Mohammed cartoon controversy re-ignited in Britain and the USA

TWO seats of learning in Britain and America have enraged supporters of free speech by taking a stance against students who republished some of the Danish cartoons that led to widespread rioting across the globe in 2005.

On February 12, the education section of the Guardian reported that the editor of the Clare College newspaper was forced to go into hiding “after his attempt at religious satire backfired”.

According to the paper, the 19-year-old student and aspiring journalist, who has not been named, is under investigation by the authorities at Clare College who described the satirical issue of the student newspaper Clarefication as “abhorrent”.

Most inflammatory, the college said, was the reproduction in the newspaper of a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed first printed in the Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten in September 2005.

For his own safety, the student had been taken out of his accommodation and put in a secure place.

The newspaper had been renamed Crucification for the special edition of religious satire. The front page included the headline: “Ayatollah rethinks stance on misunderstood Rushdie.”
On page six, there were pictures of Muslims holding placards reading: “Behead those who insult Islam” and “Freedom go to hell.”

Enraged Clare students bombarded the college’s student union with complaints, and the vice president of the university’s Islamic society described the edition as “hugely offensive” and “crude, unabashed prejudice.”

Earlier in the month senior college officials were locked in urgent talks about how the material came to be published and what action to take against the student.

In a statement issued by Clare College, a senior tutor, Patricia Fara, said: “Clare is an open and inclusive college. A student-produced satirical publication has caused widespread distress throughout the Clare community.

“The college finds the publication and the views expressed abhorrent. Reflecting the gravity of the situation, the college immediately began an investigation and disciplinary procedures are in train.”

Calum Davey, the president of the Clare College student union, expressed his “deep regret” over the publication and offered his sincere apologies for causing offence.

He told the Cambridge News: “This material does not reflect the views of Clare students.”

Cambridge News said Clare College fellows had, in a rare move, called a court of discipline, which would sit in judgment on the student responsible for sparking what the university regards as one of the most embarrassing incidents it has suffered in years.

But the National Secular Society has come out strongly in defence of the student, saying that “staff and students at Clare College should make a stand for free speech instead of backing those who would destroy it”.

Terry Sanderson, President of the NSS said: “We are shocked that the staff and even the students union at this supposedly liberal college have joined the attack on this student because he had the temerity to poke fun at religion. Free expression is such a precious commodity and is under such ferocious attack at present from religious interests that it is disgraceful that no-one is standing up for this young man’s right to be rude about religion – even about Islam.”

Mr Sanderson has written to the master of Clare College, Professor Tony Bader and to the Senior Tutor, Patricia Fara as well as the president of the Students Union, Calum Davey. “We write after seeing reports in the local Cambridge press indicating that a contributor to your student magazine Clareification faces disciplinary action for having printed items that some people thought were “offensive” or “inflammatory”.

“If these reports are true, we wish to register our profound disquiet that a supposedly liberal college has reacted in this way. The reaction risks undermining one of the most precious and important rights that we have in this country: freedom of expression.

“Satire aimed at religion is no different to satire aimed at any other ideas and should not be punished or restrained. The freedom to poke fun at those who take themselves too seriously is a time-honoured tradition in this country. Regrettably, it is rapidly being eroded by cases like this. We urge you to think again and stand four-square behind the satirists, instead of disciplining them.

“We would like to remind all concerned that satirising religion – even if that religion is Islam – is not racism, as this episode has been dubbed. Religion and race have very different characteristics. We would have heartily joined the condemnation if the satire had been racially motivated, but according to the reports we have read, the issue of Clareification in question was devoted to religious satire.

“We would like to draw your attention to a case that is pending in France at the moment, in which a satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, has been brought to court by an Islamic organisation for re-publishing the Danish cartoons that are at the centre of so much controversy. In the French case, academics, artists and politicians of all hues have rushed to the defence of the magazine. Letters of support and statements defending free speech have been issued by some of the most influential people in the country – including M. Sarkozy, who is potentially the next President of France.

“Your own reaction – as reported – does not bear comparison with the principled French reactions. It sides with the oppressors and censors who are doing so much to retard open debate in academe and elsewhere.

“We call on you to support the publishers of the magazine and to tell the would-be censors that their protests have been heard but that they will not prevail. Without the freedom to debate, discuss and, yes, mock, ideas and ideologies, there can be no informed political discourse. Satire is an indispensable tool in the operation of a truly free society.”

Earlier in February, students Acton H Gorton and Chuck Prochaska were suspended from the University of Illinois in Champaign after cartoons satirising Mohammed were reprinted in the university’s paper, The Daily Illini.

Immediately after the paper was published, the university was flooded with phone calls. The cartoons were printed on the opinions page beside a column by editor-in-chief Gorton explaining why he was publishing them.

Shaz Kaiseruddin, 24, a third-year law student and president of the Muslim Student Association, said “I was in disbelief that they would do this,” adding that she was astounded “that our own student-based newspaper would be so ignorant and disrespectful”.

Muslim students and others then held a protest on the main quadrangle, saying they were stunned and hurt by the publication of some of the images that had stirred so much violence and caused so much pain in other parts of the world. Some members of the Daily Illini staff said they were furious, too, and in later editions, the publisher announced that Gorton and opinions page editor Prochaska had been suspended, pending an investigation into how the cartoons had ended up in the paper.

“This has gotten crazy,” said Gorton, 25, who decided to run 6 of the 12 cartoons.
He received calls for his resignation but also a deluge of praise, including comments of support from students as he walked on campus. “We did this to raise a healthy dialogue about an important issue that is in the news and so that people would learn more about Islam. Now, I’m basically fired.”

Most major American newspapers, including the New York Times, have not published the cartoons, which were first published in a Danish newspaper in September, 2005.

But on college campuses, student journalists are still grappling with the decision, saying the choice of most of the nation’s newspapers makes theirs even more crucial. Editors at some student publications at the University of Wisconsin, Harvard University, Northern Illinois University and Illinois State University have published some of the cartoons.

The decisions have set off a painful clash, seemingly pitting two of the values so often embraced in university environments — freedom of speech and sensitivity to other cultures — directly against each other.

Other student newspapers, including those at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Arizona State University and the University of Arizona, have published their own cartoons that comment on or refer to the controversial cartoons.

Richard Herman, the chancellor of the university, sent a letter criticising the newspaper, which is published independently. In part, it said, “I believe that the DI could have engaged its readers in legitimate debate about the issues surrounding the cartoons’ publication in Denmark without publishing them. It is possible, for instance, to editorialise about pornography without publishing pornographic pictures.”

In the days that followed, the newspaper ran an apology, held conversations with Muslim students and promised more complete, nuanced coverage on the issue. “We need to start fixing our image,” said Shira Weissman, one of two interim editors in chief of the paper in Gorton’s absence. “We’re being viewed as being hateful.”

But among students interviewed, many said they were angry not because the newspaper had published the images but because it was now doubting that choice.

“I was absolutely crushed to see that the editors were removed,” said Cody Kay, 18. “What happened to freedom of speech? If we start saying we can’t look at things, what’s next? Our books?”

Under the heading “The Daily Disgrace – a dark day for journalism in Champaign”, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn described the suspension of the two students as “a low moment for American journalism and the academy.

“Editors make tough calls on controversial issues all the time. The day they start fearing for their jobs if they don’t come down on the popular or most sensitive side of an issue is the day we can all stop congratulating ourselves on our traditions of freedom of the press.”