Christopher Hitchens' Slate column strikes me as quite right on this (emphasis and first link added):
The capitulation of Yale University Press to threats that hadn't even been made yet is the latest and perhaps the worst episode in the steady surrender to religious extremism -- particularly Muslim religious extremism -- that is spreading across our culture. A book called The Cartoons That Shook the World, by Danish-born Jytte Klausen, who is a professor of politics at Brandeis University, tells the story of the lurid and preplanned campaign of "protest" and boycott that was orchestrated in late 2005 after the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten ran a competition for cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed....
Yale University Press announced last week that it would go ahead with the publication of [The Cartoons That Shook the World, a book about the Mohammed cartoon controversy], but it would remove from it the 12 caricatures that originated the controversy. Not content with this, it is also removing other historic illustrations of the likeness of the Prophet, including one by Gustave Doré of the passage in Dante's Inferno that shows Mohammed being disemboweled in hell. (These same Dantean stanzas have also been depicted by William Blake, Sandro Botticelli, Salvador Dalí, and Auguste Rodin, so there's a lot of artistic censorship in our future if this sort of thing is allowed to set a precedent.) ...
Islamic art contains many examples... of paintings of the Prophet, and even though the Dante example is really quite an upsetting one, exemplifying a sort of Christian sadism and sectarianism, there has never been any Muslim protest about its pictorial representation in Western art.
If that ever changes, which one can easily imagine it doing, then Yale has already made the argument that gallery directors may use to justify taking down the pictures and locking them away. According to Yale logic, violence could result from the showing of the images -- and not only that, but it would be those who displayed the images who were directly responsible for that violence.
Let me illustrate: The Aug. 13 New York Times carried a report of the university press' surrender, which quoted its director, John Donatich, as saying that in general he has "never blinked" in the face of controversy, but "when it came between that and blood on my hands, there was no question." ...
It was bad enough during the original controversy, when most of the news media -- and in the age of "the image" at that -- refused to show the cartoons out of simple fear. But now the rot has gone a serious degree further into the fabric. Now we have to say that the mayhem we fear is also our fault, if not indeed our direct responsibility. This is the worst sort of masochism, and it involves inverting the honest meaning of our language as well as what might hitherto have been thought of as our concept of moral responsibility. Last time this happened, I linked to the Danish cartoons so that you could make up your own minds about them, and I do the same today. Nothing happened last time, but who's to say what homicidal theocrat might decide to take offense now. I deny absolutely that I will have instigated him to do so, and I state in advance that he is directly and solely responsible for any blood that is on any hands. He becomes the responsibility of our police and security agencies, who operate in defense of a Constitution that we would not possess if we had not been willing to spill blood -- our own and that of others -- to attain it. The First Amendment to that Constitution prohibits any prior restraint on the freedom of the press. What a cause of shame that the campus of Nathan Hale should have pre-emptively run up the white flag and then cringingly taken the blood guilt of potential assassins and tyrants upon itself.
As I mentioned before, I have some sympathy for entities that refuse to distribute the cartoons. I would not fault them too much for that judgment, though "[i]t seems to me that leading bookstores [in that instance, Borders and Waldenbooks], like leading universities, need to take some risks -- and, yes, even risks that involve potential risks to customers and employees -- in order to protect the marketplace of ideas that sustains them."
Yet framing it as a matter of trying to avoid having "blood on [their] hands" is, for the reasons Hitchens gives, deeply wrong, and dangerous, because it lends Yale's credibility to the theory that we have a moral imperative to shut up, not just that this is one tolerable option. The next time someone does decide to publish the cartoons, and thugs decide to react by rioting, the publisher can be told, "Even Yale University Press agrees that what you did leaves you with blood on your hands."
Is that the message that our leading academic institutions should be sending? Not just that it's so easy to force Americans into silence, but that the threat of criminal violence is enough to make us morally obligated to be silent?
