muslims have demonstrated why it is vitally important to permit offensive free speech. The inoffensive kind needs no protection. We cannot be terrorized by the violent ones. We cannot be driven into our caves. The cartoons have become a protest against the insane violence demonstrated by the mobs of savages around the world.
Stand up or be buried.
Support Denmark. Buy Danish producte.
Anonymous (February 22, 2006 @ 12:00pm):
Congratulations for standing up and defending freedom of speech in Wisconsin. I would like to see the same passionate defense coming from the State Journal and Cap Times but don't think it will happen.
You are doing exactly what you should be doing on a student newspaper.
Anonymous (February 22, 2006 @ 12:23pm):
THANK YOU for showing the courage to print the "dreaded" cartoons!
The Main-Stream-Media in America have shown a complete lack of spine over this story; they seem to have had no qualms over reporting anything that reflects poorly on America.
I don't hate Muslims. I do regard Islamists as thugs and murderers. It's about time that such a distinction can be openly debated; they don't show any restraint depicting Christians or Jews badly (or falsely). If they can't take it, then they shouldn't be dishing it out.
Anonymous (February 22, 2006 @ 12:33pm):
Are we so scared that we need to hide freedom of speech? What right does anyone have to limit our freedom of speech? If you're going to kill over cartoons you are an ignorant person. I respect the Islamic faith but I also respect the United States Constitution. As a Catholic I saw cartoons of the Pope and other church leaders depicted as the anti-Christ yet I don't go out and kill over it. I respect people's choices and freedom of speech. If the Islamic community does not like the cartoon being published it is their right to protest, but don't take others freedoms away.
Anonymous (February 22, 2006 @ 1:04pm):
Background information as to why the cartoons was publiced. (Articles in newspapers tends to have a background...)
Read up, then make your own conclution as to why they where posted in Denmark:
http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=3566642/
Anonymous (February 22, 2006 @ 1:14pm):
We must learn to be more tolerant of the moslem's world of intolerance towards others.
Anonymous (February 22, 2006 @ 1:18pm):
"Anonymous (February 22, 2006 @ 10:59am):
"Put Muhammed in a jar of urine in your next art project and see if the Muslims are as retrained as the Christians were when their God was given the same treatment."
When was our God ever given that treatment?
And if he was, does that justify retaliating now? You know, the whole "turn the other cheek" thing... For all the talk about respecting other religions, and especially persecution of Christians, so few (on both sides really) actually apply their own religion to how they're handling this.""
To Anonymous:
To your question of when God (well actually Christ) was depicted as such; a basic reference to "Piss Christ" can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
Note that this display was offensive to the broader Christian community. Those suggesting this is equivalent to the Mohammed cartoon fiasco should note the following:
1)Piss Christ was supported by the National Endowment for the Arts. Most protest suggested that taxpayer funds should not support such characterizations. An argument could be made that using federal funds in this way violates the 1st Amendment to the Bill of Rights.
2)The Mohammed cartoons were printed in a private newspaper.
3)Christian "protest" of this display was lawful and orderly. It did not lead to calls for death to its creator or deadly riots throughout the Christian world. This distinction is important and says much about the differences between Islam and other religions.
The following article pointing out the hypocrisy of the multi-cultural left as relates to this issue.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21171
Anonymous (February 22, 2006 @ 1:51pm):
The BH needs to consider its intent vs. its impact. All the BH does is justify it's intententions, but never acknowledges the impact it has had on people across campus. As a student newspaper, the BH must apologize for this negative impact on students and for causing a rift with muslims and the greater portion of the campus community.
-=Ken Taté
Daniel Kurtycz (February 22, 2006 @ 1:51pm):
I attended the first portion of the forum and heard the opening statments. I fully support Mac VerStandig and concur that we cannot have our right to free speech abridged. I was most impressed with his clarity and courage. Religious fundementalists have a long history of suppressing thought. Those that burned the Library of Alexandria or blew up the Buddhist shrines in Afganistan have committed the true crimes against humanity.
I'll follow up with a letter.
Daniel Kurtycz, M.D.
Professor, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Medical Director, Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene.
Anonymous (February 22, 2006 @ 2:01pm):
Serrano's "Piss Christ" was a controversial piece of art about 15 years ago. A crucifix was submerged in the artist's own urine and photographed. It was funded by the National Endowment for the Arts.
Anonymous (February 22, 2006 @ 2:06pm):
As a Christian, I am loving this. I am so tired of Christianity being under attack. The urine-thing: you don't even remember that one, do you? That's because Christians are supposed to quit being so sensitive. "It's only art . . .It's my right to disregard any " oh, blah, blah.
