On publishing the cartoon
As I discussed yesterday, The Badger Herald decided to run one of the controversial Danish cartoons in its Monday edition. It was one of the most difficult decisions I have made as editor in chief of the paper, and one I maintain to have been proper.
Today, as the reaction to this decision seems to have worked through campus 24 hours later, Chancellor John Wiley issued a fair and decent statement on our editorial decision. In part, he notes:
Predictably, this action has brought home to Madison, Wisconsin, and to the university community, the same visceral, emotional response reported by the international media during the past several days. People that we all know, work with and study with are hurt, scarred by what they believe to be a senseless prolongation of an intentionally insensitive, racist and distorted commentary on the very foundation of one of the world's great religions. Understandably, those offended desire redress - apologies, retractions and, perhaps most importantly, a sense of communal condemnation. They see no justification for speech they perceive to have been hateful in character, injurious not only to their sense of place in the broader fabric of society, but to their spiritual selves.I have been interviewed by a number of news outlets this evening and will provide links to the appropriate stories as they become available. For now, though, one thing I want to re-emphasize is that this was a difficult decision on the part of both myself and the rest of the Badger Herald editorial board. It was not something we did lightly or without due meditation. However, it is a decision that I will continue to defend.
This is not the first time that the swords of speech and controversy have clashed on this campus, and, most assuredly, it will not be the last. Most often, the disputes have involved charges of racial, ethnic or religious insensitivity, even hostility - not unlike the situation today. But any review of these disputes demonstrates a common finding: that the public controversies which ensued represent, together, a perfect embodiment of unrestricted speech in a free society, in which all views on a given subject were given equal weight and attention, aired so that every individual could form his or her own opinions. Then, as now, it should never be routine to recall that this university has for more than 100 years championed the cause of free and open debate, the "fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found," and that an increasingly complex world requires this standard more than ever.
I am now receiving a stream of letters (yes, letters to the editor do still go to the editor – I'm not sure how many papers that remains true of) and appreciate the sentiment behind each and every one of them. This is the sort of informed, intelligent debate I always hope to encourage and a rather shining example of the free speech we sought to promote by running this cartoon. Moreover, the Herald is dedicated to publishing as many reasonable responses as we can, within our spatial restrictions. A number of letters will be running in tomorrow's paper.
Again, I'll provide links and, where necessary, analysis, as this continues to unfold.
4 Comments:
Mac,
I was glad to see the BH published the cartoons, but I was very surprised to see Wiley's comments on it. I must say, the whole press release from the Chancellor's office may not have been "fair and decent," at least in my opinion.
This was one of the hardest decisions you have ever made...right. I'm actually sure it was an easy one for you to make. The BH staff simply likes attention, they knew the attention they would get from this and are now enjoying it. Any paper could have printed and I don't think you proved anything by doing it other than wanting to spark a contraversy here on campus. I think you and the Editorial Board did this to get your own personal gratification out of it and nothing more. Students on this campus could have seen the cartoons if they so pleased. Get over the heroric victory you think you have accomplished and start publishing articles with real information not willowy opinions just to see how much you really can piss people off.
Free speech? The defense of free speech "pisses you off"?
Now, I'm not speaking for the BH, but it seems as though the publication of the cartoon was not b/c of controversy. Yes, students could see it elsewhere, and yes, any other paper could have printed it--problem is, they are not.
By refusing to print them, those newspapers are allowing Islamic fundamentalists to dictate what is allowed in our society and what is not.
The BH decided not to let them tell us what we can and cannot say or print, and in my opinion, stood w/ the Danes as they are being violently attacked.
"Contraversy"?
Who the hell are these people???
Post a Comment
<< Home