Craven
-Gene
The true test is now shown: if it is speech the terrorists are willing to threaten harm to stop, then it should be stopped.
So, when do we get to see 'burkini's' required at Yale's pool ? And how long from there to requiring full hijab of all women on campus regardless of their beliefs 'to avoid offending muslims' ???
Just another case of liberal academia showing it's true 'backbone' IE 'none'. They're real good at yelling and screaming against the USA, when they know the police will be there to PROTECT them, not SILENCE them, but let there be the slightest actual danger or even hint of such, and they run like the scared rabbits they are.
The lesson, as always: follow the money.
Administrative heads often feel the need to peddle such self-serving lies, even when not one single person is going to believe them. Evidently these administrators are rewarded for maintaining these polite fictions; at least they keep doing it again and again.
I have never understood why the truth wouldn't serve these institutions better, especially when the real motives are reasonable or at least pardonable. But then, perhaps I don't have the requisite personality type to fill such a role.
... the anticipation of which is bound to have its own chilling effect.
Class, what is the lesson to be learned from this?
...right up until someone who might actually use that power...
... then it's just too dangerous.
Very interesting point. I'm generally against using the term "censorship" to describe failure to express something out of fear of economic retaliation etc., but I think this is different.
After all, the reason we protect the right to free speech against the state is that the state has something of a monopoly on the legitimate use (or at least initiation) of coercive force. We don't protect a right to free speech against private actors, because they are only allowed to "retaliate" to speech they don't like using non-coercive means. But where a private person or group uses threats of coercive force to suppress speech, is it not then analogous to government?
I would be interested in the views of the contibutors on this.
You Yalies out there?
Any of 'em?
Will the Jyllans-Posten (sp?) give someone limited rights to reproduce the cartoons, if credited, for this specific purpose, and if not commercially exploited?
Are the Dore illustrations public domain?
Could we see some fairly serious leafleting with this stuff, across the ideological spectrum?(ACLU? Libertarians? The folks who contribute to "Jihad-Watch", or whatever their name is?) with an explanation as to why?
At every major U?
Unfortunately the US, with its imperialist policies in Iraq and elsewhere, has handicapped itself in this discussion. So standing up for free speech against fundamentalist Islamists will look like more American arrogance and imperialism.. So other more neutral Western countries that will have to assume this responsibility.
But isn't that, in effect, the holding of the Hawaii Supreme Court in Touchette v. Ganal, which Prof. Volokh discussed earlier this month?
But that reminds of the funny South Park episode, where the Wheel of Fortune light-up board thing spells out:
N_GGERS
and the dialogue goes,
"The category is 'People Who Annoy You':"
"Well, I know it, but I don't think I should say it..."
"N*****s!" (*gasp*)
"Ohhh, naggers. Of course. Naggers."
But isn't that, in effect, the holding of the Hawaii Supreme Court in Touchette v. Ganal, which Prof. Volokh discussed earlier this month?
Seamus, I also thought first not of Yale's cowardice, but of their overly sensitive awareness, and probably warranted caution, about tort liability for terrorist actions....
Why would anybody object to that demonstratively objective statement? [end sarcasm]
Yes, and it's been damn near impossible to find any book by Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ramesh Ponnuru or Jonah Goldberg at any major bookstore. If you go to the Borders in downtown San Francisco, look for the employee with the dark-rim glasses and goatee and use the password "swordfish" -- he'll take you to the backroom where all the thoughtcrime books are.
Class, what is the lesson to be learned from this?
Some commenters on VC don't get out very much?
How often do academic administrators crack down hard on violence or threats of violence when their political sympathies lie with the perpetrators, and against the victims? How often do they fail to stand firmly in solidarity with the victims of threats--real or imagined--of violence, when their political sympathies lie with the (real or imagined) victims? Is the director of Yale University Press likely to sympathize more with radical Islamic clerics decrying insensitivity to Muslims, or with Danish cartoonists warning of the radical Muslim threat to Western freedoms? Do the math, folks...
