The burden of the press release was that the YUP feared it “ran a serious risk of instigating violence” if it published the cartoons or “other illustrations of the Prophet Muhammad.”
Possibly. Reza Aslan, an Islamic scholar who provided an endorsement for the book, withdrew his blurb when Yale decided on censorship. Although the book in his judgment was “a definitive account of the entire controversy, . . . not to include the actual cartoons is to me, frankly, idiotic.”
I, too, think it is “idiotic,” though on the question of violence I’d keep an open mind. You publish a cartoon, adherents of “the religion of peace” torch a few embassies, issue countless death threats, and shoot a nun into the bargain. If I were a bookie, I’d definitely keep an open book on Islamic violence.
But where does that leave us — or, more to the point, where does it leave Yale University Press? The YUP just so happens to be one of the biggest producers of art catalogues for the museum world. What happens when some enterprising young curator puts together an exhibition of the work of Gustave Doré? Will he be told that he cannot include that work depicting Mohammed in Hell? What happens when someone wants to do a catalogue raisonné of the work of Salvador Dalí? Will his image of Mohammed be omitted? Ditto on William Blake, Botticelli, and Giovanni da Modena, all of whom illustrated that passage from Dante. The Koran forbids any depiction of Mohammed, so what about that bas relief at the U.S. Supreme Court by Adolph Weinman depicting Mohammed holding a sword?
But I’m getting ahead of myself. The proximate question is: who got the censorship ball rolling? The fact that the Secretary of the University got involved suggests that the administration itself, i.e., the office of President Richard C. Levin, was party to the decision. I emailed John Donatich to ask him about that. I’m still waiting for a response.
One reader of my column yesterday wonders “how much Muslims, especially the Saudis, contribute to Yale U every year?” That’s one question. But I suspect President Levin is more interested in knowing how much more “Muslims, especially the Saudis,” might contribute were Yale to be — how shall I put this? — pleasing in their eyes?
Those may be avenues worth pursuing. It may well be that John Donatich is the fall guy in this little drama. I suspect, though, that it would be difficult to prove it. Such speculations will almost certainly lead to a tenebrous realm in which we’re unlikely to get any definitive lux or veritas.
What we have witnessed, however, is a sterling example of what I’ve described as “pre-emptive capitulation.” It flows from what the British journalist Charles Moore, in a piece from the London Telegraph I quoted from yesterday, identified as “the word that dominates Western culture in the face of militant Islam — fear.”
The fear — or perhaps I should say the concern — is not misplaced. Last year, several Danish papers reprinted the famous Danish cartoons. Result: “Danish youths” — Muslim Danish youths, though that adjective was rarely used by the legacy (formerly the mainstream) media — rampage through Copenhagen setting fire to cars, etc. They were, you see, offended by the cartoons. As I noted at the time,
the list of the things Muslims are offended by would take over a culture. They don’t like ice-cream that (used to be) distributed by Burger King because a decoration on the lid looked like (sort of) the Arabic script for “Allah.” They are offended by “pig-related items, including toys, porcelain figures, calendars and even a tissue box featuring Winnie the Pooh and Piglet” appearing in the workplace. They take umbrage at describing Islamic terrorism as, well, Islamic terrorism and have managed to persuade Gordon Brown to rename it “anti-Islamic activity.” But here’s the thing: one of the features of living in a modern, secular democracy is that there is always plenty of offense to go around. No Muslim is more offended by cartoons of their Prophet than I am by their barbaric reaction to the cartoons. But their reaction when offended is to torch an embassy, shoot a nun, or knife a filmmaker. I write a column deploring such behavior. You see the difference.
But here’s the question — it is the British comic Pat Condell’s question that I quoted yesterday:
“How much more of your freedom needs to be whittled away to defend this intolerant, misogynistic, homophobic, antisemitic ideology from the robust and frank and open criticism that it so richly deserves?”
If the Yale University Press — or perhaps I should say if Yale University itself — is any guide, the answer is “Take it all. We give up.” Mark Steyn, writing about the Yale incident yesterday, is right:
What all these stories — from this disgusting act to the no-donuts-at-Ramadan “recommendations” now common at European businesses — have in common is acceptance of the same general principle: that the most extreme interpretation of Islamic “law” now applies to Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
The really appalling thing is that institutions like Yale — institutions, I mean, that exist to pursue the truth — should tacitly endorse this ethic of pre-emptive capitulation. By embracing this species of mendacious political correctness they forfeit the prerogatives of truth for the dubious satisfactions of multicultural self-righteousness. Steyn’s word “disgusting” is the mot juste. The question is, when — if ever — will a critical mass of people rise up and vomit out this poison?
‘And note this: according to Professor Klausen, none of that quire of “authorities” actually read the book. So how authoritative was their recommendation?’