Live with it oh, muslim.
Anonymous (February 22, 2006 @ 2:34pm):
civilized people don't riot for weeks over some cartoons...
Anonymous (February 22, 2006 @ 3:09pm):
For me this is not a matter of free speech, but of poor taste. These so called "Western countries" who claim to uphold "polite, civilized, rational" values, print degrading cartoons about a wide variety of people who identify as Muslim and in turn accuse them of terrorism. This of course is going to provoke everyone who is a Muslim or has truly known a Muslim person to react. The Islamic community is tired of being attacked, especially in these so called Western countries and on campuses such as this. Therefore, this papers choice to re-print those cartoons is just to spark controversy and prove to most readers on this campus how bias their views are. It has nothing to do with promoting dialogue, it is NOT dialogue when you are degrading and attacking identities. Like I said above, BIASED POOR TASTE.
Anonymous (February 22, 2006 @ 4:02pm):
Go Badgers,
I am pleased someone has the intestinal fortitude to publish the cartoons. The First Admendment rules not the threat of brick of C 4 tossed through a window to display ones displeasure. If only the NYTimes had your courage.
Anonymous (February 22, 2006 @ 4:13pm):
Freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals enjoy in a democratic society. Freedom of expression means freedom to express one's opinion. Freedom of expression does not mean what is being said is fair, right, accurate, or is even logical. It represents our ability to freely express ourselves. That means taking the ugly with the good.
Anonymous (February 22, 2006 @ 6:01pm):
Where is a brave artist willing to "speak truth to power" and "challenge the establishment" when we need a "Piss Muhammd" or an "Elephant Dung Muhammed" to take the Moslem mind off of cartoons?
Anonymous (February 22, 2006 @ 7:59pm):
I attended the panel discussion last night on Bascom Hill. I heard the Badger Herald editor speak and I am convinced now that he is an anti-Semitic hate monger who through his official position at the Badger Herald helped create an environment of fear and hate on this campus. This environment of fear and hate resulted in several Muslim students on campus being assaulted and even spit on. This goes against the University's official stance. I feel that his actions should at a minimum result in the University banning the Harold's distribution on Campus and even the Editor's expulsion from the University. Certainly after the world wide reaction from the Muslim community he understood how deeply insulting those depictions were to Muslims. The editor, being from a member of the Jewish community, can certainly appreciate how similar racist cartoons about Jews helped create a culture where eventually the holocaust became possible. It is not about simply having a series of lectures so everyone can understand what free speech is. It is about holding people accountable for their racist actions.
This is not about free speech but about racism. Free speech has never been absolute. Just as it is inappropriate for the University to allow the distribution of racist images of any ilk it is inappropriate for the University to allow the distribution of the Harold on campus. If a student were to print racist cartoons the University would expel her and this should not be an exception.
-Khaja Din
Law Student and Co-VP of the Jewish Law Student Association
Laura Patrick (February 22, 2006 @ 8:33pm):
I was at the debate yesterday and like many, I too was dissapointed with the
outcome. I felt like too many members of the audience were already at the debate knowing fully well what their stance were, hence the lack of discussion and more of an 'attack-the-editor-of-the-Badger-Herald' session.
To Mac: You kept pointing out that the reason BH decided to print the image was because you believed that UW Madison is a community of itelligent people who are capable enough to dissect and decide for ourselves our stance on the issue. If so, wouldn't you think that we'd be intelligent enough to look up the cartoons online on our own? You ultimately decided that there was a 'need' for you to publish the image, knowing fully well how it has caused so much anger in the Muslim community. So thanks Mac, but no thanks.
To the Muslim community: I was dissapointed by the reaction your community had shown at the campus debate. I was born and raised in Malaysia, a country where almost 70% of its population are Muslims and so I know first hand that Islam is peaceful religion. I personally think that the way some of you had conducted yourselves at the Q&A session was very un-called for. The raising of your voices, the pointing of fingers, the hate you had shown towards those who didn't share your views most certainly did not help abate the climate. I wished that at least one of you, had made a more classy and proactive move by first reiterating what the teachings of your religion are and to address the issue of violence over the cartoons. None of you had the decency to admit that there are Muslim extremists out there who are over-reacting. All you did was reiterate how 'victimized' your community has been. Stand up and be more proactive! Don't see yourselves as victims anymore! People smell fear. Had the members of your community been more proactive on the issue, say by writing a solid and rational editorial on the cartoon issue and posted it before/after the BH version I am sure the situation would be much improved. Stop pointing fingers and look into yourselves and figure out what members of your community can do to better the perspective of non-muslims on Islam. Showing so much anger will not improve an outsider's perspective towards your community.
