« | »

Yale Bows To Islam, Censors Book

From those defenders (and fearers) of the faith at the Associated Press:

Yale criticized for nixing Muslim cartoons in book

By John Christoffersen, Associated Press Writer Tue Sep 8

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

"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…

"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 last week. She said scholarly reviewers and Yale’s publication committee comprised of faculty recommended the cartoons be included…

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

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."

How can you publish a book about the cartoon riots, without showing the cartoons?

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

That is a new definition of censorship. In fact, it would make the term practically meaningless, since anything censored is almost always available in some other place. No matter how inaccessible.

Speaking of which, we can’t help but notice that the Associated Press and the rest of our courageous media managed to report this news without any accompanying photos of the cartoons in question.

And the original cartoons themselves are getting to be harder and harder to find on the internet.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, September 8th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

13 Responses to “Yale Bows To Islam, Censors Book”

  1. ilzito guacamolito says:

    Religion of Peace, huh?

    • Colonel1961 says:

      Indeed. Very, very peaceful violence. ‘May we please saw off your infidel head?’

      See how peaceful that was? Didn’t hurt a bit!

  2. GL0120 says:

    Had the cartoons lampooned Bush, Yale wouldn’t have had a problem at all.

  3. proreason says:

    There are 3 guarantees in life: death, taxes, and libwit cowardice

  4. GetBackJack says:

    Yale University is named after Elihu Yale (1649-1721) a governor-general of the British East India Company who began smuggling opium into China in 1773. A prolific opportunist and “trader” Elihu Yale made a fantastic fortune in the opium trade (ruining men’s souls), and after gifting substantial sums to found a college, the university was named for him. Cotton Mather of all people suggested so. Opium and Yale.

    Do you think God is amused?

    If Yale is proud of its heritage of enslavement, corruption, degradation, exploitation, racketeering, venality, indecency and the vicious vulgarity of covering China by force with the horror of drug addiction, then it shouldn’t be any surprise that a little dust up over Islam would disturb their globalist interpretation of Christianity. (seeing as it was founded supposedly to train clergy and political leaders for our new colony.) Following its transformation in the 1930s into a “research” institution, it’s true purpose is no longer cloaked in the mufti of religion.

    Yale. Bah. I wouldn’t soil myself with their idea of education.

  5. cerberus6 says:

    “Yale and Yale University Press are deeply committed to freedom of speech and expression”

    Obviously not so committed that they can’t be cowed by as yet unspoken threats from those peaceful, loveable “militants”. Self censorship is the result of successful censorship. Jihadists are waging a successful campaign of censorship and this is a great example. Meanwhile these same high minded intellectuals deride the military who actually risk their lives for this freedom and all our other freedoms.

    “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…

    So are they suggesting that violence that takes the lives of “guilty” victims is ok if those victims did not censor their speech?

    This is so pathetic – these elites talk all sorts of trash but when there is even a whiff of confrontation they all run up the white underpants and start with the excuses and explanations.

    Don’t most Ivy academics go for that whole Islam, religion of peace thing and all cultures are of equal value? So what are they worrying about?

    Did Yale really consult counterterrorism officials? Does that mean they are worried about returning Vets going gonzo over the cartoons – after all, according to about everyone in government and the media all those Muslims running around beheading people, blowing themselves up and generally creating mayhem around the world are simply “Militants”. Any American citizen that disagrees with the government, the Progressive Party or about anything else is considered a possible Terrorist. So what gives? Cartoon Terrorists?

    • Helena says:

      “This is so pathetic – these elites talk all sorts of trash but when there is even a whiff of confrontation they all run up the white underpants and start with the excuses and explanations.”

      Soooo true. And as neocon mom points out, we all remember the deaths that followed the “piss christ” flap – not. The daring, crusading, free-thinking left is so quick to champion iconoclasts – if they’re attacking and mocking civilized, peaceful Christians who won’t fight back except with words. But if they go after the people who need mocking most – irrational, barbaric, violent muslims – they never say a mumblin’ word, just dig deeper into their burrows. They want free speech at any cost, unless they have to pay for it.

  6. JohnMG says:

    ……..”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.”……..

    Clear threat of violence and loss of life??!!! When?! Where?! By whom?!

    And this little gem. …..”It said the university consulted counterterrorism officials, diplomats and the top Muslim official at the United Nations…….”

    What would any sane person expect as an opinion when asking a muslim official anything pertaining to the “religion of peace”? The world of academia is populated with ball-less idiots!!!!!!!

    How about some sources and attribution for these obvious lies? And if you DO have names, then isn’t ‘threats of violence and loss of life’ a criminal offense? Oh, Right! They’re just protecting the confidentiality of their sources, huh? That sacred trust so that journalistic integrity may be maintained. Bullshit!!

  7. neocon mom says:

    “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.”

    Right, it’s acceptable and reasonable for people to be mad enough to kill over a drawing of a dead prophet.

    There are bomb threats every day in school and other buildings across the country and world. There have been school massacres all over the globe, from a kindergarten in Dunblane, Scotland to an elementary school in Beslan, Russia, too many public schools here and even in a private Amish school in rural Nickel Mines, PA. Wouldn’t it be prudent to stop sending our children to school following this same logic? And we should definitely presume that convenience stores, liquor stores and banks also provoke violence.

    I don’t recall any violence over the vastly more offensive “The Piss Christ” anywhere. And there been any, would the American left insist that the painting be censored and that no more Jesus art in the intestinal elimination medium (surefire way to an “A” in college level art class) be on display?

  8. Tater Salad says:

    Do you want Sharia Law to replace the Untied States Constitution??

    They have arrived and are being allowed to assemble in the United States.

    http://www.investigativeproject.org/1100/hizb-ut-tahrir-shariah-takes-precedence-over-us

    Is the attached video Sharia Law also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wC-lwbxSYKs

  9. Liberals Demise says:

    Once (y)ale bends over … that is the way it will stay before force to its’ knees by the same religion it first feared to upset.
    Serves them right!!

    Yale Mosque …………. Higher learning for the jihadist in the family!

  10. Az Zaqqum says:

    Fear of FATWA-ITIS!

    “The Humor of Islam…you’ll die laughing”

    The title is a twist on a sharia law that forbids laughing too much…which made me laugh too much. So far, no one DIED!

    http://www.thehumorofislam.com

    They should publish the book!

    Az Zaqqum…an American with guts!

  11. Oldclimber says:

    A correction is due, they are “waving their white (frilly panties)”, and that is just the men. Haven’t they even the courage to scrap the book, given they don’t have the courage to publish key elements of the book’s purpose? Have they become so “old womanish”, in an academic cloister of other “old women”, that they can’t see how ridiculous this IS to those of us non-cloistered? Perhaps they need to publish a manual or two like “Islamic Fraternization” or “How to Present to an Alpha Islamic Male”. It seems more in their line. Please forgive my crudity, but “they”, are inviting “them”, to have at “us”, to satisfy whatever the barbaric tenets have been rightfully or wrongfully wrung from that disputed source, the Koran. Whatever. It is not a line of violence that I, or anyone else that I have ever heard of here in the US, has drawn in the sand. It was drawn over there. And that is where it should stay.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »