The Yale University Press is dedicated to principles of independence, academic freedom and scholarship; it adheres steadfastly to those principles without fear or favor; without regard to whether its actions cause anger, adverse comment or praise. Its honorable decision to publish The Cartoons That Shook the World minus a reproduction of the actual cartoons demonstrates YUP's fearless adherence to its principles.
YUP is to be commended for its willingness to court popular criticism. Few publishers of significance would be willing to risk outrage of the sort engendered by publication of only a bowdlerized version of the cartoon book. In an August 14, 2009 press release announcing its decision, YUP modestly declined to acknowledge that its courageous goal was to stimulate such criticism and thereby to encourage the sort of freedom of expression it well knew would be directed against it. Instead, it took the much-disputed position that its decision was made to promote public safety.
After careful consideration, the Press has declined to reproduce the September 30, 2005, Jyllands-Posten newspaper page that included the cartoons, as well as other depictions of the Prophet Muhammad that the author proposed to include.
The original publication in 2005 of the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad led to a series of violent incidents, and repeated violent acts have followed republication as recently as June 2008, when a car bomb exploded outside the Danish embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, killing eight people and injuring at least thirty. The next day Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the bombing, calling it revenge for the "insulting drawings."
Republication of the cartoons—not just the original printing of them in Denmark—has repeatedly resulted in violence around the world. More than two hundred lives have been lost, and hundreds more have been injured. It is noteworthy that, at the time of the initial crisis over the cartoons in 2005–2006, the New York Times, Washington Post, and Boston Globe declined to print them, as did every major newspaper in the United Kingdom.
Despite this self-effacing explanation, it should be obvious that YUP's motivation had nothing to do with public safety; the chances of violent attacks against YUP, or even Yale University as a whole, resulting from publication of the already widely seen three year old cartoons in a scholarly volume, likely to be read by few, are laughably remote. Any suggestion that the copious free publicity for YUP certain to result from its decision was a motivating factor must also be rejected. YUP does not need publicity, good or bad. It is already one of the top thousand or so academic book publishing companies in the United States and would be shocked at the prospect of massive demand for one of its learned books. YUP fears the publication of a bestseller as the gods fear Sarah Palin. Even more ludicrous is the mean-spirited charge that Yale University was motivated by a desire for financial assistance from such Islamic countries as Saudi Arabia. YUP doubtless has plenty of money, and the thought that Yale University might stoop to such mercenary thoughts is unthinkable.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ruvy
So Dan,
Did they publish this review at the Yalie Daily (this is really what the idiots call their paper? Feh!!)?
And BTW, what was YOUR nickname in the Skull & Bones society?
Best,
Ruvy
2 - Dan(Miller)
Ruvy, Skull & Bones? What's that? Something to do with Halloween?
The Yalie Daily is the nickname lovingly given the to Yale Daily News by the inmates.
Dan(Miller)
3 - Clavos
"We are poor little lambs
Who have lost our way,
Baa, baa, baa..."
Parenthetical Dan, it's good to see your excellent scribbling back on these pages once more; however fleeting the experience may be...
4 - Baronius
Chief Justice Roberts was recently asked if the elite backgrounds of the Justices made them out of touch with the average person. He answered: "First of all, I disagree with your premise. Not all of the justices went to elite institutions; some went to Yale."
5 - Dr Dreadful
While I agree that the decision to publish the book without including the cartoons is more than a smidge ludicrous (it reminds me of that not-too-long-departed era when libraries would stock sex manuals but censor the illustrations), I don't really buy the free speech argument here.
Yale is a private educational institution, not a state university, correct? And anyway, isn't their decision not to engage in what they evidently see as offensive speech just as much a protected right?
So: stupid - yes. Foul - no.
6 - Henrik R Clausen
This is irony, right?
There's no courage in not doing the obvious due to fear of the repercussions.
7 - Dan(Miller)
Doc, I don't think I suggested that YUP had violated the U.S. Constitution. It can decline to publish whatever it pleases for whatever reason or lack of reason it wishes.
I do think that its action makes a mockery of "Yale’s official opinion . . . that 'the history of intellectual growth and discovery clearly demonstrates the need for unfettered freedom, the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.'"
Of course, I realize that the thinking behind YUP's action was nobly to encourage criticism of Yale, and thereby to encourage the exercise of free speech, as suggested. On the other hand, it is possible that encouraging Yalies to "discuss the unmentionable" simply had reference to undergarments.
Dan(Miller)
Giggles, bites tongue and exits unable to decide whether to laugh or cry
8 - Clavos
I disagree, Doc.
Constitutional issues aside, the very bedrock of education is (or should be, particularly in an elite school) the free and unfettered interchange of ideas, even at "private institutions."
9 - Dan(Miller)
Clav, Clav Oh Clav -- Where have you been? I hope you are not suggesting that the well known Constitutional provisions mandating political correctness be ignored! Just think of the unthinkable results: gasp! Just trying to think of them gives me the willies.
