TWO contradicting and intriguing phenomena came to my attention last week. The first was the dedication of a monument to the First Amendment on the Downtown Mall. The monument is essentially just a wall on which visitors are encouraged to write whatever they want. It is a beautiful and courageous show of faith in freedom and an open market of ideas. The week also bore witness to an attack on that freedom in the form of a call for increased censorship in The Cavalier Daily. Specifically, some students criticized the paper for printing a comic that it saw as offensive to Hindus. The criticism is undue, and the paper's Managing Board should be applauded for its refusal to apologize in the face of protest.
The comic itself, the April 14 installment of "TCB," may have been offensive. That is not the issue. Offensive content is a staple of Cavalier Daily cartoons. On April 11, "TCB" mocked Jesus' crucifixion, offending Christian students. There was a response, but it was not as widespread as the outrage over the cartoon that poked fun at a Hindu deity.
The pattern of offensive comic followed by outrage from a minority group has been constant this year. On April 13, "Redux" poked fun at Mormons, provoking criticism in the form of letters to the editor. That event occurred less than two weeks after the same strip came under fire for mocking the prophet Mohammed, a comic for which The Cavalier Daily eventually apologized. Last semester, the comic "Self-Proclaimed" caused indignation after insulting the University's own deity, Mr. Jefferson. The comic's reference to slavery offended African-American students, although I never understood why.
In light of these episodes, the Managing Board of The Cavalier Daily felt the need to explain the process of approving a questionable comic in the lead editorial this past Monday. The policy that they expounded was both responsible and just. Naturally, the paper will not publish anything false, nor will it publish direct attacks at a specific group for anything other than their opinions or actions. Since the comic is a work of fiction, the first criterion does not apply. Religion, the editorial correctly argued, is an opinion and is open to both criticism and ridicule. This policy rightly errs on the side of freedom, a goal for which the press should strive.
Critics of the "TCB" comic and the other offensive comics often claim that the cartoons are not even funny. It as if many believe that an offensive comic is less offensive if it is also funny. It is safe to say, however, that if The Cavalier Daily only printed funny comics, the Comics page would consist most days of a Jumble, crossword puzzle and Sudoku. As Monday's lead editorial stated, the comic artists' sense of humor "will always be a mystery." Perhaps, following the lead of television shows like "South Park" and "Family Guy," the artists have decided that offensiveness is inherently funny.
A point central to most of the criticisms is that religious beliefs must be respected. The claim is tied into the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion. However, the Constitution does not insist on respect for any religion. It states that the government may not impose religion on its citizens, but it also allows citizens to say whatever they want about the religions of others, including what may be considered heresy. It was intended to allow citizens to question religious authority without fear, but it reserves no special treatment for minority groups, which is what some are implicitly demanding.
That the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech does not mean that The Cavalier Daily was required to print the offensive comics, of course, but the paper should not censor their artists or writers based on possible offensiveness. In his letter to the editor printed on April 19 ("A heretical comic"), Aadit Bimbhet argued that "a line must be drawn somewhere."
Freedom of speech, however, means that no lines are drawn. It is too easy to imagine true political expression being stifled in the name of political correctness to allow for any censorship on those grounds. The Opinion, Life and Comics sections of The Cavalier Daily exist in part to give students something to talk about. If an offensive comic or column serves to spark debate, it can only be viewed as a good thing.
The monument downtown has no rules regarding what can be written on it. One can insult or praise whatever god, minority group or politician one wishes. If the town of Charlottesville can be so sure of the value of free speech, certainly we at Mr. Jefferson's University can be equally convicted. Let us not be so afraid to "tolerate any error" that we risk sacrificing our freedoms -- and printing a boring, politically correct newspaper in the process.
Daniel Colbert's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at dcolbert@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 3 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 4 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
