Yale criticized for nixing Muslim cartoons in book

John Christoffersen, Associated Press Writer
Tue Sep 8, 10:41 am ET

NEW HAVEN, Conn. – Yale University has removed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad from an upcoming book about how they caused outrage across the Muslim world, drawing criticism from prominent alumni and a national group of university professors.

Yale cited fears of violence.

Yale University Press, which the university owns, removed the 12 caricatures from the book "The Cartoons That Shook the World" by Brandeis University professor Jytte Klausen. The book is scheduled to be released next week.

A Danish newspaper originally published the cartoons — including one depicting Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban — in 2005. Other Western publications reprinted them.

The following year, the cartoons triggered massive protests from Morocco to Indonesia. Rioters torched Danish and other Western diplomatic missions. Some Muslim countries boycotted Danish products.

Islamic law generally opposes any depiction of the prophet, even favorable, for fear it could lead to idolatry.

"I think it's horrifying that the campus of Nathan Hale has become the first place where America surrenders to this kind of fear because of what extremists might possibly do," said Michael Steinberg, an attorney and Yale graduate.

Steinberg was among 25 alumni who signed a protest letter sent Friday to Yale Alumni Magazine that urged the university to restore the drawings to the book. Other signers included John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, former Bush administration speechwriter David Frum and Seth Corey, a liberal doctor.

"I think it's intellectual cowardice," Bolton said Thursday. "I think it's very self defeating on Yale's part. To me it's just inexplicable."

Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, wrote in a recent letter that Yale's decision effectively means: "We do not negotiate with terrorists. We just accede to their anticipated demands."

In a statement explaining the decision, Yale University Press said it decided to exclude a Danish newspaper page of the cartoons and other depictions of Muhammad after asking the university for help on the issue. It said the university consulted counterterrorism officials, diplomats and the top Muslim official at the United Nations.

"The decision rested solely on the experts' assessment that there existed a substantial likelihood of violence that might take the lives of innocent victims," the statement said.

Republication of the cartoons has repeatedly resulted in violence around the world, leading to more than 200 deaths and hundreds of injuries, the statement said. It also noted that major newspapers in the United states and Britain have declined to print the cartoons.

"Yale and Yale University Press are deeply committed to freedom of speech and expression, so the issues raised here were difficult," the statement said. "The press would never have reached the decision it did on the grounds that some might be offended by portrayals of the Prophet Muhammad."

John Donatich, director of Yale University Press, said the critics are "grandstanding." He said it was not a case of censorship because the university did not suppress original content that was not available in other places.

"I would never have agreed to censor original content," Donatich said.

Klausen was surprised by the decision when she learned of it in July. She said scholarly reviewers and Yale's publication committee comprised of faculty recommended the cartoons be included.

"I'm extremely upset about that," Klausen said.

The experts Yale consulted did not read the manuscript, Klausen said. She said she consulted Muslim leaders and did not believe including the cartoons in a scholarly debate would spark violence.

Klausen said she reluctantly agreed to have the book published without the images because she did not believe any other university press would publish them, and she hopes Yale will include them in later editions. She argues in the book that there is a misperception that Muslims spontaneously arose in anger over the cartoons when they really were symbols manipulated by those already involved in violence.

Donatich said there wasn't time for the experts to read the book, but they were told of the context. He said reviewers and the publications committee did not object, but were not asked about the security risk.

Many Muslim nations want to restrict speech to prevent insults to Islam they claim have proliferated since the terrorist attacks in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, a world affairs columnist and CNN host who serves on Yale's governing board, said he told Yale that he believed publishing the images would have provoked violence.

"As a journalist and public commentator, I believe deeply in the First Amendment and academic freedom," Zakaria said. "But in this instance Yale Press was confronted with a clear threat of violence and loss of life."

Only fair..wouldn't the Christian groups be upset if a joke was made of Jesus?

Seems a little hypocritical on the Muslim part.

Many Muslim nations want to restrict speech to prevent insults to Islam they claim have proliferated since the terrorist attacks in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

See, for everyone else, they want to retsrict speech. There was a contest in the Muslim world. They chose the best joke/characature making fun of the Holocaust. Pretty nasty stuff.
I wish I could post pics. Since my Firefox won't work, I can't.

And they have been on several occasions.

It seems to me there is a lack of grownups on both sides.

The authors of the comics who don't take into account their humor might cause lose of life of innocent human beings.

And those who are offended by the comics that would take someone else's life over the unconscious or conscious acts of other people.

In this case the University had a hard choice. Do we take the responsibility of being partly responsible for the actions of others that could cause loss of life of students we are responsible for and or people in other countries that the loss of life might take place in, or we we stand up for free speech at all costs?

Our words and actions have consequences. Of course they do whether we out law it or not.

when did we get to a place in America that it became acceptable to censor literature and trample on free speech to avoid offending someone or a particular class of people?

That sounds like appeasement to me..

should we not concentrate on why and what drives someone to violence? Should we not educate potential muslim extremists that here in the US we enjoy freedom of press, speech and religion.. and with that freedom comes the potential for offensive speech and the obligation to tolerate its existence??

If I'm the author, I pull the manuscript and find another publisher.

I think there's a big difference between offense and the possible loss of life. Does the university have the right to make a conscious decision to avoid violence and possible injury, does it not have the obligation. Just asking...

Yes we should deal with what drives someone to violence but you see how far we have gotten with that study over 30 years and we still have a very long way to go. And people that create such comics certainly don't make that job easier or faster.

I am just not so sure that some of the things we call free speech really are free speech when they cause death or violence.

Do the muslims not have free will?? Do they not choose to take their offense at printed material to the extreme of potentially inflicting loss of life? You act as if the cartoon itself is animating itself from ink and paper to a sentient form capable of taking life..

Such is clearly not the case..

In the eventuality that the Press is concerned with, it's PEOPLE, people with free will and, in this country, the burden of being responsible for their actions.., who would be going out and committing attrocities in the name of offense at what is printed on paper..

That's a view which is wholly incongruent with the American principles of freedom of expression, free speech and free press..

When do we begin to hold accountable those that committ transgression against life instead of condoning their malicious intent and condemning someone else's right to speech or other constitutional rights??

There are plenty of directions I could go to elaborate on my point but I'll save some for the remix..

personal offense, offending someone's religion, offending someone's manhood or mother DOES NOT EXCUSE violence against another..

And the longer free people bow to the Caliphate's de facto supression of the press, the longer this is going to be an issue.. If you're going to come live in the U.S. and expect to reap the benefit of the freedoms we enjoy here, one must also take into consideration the freedoms of others. This goes for muslims too. Lopping peoples' heads off because they offended your religious sensibilities might go over in Riyadh or Khandahar but it's called murder here.. and it's expressly forbidden by any number of sources, the least of which not being the law//

I'm getting sick of the bashing on all sides personally. There is very little tolerance these days. Even if this was published...I can decide not to read it if I want

hi Rose!

how are ya sunshine?

I am not sticking up for people that can't handle having their Gods insulted or their mothers or their manhood and who would kill to prove a point. I am also not standing up for people with a sick sense of humor with no regard from what it might produce. As I said there are grownups missing on both sides.

But I did ask if the university has responsibility to it's students. I would think that parents might find they do when it comes to their children attending that school.

I believe in the freedom of speech. I also believe there are consequences as well.