Well … neither have you, neither have I, but why should that disqualify anyone from opining about the inclusion of the cartoons in the book?
“The Koran forbids any depiction of Mohammed….”
Another book I haven’t read (have you?). But as I understand it there are certain Islamic sects which do depict Mohammed in their art.
In any case, what we have here is a PR coup by YUP. An academic publication which, like virtually all academic publications, would have gone unnoticed has now achieved worldwide notoriety.
Excellent piece, Mr. Kimball. I especially liked your compare and contrast regarding reactive behavior between us and them, i.e., the terrorism-minded. Am I still allowed to say us and them?
Time for the publication of “Man and Allah at Yale.”
pre-emptive capitulation!
LOL
A correction:
Mr Kimball and I agreed during our conversation that Yale University had legitimate reasons to be concerned about the impact of reprinting the page from the Danish newspaper with the 12 cartoons. I do not think free speech principles override a university’s obligation to consider the safety of its personnel, at home or abroad. If I thought my family would be put at risk if I reprinted the cartoons in my book I would not do it. Yale University, represented by Linda Lorimer, and I disagreed about the risks involved and, perhaps, more importantly about the means by which one estimates risk in connection with an otherwise non-controversial scholarly book with (sorry to say) limited readership.
Jytte Klausen, Brandeis University
Regarding Professor Klausen’s comment (#5): my recollection is that she raised the threat of violence as a concern. I did not agree that Yale had a legitimate reason to censor her book only that, given past experience, publishing the cartoons might indeed spark violence. Who knows? As I pointed out in my column, displaying a “pig related item,” selling a container of ice-cream with an abstract design that might by the credulous be construed as representing the name Allah, wearing a football T-shirt with a red cross, or any of a hundred other things might be “offensive” to radical Muslims and spark violence by them. They’re a touchy lot.
There are, I think, two questions here. One concerns the extent one allows oneself to be intimidated by extremists. They say: “Don’t publish representations of Mohammed or we’ll burn down your embassies, riot in the street,” etc., etc. Do you say, “OK, noted. We’ll not publish.” Or do you say, “Buzz off, we’ll publish whatever we wish and the police here will take care of you if you try to make good on your threats.” I favor the second course.
The second issue concerns the credibility of Linda Lorimer and the Yale administration. As I said in my piece, the search for motives in this case takes one into a shadowy realm. I strongly suspect, however, that the threats-of-violence trope was a pretext, or at most a subsidiary concern. Put plainly, I do not believe her. I hope some energetic investigative reporter will look into the case and shed some light upon those shadowy regions. My suggestion: look at the money, both the money trail and prospective sources of lucre.
*~@):~{>
fok mo
“We would have lost our minds, and not just our voices, had it been as easy to forget as to remain silent” – Tacitus, the Agricola
Grubs and bullies, of the kind that decapitate, incinerate and otherwise slaughter people who publish cartoons they don’t like, are like all other grubs and bullies at the end of the day – they always, and rapidly, slink off if you stand up to them. What we need to do collectively in the west is to say “stuff and nonsense” like some steely Victorian grandmother, and publish what we wan. There may be some pain, but it would be short term pain.
But – don’t hold your breath. A straw in the wind: how do we deal with lightly armed ragtag pirates in leaky fishing boats when they seize huge merchant ships off the horn of Africa? Instead of just blowing these cutthroats out of the water, we them millions of dollars in ransom.
The money trail is pretty clear. Yale is a partner to the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia. I am sure they do not want to lose their $50 million gift from the Saudis by offending them with this book.
It disturbs me, but does not shock me that Yale would do this. It’s certainly the wrong thing to do in my opinion.
I wonder if Jytte Klausen is contractually obligated to publish the book even if Yale decides to pull the cartoons from the book.
But I’m also disturbed by Jytte’s own comment above: “I do not think free speech principles override a university’s obligation to consider the safety of its personnel, at home or abroad. If I thought my family would be put at risk if I reprinted the cartoons in my book I would not do it.”
Either you stand for a principle or you don’t. If you’re going to let bully’s threats influence you to throw principles under the bus, then you are being a coward and you clearly don’t hold those principles in very high regard.
So it doesn’t sound like it’s just the YUP that is capitulating. Jytte says later that she thinks that the point is that the book wouldn’t get enough of a widespread audience that enough outrage would materialize.
So exactly what is her own position on publishing an accurate and truthful account, but might offend some? Sounds to me like she’s very willing to agree with appeasement and censorship as long as it is has the potential to offend many… She’s only supportive of free speech when it’s whispered quietly and that only a few will notice?
Jytte, you don’t “[estimate] risk in connection with an otherwise non-controversial scholarly book with (sorry to say) limited readership” when it comes down to standing for a principal such as freedom of speech.”