Anonymous (February 22, 2006 @ 8:50pm):
"I fully support Mac VerStandig and concur that we cannot have our right to free speech abridged"
its not about free speech and get this through your heads!
Anonymous (February 22, 2006 @ 9:27pm):
Is the cartoon factual? Muhammad did not possess explosive devices, but was he a terrorist? Does the Qur'an sancitify terrorism? Did Muhammad brag about being made victorious with terror cast into the hearts of his victims? You can find the answers, hyperlinked to authentic Islamic sources, in this online petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/ckd2005/ .
Anonymous (February 22, 2006 @ 9:37pm):
Khaja Din:
For a law student, you are PROFOUNDLY ignorant of the law. Let me spell it out for you: the BH is independent of the University. They are free to print what they want, and this public university can neither ban the BH nor discipline them for exercising their First Amendment Rights. Printing a NEWSWORTHY cartoon is not illegal, nor in violation of any university policies. Even if the BH were to post something racist (which this cartoon was not), that would be their right; the editors certainly couldn't be expelled.
To those who are still whining about the cartoon: the cartoon (as I saw it), made a statement about violence in the name of Islam. You're offended? I'll match that, and raise you a some dead Nigerian Christians, 3000 dead New Yorkers, and a handful of beheaded journalists. And that's just to start. I mean no offense to Muslims, really. But there are a lot of terrible things being done in Islam's name, and that's exactly what the cartoon was depicting.
Anonymous (February 23, 2006 @ 12:18am):
Khaja Din:
Wow, those are some aggressive claims. However, I feel that it mostly not...well, mostly not anything.
"I heard the Badger Herald editor speak and I am convinced now that he is an anti-Semitic hate monger who through his official position at the Badger Herald helped create an environment of fear and hate on this campus."
-1. anti-Semite--> How a Jewish editor-in-chief (accompanied by a Jewish managing editor, and who once served alongside an associate Jewish opinions editor) is an anti-Semite escapes me.
2. "This environment of fear and hate resulted in several Muslim students on campus being assaulted and even spit on."--> The "spit on" thing is true, several students being assaulted is not. However, if you really think this is a result of the cartoon, you're missing the issue. A cartoon did not cause an incorrigible person to spit in a hateful way, but something else surely did. We must handle that issue with the only thing that has ever worked against such a malign force, education.
3. "This goes against the University's official stance. I feel that his actions should at a minimum result in the University banning the Harold's distribution on Campus and even the Editor's expulsion from the University."
--> The Herald is not subject to the university...the Cardinal is.
4. "Certainly after the world wide reaction from the Muslim community he understood how deeply insulting those depictions were to Muslims. The editor, being from a member of the Jewish community, can certainly appreciate how similar racist cartoons about Jews helped create a culture where eventually the holocaust became possible."
-->The Holocaust did not happen because the Nazis used their free speech to preach to Germans who eagerly listened. It happened because other Germans did not use their own free speech to speak out against it.
5. "It is not about simply having a series of lectures so everyone can understand what free speech is. It is about holding people accountable for their racist actions."
"This is not about free speech but about racism."
-->Racism? What does Muhammed (pbuh) have to do with race?
6. "Free speech has never been absolute. Just as it is inappropriate for the University to allow the distribution of racist images of any ilk it is inappropriate for the University to allow the distribution of the Harold on campus. If a student were to print racist cartoons the University would expel her and this should not be an exception."
-->Once again, the Herald is not subject to the University. Still, if a student were to print a racist cartoon, they wouldn't be expelled either. It's part of free speech, it's part of a free country, it's part of the First Amendment.
Anonymous (February 23, 2006 @ 12:23am):
Laura Patrick: I agree wholeheartedly. The forum was a worthy attempt, but it failed miserably.
Ayaan Ali (March 2, 2006 @ 4:21pm):
The fact of the matter is that the dannish editors were totally wrong, they should of known that was going to cause not a stir but an earthqauke. There is a thin line between viewing your opinions and totally trashing somthing/someone for the hell of it and they totally crossed the line. The newspaper editors were being extremly ignorent by connecting terrosist with islam that is obviously the biggest mistake you can make especially in a time like this. If your going to call anyone a terrorist George Bush is staring you in the face.