How about "retting?" Same thing, really :-)
. . . and, I'm going to guess that most, other than academic bookstores, (and maybe Powell's and Cody's) stocked shelves with almost nothing from Yale's, or anyone else's, U. Press.
Frankly, HAD Yale published this thing uncut, they might actually get some major bookseller play!
Perhaps the big-box-books stocked not the "worst", but (in their view) the "best" "anti-Bush vitriol" because it sold quickly, perhaps because (unlike the Jyllans-Posten cartoons) some of it was actually pretty damn funny, though some was sophomoric. (I thought it was P.J. O'Rourke, back in his NatLamp days, who'd defined "sophomoric" as meaning "funny, but at my expense") As observed, they also stocked Coulter, who would need to rise to reach "sophomoric".
I can't imagine I will view anything they publish in the same light.
Donatich worries about "blood on his hands." Perhaps he should think about how much blood is on the hands of people like Neville Chamberlain.
The sticklers for usage here at the VC would probably insist on the word "putrefaction". Therefore, they'd rightly get upset at a monstrosity like "putrification". ;-)
(And make sure you use "liquefaction", too.)
Academia stopped leading years ago.
Could someone point me to an example of the steady surrender to non-muslim relegious extremism?
Edward Lunny wrote at 8.19.2009 9:30am:
Hmmm.
...nopqRSTwxyz
On the "disgust" theory, moving the bracketing out one notch, the (non)word "puqwification" has a nice Elmer Fudd ring to it.
Arm the employees. Much reduced risk. Harden the targets. Require Yale students to carry arms in defense of the University.
How about this? Threats didn't work, bombings and vandalism didn't work, but murdering a doctor finally did the trick.
There is a national religious movement in the United States dedicated, among other things, to abrogating a woman's right to self-defense. A stated goal is to force women to risk death rather than abort a foetus. A mainstream political party has allowed these religious extremists to gain enough power and influence to try to pass such legislation in several states.
The murder of Dr. Tiller is not unrelated to the demagoguery of this religious movement's leaders, and the quiet surrender of a once great political party to their demands.
I don't think he necessarily meant "putrification". That's an option for his intended word (or words), but I think he meant "pussification." But both work in this context. Perhaps he meant the stars are like those used in a search engine - he means any and all words that use the designated letters and the stars can be replaced with any letters to create words (made-up or otherwise) that fit the intended meaning. Let's start:
pussification - Yale has lost its balls.
putrification - Yale is a decaying corpse that smells.
punkification - Yale's board are a bunch of worthless brats.
puntification - Given the opportunity to score one for free speech, Yale punts.
pubeification - Yale's academia really want to be but are not yet adults.
puddification - Yale's academia are becoming pudding-headed.
Naturally, the stars are meant to express a wide-range of contempt towards Yale's decision.
" to abrogating a woman's right to self-defense. "...really ? You can provide a cite or evidence of any mainstream christian organization that advocates that women ,and women only, should be denied their right to defend themselves ?
" A stated goal is to force women to risk death rather than abort a foetus. " Force women to face death ? This statement is the definition of hysterical. Again a cite ? Evidence ? Your assertion is not evidence.
I'll risk supposing that you are referring to those whom are anti-abortion. You would equate those whom are so with islamic extremists whom treat women as so much chattel, whom routinely murder women to avenge the "honor" of the family, routinely murder female victims of rape, and actively subjegate women to suit the purpose of the patriarchal side of a family? Not to mention the treatment of appostates and infidels. This is what you believe to be ? If so, I would suggest that ,madam, you are batshit crazy.
The murder of Dr.Tiller and the actions of Rudolf et al, while despicable, do not reflect the majority. They do not reflect common occurance. And were/are news exactly because they were/are so out of the ordinary.
" Don't move the goalposts. "...again, project much ?
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.