Dan(Miller)
Shakes uncontrollably and tries unsuccessfully to stumble away to a better universe where such unmentionable notions are never mentioned.
10 - zingzing
it is rather ridiculous to put out a book about controversial cartoons then leave out the most controversial (and deadly) cartoon in recent memory.
that said, if i were the publisher of this book, i'd leave them out as well. i wouldn't want any deaths hanging over my head.
it's a sticky issue, and although they took the coward's way, it must also be said that the cartoons themselves aren't particularly complex, so a written description of the cartoons (i trust they are covered in the book) does suffice. also, if you really want to see them, you're a few mouse clicks away. (exactly two, plus a little typing. i checked.)
of course, the news last month that an arab group in the netherlands is currently in court over a cartoon (which questions the holocaust) just makes this whole flap more ridiculous.
11 - Clavos
that said, if i were the publisher of this book, i'd leave them out as well. i wouldn't want any deaths hanging over my head.
That's the wrong way to look at it. No publisher of those cartoons has yet killed anybody. Islamic Jihadist terrorists have.
Acquiescing to their demands in the face of threats and terrorist acts just encourages and emboldens them; what should happen instead is the world (including peaceful Muslims) should join forces to hunt them down and put them on trial for war crimes.
12 - zingzing
clavos: "That's the wrong way to look at it. No publisher of those cartoons has yet killed anybody. Islamic Jihadist terrorists have."
well, that's A way to look at it, that's for sure. another way to look at it is that by publishing the cartoons, there will be riots/bombings and people will die (or at least that's what happened in the past). no matter who is truly at fault, people are still dead. to walk around that reasoning is ridiculous.
why you want to give terrorists more reason (even if the reason is rather unreasonable) to hate and kill, i don't know.
"Acquiescing to their demands in the face of threats and terrorist acts just encourages and emboldens them."
you know, i'm beginning to doubt the wisdom of this reasoning. in the face of such reasoning, we go and kill and bomb (with much more efficiency) and we take part in this cultural/religious conflict.
you're taking the same tough-guy pose they take and that's why we're at war. a little diplomacy and a little give and take would go a long way. but that can't happen as we (and they) continue to kill. to continue down this path is just going to lead us into unending war without rules.
"what should happen instead is the world (including peaceful Muslims) should join forces to hunt them down and put them on trial for war crimes."
you act as if this is even a possibility. this isn't conventional war. there isn't a conventional enemy. the rules have changed (actually they just completely left the building). what you want to happen will not and can not.
13 - Clavos
why you want to give terrorists more reason (even if the reason is rather unreasonable) to hate and kill, i don't know.
Because the alternative is to let them win.
you act as if this is even a possibility. this isn't conventional war. there isn't a conventional enemy. the rules have changed (actually they just completely left the building). what you want to happen will not and can not.
OK. Let them have their way then. Don't publish the cartoons, or anything else they don't want published or said, let them do whatever they want to, just as long as they don't kill anybody if opposed.
That's plain fucking dumb, zing. You think that will satisfy them? You really think "a little give and take" is all they want?
You really are naive, man.
14 - zingzing
clavos: "Because the alternative is to let them win."
no it isn't. if they have no reason to hate and kill, it's called peace. at least i assume that's what we all want... and jesus christ, as long as it all ends in peace, i don't give a fuck who wins or loses.
"OK. Let them have their way then. Don't publish the cartoons, or anything else they don't want published or said, let them do whatever they want to, just as long as they don't kill anybody if opposed."
you don't need to publish them again. they're published. permanently. on the internet. you can go find them very easily. i did today. is every second of the day that i'm not publishing the cartoons a victory for terrorism? no... is publishing the cartoons on glossy paper just to prove a point worth one single life? no.
"That's plain fucking dumb, zing. You think that will satisfy them? You really think "a little give and take" is all they want?"
what is it that they want then? i think they'll stop targeting us if we stop targeting them. simple enough. we've been the aggressor before. all over oil. our military is all over the middle east. you think we'd stand for it if they occupied our country? so why do you think we can occupy theirs without them attacking back? it's mind-boggling.
"You really are naive, man."
nah, i just don't agree that we have to go pissing them off or they win, or we have to bomb the hell out of them and kill 100s of thousands of people or they win, or we have to destroy every last one of them or they win. if i'm naive, you're a paranoid, warmongering, genocidal chickenhawk.
15 - Ruvy
i think they'll stop targeting us if we stop targeting them. simple enough.
It's obvious you know nothing about the Wahhabi - and more important, you don't want to know! So, I will not waste my time explaining at all. I would never wish such an evil upon you, but if some Wahhabi fanatic were to slit your throat, in your dying moments, you might begin to understand - not that it would do you any good.
That makes far you worse than naïve. As I said, zing, you learned absolutely nothing from living in Brooklyn. What a waste of time on a young man who wants to learn nothing!
16 - Clavos
if they have no reason to hate and kill...
zing, have you ever looked into what they teach in the Madrassas?
