COLLEGE journalism, admittedly, occurs mostly within the realm of reporting foul cafeteria food and fierce criticism leveled against ISIS or President John T. Casteen, III.Occasionally, however, we have both capability and circumstance to affirm an important ideal. Acton Gorton, former editor of the Daily Illini, had such a point, but he barely kept his job long enough to make it.
Gorton was "dismissed" after the Daily Illini, the student-run newspaper of the University of Illinois, republished the Danish cartoons that kindled the inferno of Muslim violence and deadly attacks on foreign embassies earlier this year.
Almost reflexively, I'm tempted to churn out another polemic championing free speech. But the arguments concerning free expression tend to orbit around the same simplistic point. Free speech is swell, Muslim fanatics and Molotov cocktails, less so. But amidst that piercing commentary, another argument endures.
Newspapers not only have the obligation to defend free speech, they have the privilege (some may think it duty) to mock religion in all its contemptible forms. (And if you ever needed reasons to mock Islam, the cartoon scandal offered a gracious plenty.)
Most of the commentary on the cartoon scandal dwells within the issue of free speech, which morphs into discussions on cultural relativism, which segues to talks about Islamic culture, which produces forums on tolerance, which serve punch and cookies while the participants mull over the virtues of diversity -- all the while ignoring the subtle issue: Religion ought to be ridiculed intelligently, satirized shamelessly and mocked incessantly.
I say this, not out of bitterness or scorn, but to affirm a fundamental principle of free society: No institution should be beyond criticism.
However, there is an invisible but crushing fear of mocking Islam that does not exist for other satire. If a television show, for instance, cast Lil' Kim to play the Virgin Mary in a nativity scene (once she's released from prison, obviously), I doubt the other actors would fear for their lives. For their careers, perhaps. Certainly they could expect some venomous e-mails, but fear of bombings and assassinations would be absent from their moral lexicon. And so they should be.
When millions of English majors read Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, and encounter Shylock -- a moneylender intended to personify vicious anti-Semitic stereotypes -- very few issue death warrants against their professors. Nor does Israel demand a pound of flesh in exchange for the insult.
However -- perhaps you can see where I'm going with this -- Salman Rushdie and the Jyllands-Posten newspaper in Denmark can attest to another religion sometimes lacking a sense of humor. When Rushdie published his novel, "The Satanic Verses," in 1988, Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini issued adeath warrant and called upon all Muslims to murder Rushdie. (The fatwa is still in place today, and the Iranian state news agency has proclaimed that it will remain so permanently.)
When 12 blasphemous doodles enraged Muslims for portraying Muhammad, the apologists swarmed in droves. Respect Islamic culture, they begged. Be more sensitive to their religion! Nonsense. Like any and all religion, Islam deserves its proper share of disdain and mockery. Islam, like its counterparts, claims a monopoly on absolute truth, which almost implicitly denies the worth of criticism. Nevertheless, would-be critics should not be bullied by theocratic thuggery. This intimidation, however subtle, restricts free speech and weakens the forces of reason in a world besieged by religious tyranny.
Of course one ought not make such vulgar generalizations -- to propose that all Muslims feel this way, or that the few thousand protestors speak on behalf of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims is silly. But -- and here is the key point -- the 1.5 billion deserve criticism too, as do the remaining 4.5 billion non-Muslims. The cartoons, Shakespeare's plays, "The Satanic Verses" and my fictional rendition of the nativity all insist upon the right to criticize all religion, free from fear.
Fostering free expression requires more than the legal right to free speech. It requires possessors of minority opinions not to fear for their lives. In a sense, Acton Gorton was lucky -- he only lost his job. If his publication had been more "insensitively" timed, or published in another "less sensitive" part of the world, he might have lost a great deal more.
Thus, I urge The Cavalier Daily and any other student-run publications to print these cartoons to affirm that no religion is beyond critique. If any publication obliges (though I doubt any will), I will be the first to pick up a copy and congratulate you on behalf of blasphemes and infidels everywhere.
Dan Keyserling is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at dkeyserling@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: The future of Virginia is on the ballot this fall
By Ryan Williams | 2 days agoHence, voters must make it their top priority to think critically and closely as they decide who their ballot will support this fall.
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | 4 days agoStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | 5 days agoWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
