LAST WEEK, The Cavalier Daily published at least six comics that made light of people's religious beliefs and practices. Among them were one showing Jesus doing stand-up comedy on the cross and one implying that God had told Mary he'd had a vasectomy. And those caused no little trouble.
"There was no point to the comics except to mock Christianity," Alex Cortes told me. And he's not the only one angry about those cartoons. The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights issued a statement Friday encouraging offended Christians to write to Editor-in-Chief Elizabeth Mills and, since then, Mills has received hundreds of e-mails, she said. I've gotten many, too. And there has been so much extra traffic on The Cavalier Daily's Web site from people looking at the cartoons, Mills told me, that they had to be taken down so that the rest of the newspaper's content would be available to its regular online readership.
The cartoonists have declined comment.
The Catholic League and others have suggested that The Cavalier Daily was operating on a double standard: that it was treating Christians worse than it would treat minorities. But in fact last week's comics pages included cartoons mocking Islam and Scientology as well as Christianity.
Mills, herself a Christian, told me she was among those offended by the cartoons -- and she had the final say in whether to print them. But she was the only editor in the chain looking at them who felt that way, and she believed that the cartoons were within the bounds of the newspaper's existing cartoon-censorship policy. So she approved them. Now, however, she says, the newspaper is going to review that policy.
There is cause for concern there. A newspaper -- and especially one published by students at Mr. Jefferson's University -- should be a bastion of free speech. To refuse a forum to any expression merely because it draws a hostile response is a dangerous precedent, and it is even more dangerous to back away from expression the newspaper has already published. One of Mills's concerns is that floods of e-mail, phone calls and Web hits can interfere with the operations of the newspaper. Potential critics of the newspaper should not be invited to think that they can force The Cavalier Daily to refuse to publish anything they find offensive -- including important news and serious analysis -- by inundating the editors with e-mail and phone calls, or by using up the Web site's bandwidth.
At the same time, the newspaper should not have to take extreme risks for insignificant content. And although some comics, including some that offend many readers, have serious things to say, many of the most offensive comics do not. I, for one, can see no serious content in the Crucifixion cartoon, and not much in the Mary one. That doesn't mean they have no place on the Internet, or that some other publication should not print them, but they are not worthwhile for The Cavalier Daily. A serious newspaper should spend its resources on serious matters.
Cortes argued that offensive cartoons should not be published unless they have "a redeeming quality or message." That standard would invite editors to judge comics on whether they promote messages the editors find positive, and one of the virtues of the present policy is that it explicitly rejects viewpoint discrimination. The comics page, like the opinion page, should be available even for viewpoints with which the editors disagree -- and even for work the editors find offensive.
But Cortes is on the right track, to this extent: If offensive material is going to appear in a serious newspaper, it should have serious value. The traditions of the University and of serious journalism rightly call The Cavalier Daily to promote a vigorous, fearless quest for truth -- but the same traditions also rightly call the ladies and gentlemen of The Cavalier Daily to consider civility. In the service of truth, they should not be afraid to offend, but that does not mean they should be eager to cause gratuitous offense.
As a means of avoiding gratuitous offense, I suggest that comic artists be asked to give written explanations of potentially offensive comics to their editors along with the comics. The comics, together with these statements, could then be judged on whether the cartoon is intended as a meaningful contribution to public discourse -- whether it makes arguments or raises questions, whether it invites us to look at important matters from a different perspective. If a comic has no other purpose than to hurt people, it doesn't belong in these pages. But when it comes to good-faith efforts to contribute to the pursuit of truth, the comics page should take its inspiration from an old newspaper motto:
"Without or with offense to friends or foes,
I sketch the world exactly as it goes."
Alexander R. Cohen is The Cavalier Daily's ombudsman. He can reached at ombud@cavalierdaily.com.
Editor's note: Editor-in-Chief Elizabeth Mills did not edit this column, as it contains her quotation.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | 2 days agoRetirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | 2 days agoMy time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | 3 days agoMy time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