This is why Yale doesn’t feel the need to explain the actual reasons why they are censoring the cartoons. Because you expressed a willingness to capitulate on the basis of the threat of violence. You made it easy for them because they saw your cowardice and used it to their advantage.
This is how Sharia creeps, and why so much of Europe has accepted Dhimmitude.
Intellectuals always huff and puff about how violence doesnt work and is counter productive. Those of us who actually live outside college communities know that violence does work and, indeed, is quite productive in producing immediate results. The Yale situation is a case in point, yet I doubt many at Yale will get it.
Left wingers have spent decades trying to convince people that Christian fundamentalists are scary and dangerous. But it’s obvious who they’re really afraid of. How ironic that their PC, anti-White Westerner world view causes them to defend those whom they truly fear.
You have to understand — it is not that liberals are cowards — it is the other way around — they are liberal because they are cowards to begin with.
Add this to the long list of reasons I will no longer contribute money to my alma mater, Yale.
Jamie Irons
Molecular Biology and Biophysics, Yale, 1969
I am very glad that Mr. Kimball included a link to Pat Condell. I have always enjoyed his rants and his irrefutable logic. He’s funny, droll, acerbic, and spot on. He is one of the few people who “nail it” on almost every post/YouTube video he does.
He should have a spot on Jon Stewart a couple of times a week. Hey – don’t laugh…a guy can dream, can’t he? LOL!
Back to the point, preemptive capitulation must be stopped; we all must stand up to and acknowledge the creeping dhimmification of not only Europe and Canada, but the US as well.
This example of censorship by Yale gives rise to the question, in how many other instances has Yale censored, distorted or omitted facts or arguments in other Yale publications? Why should we believe anything we read in anything else coming from the Yale University Press? How can any future Yale publication have any credibility?
The big problem with self-censorship is that once it becomes known that you are willing to omit or distort facts or arguments out of fear, or to preserve or obtain funding, out of political bias or for any other reason, there is no reason for anyone to ever believe anything you may say in the future. They might as well shut the press down, as far as I’m concerned. They have zero credibility, now.
# 10 Mark:
Spot on.
# 5 Jytte Klausen:
Sorry, ma’am, but you just gave me every reason not to buy your book.
Perhaps Yale thought Jytte Klausen was a secret member of the ROTC.
This is unacceptable. For every privilege that we give up in the name of multiculturism we are losing five more. Had we taken a stand from the beginning, with the footbaths installations etc, we would have made a statement.
What about Muslims having destroyed centuries old architecture and “idols” representing other religions? They got away with it! This is the United States not Kabul.
If they don’t allow the pictures of the madman in their book, I hope someone else prints them.
At the risk of using one of those “end of conversation words,” why does the term “Nazi-Soviet pact” keep coming to mind?
The simple remedy is to find another publisher, given that Yale ate the blue pill and has joined a parallel universe I imagine that other publishers would be lining up to take this book on. The buzz about it is already considerable and it would make money, enough to add the security necessary to protect the publisher from the Religion of Peace.
As a graduate of Yale College, I am not surprised by this behavior. It is a disgrace. On an alumni travel trip to Houston, I asked President Levin why he didn’t join Harvard President Larry Summers in condemning anti-semitism and the movement to divest. He mumbled some half-baked response. I was then ashamed of my alma mater. Yale hadn’t really gotten over its hypocritical treatment of Jews. And it has the chutzpah to have a “Yale Initiative for the Study of Anti-semitism”. It must assuage the liberal guilt.
It is time for President Levin to resign. He has disgraced the institution. No one can take anything published by Yale University Press as being credible.
If sufficiently concerned for her safety, Klausen should have published the book anonymously. Come to think of it, that rational decision would have highlighted the peril involved in the exercise of free speech regarding this religious/political ideology.
True, Yale, by publishing, would still face a distinct threat of unknown and unknowable dimensions, as would the rest of the Western world.
Nevertheless, a bold demonstration of cowardice by a prominent institution of the Western world is probably far more dangerous than facing up to the potential consequences of the present threat.
But that type of thinking, appeasement tinged with perhaps a secret sort of cheerleading for the enemy, is what will always call the brave in the West to lose their lives for the craven.
And why is it that the craven so often are the first to moralize about free speech when it comes to piss, excrement, pornography and pole dancing, but the last to put their precious chardonnay lives on the line?
Ms Klausen:
You just can’t do a historian/scholar’s work without all the relevant documents/facts. Anything else is not scholarship. It’s called propaganda.
Your argument about the possible threats to the safety of your family and the Yale Press workers is risible. Why did you start the project in the first place, given the subject’s ideological load?What did you expect? What was your thesis?
Patricia Crone of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Studies openly writes about the historical evidence of Mohammed’s very existence and the rise of Islam with a scholar’s skeptical mind. She thinks the Quran got much of it wrong.