It's HOLY war, zing, it's not over oil, or troops in the Middle East, it's a movement to eradicate everyone who is not a believer!
They are not pissed off at us because of what we do, we are "infidels," we don't toe the line on their BELIEFS. Their motivation transcends mere revenge, they are intent on eradicating us.
The violence and killing in response to the cartoons doesn't give you pause, zing? Would Catholics or Buddhists or Jews react that way to caricatures of their prophets?
I don't think so.
17 - zingzing
ruvy: "That makes far you worse than naïve. As I said, zing, you learned absolutely nothing from living in Brooklyn. What a waste of time on a young man who wants to learn nothing!"
oh, shut the hell up, ruvy. just because i'm not all worried about the evils of the world in the way you are, and not one ounce of me is afraid of getting my throat slit means i'm probably more likely actually learning about stuff that's actually useful rather than stock-piling weapons and hatred. i just don't want to know what it's like to be you. so i don't find it a waste.
18 - zingzing
clavos: "It's HOLY war, zing, it's not over oil, or troops in the Middle East, it's a movement to eradicate everyone who is not a believer!"
ha. follow the money, you'll find who wants you to believe that. you'll find the people that want those who actually believe in that holy war to believe that as well. at the root of this is money and power, not anything holy.
"They are not pissed off at us because of what we do, we are "infidels," we don't toe the line on their BELIEFS. Their motivation transcends mere revenge, they are intent on eradicating us."
great. so we have to eradicate them, eh? wow. who's the bad guy here? you're just as duped as they are.
"The violence and killing in response to the cartoons doesn't give you pause, zing? Would Catholics or Buddhists or Jews react that way to caricatures of their prophets?"
no, but why should they when they can just invade and bomb the fuck out of arab countries. yay! we're so GOOOOOD.
you do realize that your attitude makes you the same as them, right? that attitude is going to do nothing but create continual war. it's ridiculous and stupid.
sigh. haven't we all had this argument before? you're not going to change my mind and make me think that killing is the answer here. and i also believe that this thing isn't beyond hope.
19 - Ruvy
Clavos,
Don't waste your hard earned wisdom or time on fools who refuse to pay attention to you. Those here who are willing to comprehend who and what the Wahhabi are, and just what kind of hateful trash they teach will learn and learn well - so long as they understand concomitantly that not ALL Muslims are Wahhabi, and not all Muslims are impressed with the hateful shit the Wahhabi teach.
But some idiots will never learn, Clavos. They'll continue to spout bullshit and spout bullshit - think of the guys who try to buy yachts off of you who can't really afford them but whose egos are at least as big as the yachts they are looking at. No matter how low you set the price, they'll try to knock you lower.
It's analogous, pal, analogous.
20 - Clavos
great. so we have to eradicate them, eh?
The terrorists? Before they eradicate us? Unequivocally, YES.
you do realize that your attitude makes you the same as them, right?
You do realize that your attitude will make you dead, right?
21 - zingzing
clavos: "The terrorists? Before they eradicate us? Unequivocally, YES."
and what's the best way to get rid of them? kill people willy-nilly until they're all dead? oh wait, that's what produces them... so there will always be more that way. what we need to get rid of is the reason why they exist. unfortunately, killing people won't get us there. we need to get rid of TERRORISM.
"You do realize that your attitude will make you dead, right?"
unfortunately, i think it's your attitude that will make me dead. my attitude might actually allow a whole lot of people to live (and that includes me). my attitude says you are just as much a problem as they are. your attitude just continues this shit.
22 - zingzing
ruvy, you do realize that the shit you spout is a large part of the reason why the wahhabi exist in the first place, right? and why they continue to hold such power and such sway over their followers.
i'm not saying that terrorists aren't a problem. i'm not saying they need to be dealt with. i'm just saying that your method ("kill them before they kill us") will never resolve itself. you CAN'T kill them all because by killing one, you create another. what you suggest produces endless war, which is, i hope, not what you intend.
23 - zingzing
hrm. "i'm not saying they DON'T need to be dealt with."
24 - Ruvy
zingzing, [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor].
The Wahhabi existed long before my asshole spouted any shit (58 years ago), and long before I had an opinion on anything (53 years ago). They started to kill fellow Arabs in Nejd in the 1700's and THEY EXIST IN POWER IN THE 1920's BECAUSE AN AMERICAN ASSHOLE FROM CONNECTICUT NAMED PRESCOTT BUSH, THE LATE UNLAMENTED FATHER OF GEORGE H.W. BUSH, GAVE THEM MONEY TO CONQUER THE ARABIAN PENINSULA.
Nothing I have said created the attitudes of the Wahhabi when they took over the ikhwán muslemí in the 1920's. They had had those attitudes for over 200 years. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]
25 - Ruvy
BTW zing,
If we have to nuke the Persians or the Arabs now, it's because you American[s] [Edited] didn't do it 2001, like you were supposed to.
You Americans are a bunch of moralizing cowards who deserve the shit Obama is feeding you, and who deserve to be sold down the river and flushed down the toilet of history.