More on NYU and the Caricatures

Eugene Volokh has been covering the controversy over NYU ordering the Objectivist Club not to show the famous Danish caricatures during a panel discussion about the Danish caricatures. Here's a link to all of his posts on the subject. Perhaps most importantly, he cites NYU's own policies that were clearly violated by their actions in this situation:

A. Commitment and Responsibilities of the University. New York University is committed to maintaining an environment where open, vigorous debate and speech can occur. This commitment entails encouraging and assisting University organizations that want to sponsor speakers as well as informing members of the University community who seek guidance concerning forms of protest against speakers. It may also involve paying for extraordinary security measures in connection with a controversial speaker. Consistent with these obligations, the University promulgates these Guidelines, which are intended to be applied without regard to the content of any proposed speaker's speech.

Why was this lofty rhetoric worth violating so blatantly in this situation? The answer can be found in this article in Inside Higher Ed from an NYU spokesman:

John Beckman, a spokesman for NYU, said that the university preferred to have the students choose not to display the cartoon, thus maintaining the ability to invite outside audience members. "The reason for our preference was that an important group in our Muslim community made it clear that they found the display of the cartoons deeply offensive," Beckman said.

So I suppose they need to revise their official school policies to say something quite different:

New York University is committed to maintaining an environment where open, vigorous debate and speech can occur, unless the content of that debate bothers "an important group in our Muslim community." This commitment entails encouraging and assisting University organizations that want to sponsor speakers as well as informing members of the University community who seek guidance concerning forms of protest against speakers, unless said protest is undertaken by an important group in our Muslim community. It may also involve paying for extraordinary security measures in connection with a controversial speaker. Consistent with these obligations, the University promulgates these Guidelines, which are intended to be applied without regard to the content of any proposed speaker's speech, unless, again, the content of that speech is objected to by an important group in our Muslim community."

Can you imagine, even for a moment, NYU declaring that a student group who wanted to have a panel discussion on anti-religious art that they could not show pictures of Serrano's Piss Christ because Campus Crusade for Christ finds it offensive? Or telling a group that had a conference on televangelists that they could not show a powerpoint slide of a cartoon making fun of Jimmy Swaggart? There is no meaningful difference here.

The Inside Higher Ed article further shows that the Muslim group was planning to protest if the caricatures were shown:

Student members of NYU's Islamic Center circulated e-mails planning a protest before the club decided not to go with the cartoons. Maheen Farooqi, president of the Islamic Center, said in an e-mail that "we at the Islamic Center are all for discourse and dialogue and we would encourage the Objectivist Club to partake in whatever discussion they would like." But any depiction of Muhammad is sacrilege in the Muslim faith, and the center did not think the cartoons were a necessary part of that discussion.

Farooqi added that the Islamic Center "would not encourage racism in any shape or form, and to us and many others, these cartoons are racist and we adamantly oppose their display."

But wait, didn't NYU say that they were so committed to the free exchange of ideas that they would even higher extra security to insure that an event could go on despite such protests? Well, they didn't really mean that. The Muslim group, of course, has every right to protest the showing of the caricatures. What they should not have been allowed to do, according to NYU's own stated principles, is stop them from being shown. The fact that NYU caved in so casually is bad enough. The fact that they caved in when they would never have done so in an analogous situation involving another religious group's offended sensibilities is absolutely shameful.

For a full report on the actual event, see this page on the FIRE website.

Tags

More like this

hypocritical shitheads

But I think it relates to the problems in the Democratic party. Unclear values.

How can simply depicting anyone be racist? Though some muslims claim to be deeply offended when the prophet is depicted, it has nothing to do with race because muslims are not a "race". Neither are jews, christians, zen-buddhists, etc. Pulling the racist card is bogus.

In my opinion rules like these (ban on depicting someone) simply are made up in order to gain power over not-too-bright people and make them predictable. This way they can be used like puppets in the politicians power games.......

Perhaps people just don't want to deal with responsibility for any repercussions. If you were an editor at a major newspaper in relatively peaceful Canada and opted to publish the caricatures, and someone radical burned your office, or if someone died as a consequence of your decision to defend freedom, how would you feel?

I think people's own risk analysis makes them a bit more conservative in choosing which battles to fight. I just hope we won't be too docile for too long until it's all too late :|