As far as I know she’s OK. Neither she nor her publishers have had their heads cut off or their offices bombed.
Is it possible that Yale may have financial considerations, not spelled out, in the form of donations (or withholding of same) from Arab countries? Could they be that crass?
Yale University Press has a lot to answer for here. I too was disappointed by the NY Times article.
It is odd that they are more upset by a cartoon than by dozens of their fellow Arabs being killed in unpleasant ways by the “anti-Islamic activity.”
# 25 Moonzoo:
As Mr Kimball writes, the whole affair of Ms Klausen’s book is really strange.
There are brilliant academics who openly dispute Islam’s/Quran’s version of history, such as Patricia Crone of Princeton and Michael Cook. They must have had their share of crazy, barely literate rants from posters to Ayatollah Al-Sistani’s website or Islam Online, after they published their superb “Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World,” but they and their publishers didn’t lose their heads, as far as I know.
Ms Klausen, a professor of “comparative politics” at Brandeis, is a specialist in the politics of everything, from the rights of women, workers, immigrants to industry and religion and law:
http://www.brandeis.edu/facguide/person.html?emplid=8cfea83c0a70191751f1d16c96473b7b795d7e0a
Scary. A prof of everything politically correct under the sun–and of nothing in real scientific terms. That’s precisely why Yale gave her the contract.
I think it’s a great story/plot…
Yale is completely in the RIGHT due to this situation. After the cartoons themselves were published, over two hundred people were killed. Even though academic studies are extremely important, having lives at risk is not worth it. Freedom of speech is a must but life threatening actions is no comparison to a couple of drawings. The book itself is about the cartoons and what is the big deal if you can just look them up. It’s different if published again. It’s unbelievable that society can’t understand that.
What is interesting is that by publishing anything about the incident you are forced to fall on one side or the other by including the cartoons or not. Unfortunately this frame of debate was a straw man set up by the right-wing european media’s point of view that is a world apart from how the controversy looked to many muslims. It seems this makes it just about impossible to approach the subject calmly and above the fray, which is exactly what is needed.
31.
I think what you are implying is that if those of us upsetted by this display of cowardice from one of America’s most prestigous institutions were to riot in the streets and kill people we will ensure that Yale will always publish Islamic cartoon images in the future.
“I suspect President Levin is more interested in knowing how much more Muslims, especially the Saudis, might contribute were Yale to be — how shall I put this? — pleasing in their eyes?”
But publishing this book, with or without the cartoons, seems likely to make Yale far LESS pleasing in such eyes.
I have not read it, but the book is reported to be deeply critical of conservative Islamic thinking and conservative behavior in this incident. Assuming such reports are correct, YUP and President Levin are highly unlikely to have thought that the inflamation of conservative Islamic sentiment caused by publishing this deeply critical book could be reversed to curry favor in that same quarter merely by deleting the cartoons. Yale and Levin are not stupid.
Moreover, if seeking moneyed Islamic favor were the point, Yale could easilly have found any number of quiet and plausible reasons for not accepting the book at all, or for cancelling its publication at the last minute, especially given current economic conditions.
I am not sure what to make of Yale’s proffered explanation that it wished to avoid violence. But telling the world that Yale removed the cartoons because it feared violence from conservative Islamic interests seems almost calculated to simultaneously irritate both those interests and the most intense critics of those interests. That doesn’t savor of subtle intrigue on Yale or Levin’s part. Of course neither does it validate Yale’s explanation.
I comment on this on my blog, which post cannot be reproduced here because I am infuriated to the point I’m allowing myself to indulge in profanity and personal insult. (That means you John Donatich, and your “committee of experts” you contemptible cowards.)
What I am doing is reporducing my favorite among the Danish cartoons
here http://rantsand.blogspot.com/2009/08/heres-my-favorite-cartoon.html
and urging all fellow-bloggers who love freedom to do likewise. I am blogging under my own name, but not everyone might care to do so.
Freedom is not negotiable.
EVERYBODY IS IN AGREEMENT. YUP IS A RAT’S NEST OF FRIGHTENED FEMALE MALES, AND FEMALES. MY SUGGESTION IS THAT FROM NOW ON THEY PUBLISH ONLY EMPTY PAGES INSERTED BETWEEN TWO COVERS. THAT WAY THEY CAN SAY IT’S A VIRTUAL BOOK. THIS WORLD HAS TRULY BEEN TURNED UPSIDE DOWN, SHAKEN A FEW TIMES, AND THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WHEN IT LANDS.
To whom it may concern,
I concur in all of the critical commentary published to date about the craven action of the Yale University Press’s decision to publish the book without the cartoons. The only remaining comment I would offer is this: what is the point of publishing a book which deals with the issues raised by the publication of “offensive” cartoons without publishing the cartoons themselves? What in the world could Yale possiblly be thinking would be the value of such a book?