Curiouser and curiouser: a footnote to Yale’s Islamophobia-phobia
[See the update at the end of this post.]
In the September issue of The New Criterion, out on September 1 at www.newcriterion.com and at newsstands everywhere, the Editors devote the Notes & Comments section to the saga of The Danish Cartoons and Yale University. As readers of Roger’s Rules, you may feel that you know all there is to know about that disreputable episode. In fact, there are a few new wrinkles that anyone concerned with academic freedom and/or the American character of American universities will want to know about and I hope you will consult the piece in The New Criterion when it appears.
For the time being, though, I want to share just one item from that note. It concerns the role of Ambassador John Negroponte in the affair. I had heard through the proverbial grapevine that he was one of the “two dozen” mostly unnamed “experts in the intelligence, national security, law enforcement, and diplomatic fields, as well as leading scholars in Islamic studies and Middle East studies,” that Yale consulted in order to justify censoring Jytte Klausen’s book The Cartoons that Shook the World. He seemed like a natural choice: as a former Director of National Intelligence and former United States Deputy Secretary of State, he had occupied top spots in the U.S. intelligence and diplomatic apparatus. He had also been U.S. Ambassador to Honduras, the U.N., and Iraq. He was also in the neighborhood, having recently been appointed a fellow to at Yale’s MacMillan Center of International Studies. More to the point, Ambassador Negroponte was part of a State Department that seemed more concerned about “offending” Muslims than dealing with jihadists. Indeed, it counselled its employees to avoid even using terms like “jihad,” “terrorist,” and “Islamofascism” because it might upset the poor dears. He was, I surmised, a natural for Yale to consult since he could be counted on to deliver the verdict Yale desired.
I tried to confirm Ambassador Negroponte’s role, but no one at the Yale Press would do so. Nor would the Ambassador’s Washington office do so. Indeed, I would describe his aide’s response as dismissive, bordering on rude, as he spat out the words “No Comment.”
Fortunately, The Yale Daily News has come to the rescue, at least I think it has. Last night at 7:00 p.m., the newspaper posted the following story.
In the interest of standing up for freedom of speech I have named my colon Mohammed and I’m presently wearing an “I named my colon Mohammed” T-Shirt.
‘Readers might be interested in Jytte Klausen’s response to Ambassador Negroponte’s remarks. “Negroponte cancelled my illustrations because of ‘a generic threat’,” she emailed me, “and because he considered the illustrations ‘a gratuitous act.’ I wonder how he knew that? He never read the manuscript?”’
Again, since the cartoons ARE readily accessible on the web, I don’t see why reading the MS should be a prerequisite for debating their republication. Have you read the MS, Rog?
#1: ‘In the interest of standing up for freedom of speech I have named my colon Mohammed and I’m presently wearing an “I named my colon Mohammed” T-Shirt.’
Funny! Now take a walk through some Brooklyn neighborhoods.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t Toynbee one of the historians who concluded that civilizations, like people, have a fixed life.
I dare say that it is also true for Yale, and the end is nigh! For it has abandoned its defences by inviting in the Trojan horse.
One wonders how Mr Negroponte would react if someone suggested that girl shouldn’t wear a short skirt because it might cause a man to rape her.
it is those who would htreaten violence over the cartoons that should be condemned, not those who would publish.
Yale University Press is staffed by a bunch of weak-kneed pansies who are happy to enjoy the freedom of our civilisation, but are not able to or prepared to fight for that freedom.
Yale University Press’s Donatich said he “never blinked” before when they published a book on Thailand. But it looks like there is a different story on that too:
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/18121
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/world/asia/25thailand.html
“Funny! Now take a walk through some Brooklyn neighborhoods.”
Yes, that would provide an excellent illustration of the fact that the First Amendment (and most others for that matter) is meaningless without the Second Amendment.
What good is freedom of the press if the publishers and editors are ballerinas who never grew a pair?
Actually the only newspaper in the country that published the cartoons was the Daily Illini at the University of Illinois. The Editor in Chief was fired as a result because of the fear of violence. As it turned out, there was no violence.
http://tinyurl.com/mzvxko
Left to their own, large institutions will almost always disappoint. Certainly universities should have a different mission than for-profit corporations but ultimately such differences are abstract.
I remember when my school, the University of Chicago, refused to divest its endowment’s portfolio of South African investments; this at the height of apartheid. Their reasons were quite practical: such investments had been profitable. In response to student protests, the then chancellor made a famous statement to the effect that the University of Chicago could get along perfectly well without students. Certainly arguments can be made both ways about whether such behavior is consistent with a school’s mission but this response suggests that it probably wasn’t.
Witness the Catholic Church’s handling of child molestation cases. THEIR mission (the propagation of goodness, godliness, and faith) HAD to have been different than some private corporation or government agency. How well did they adhere to their mission statement?
Yale clearly has to go back to THEIR mission statement and see if in fact they’re really doing the right thing.
Duke of Sharon: “I named my colon Mohammed”
Big deal! Even the most devout Muslims use that name for terrorists and other low-life scum.
Banjo: That’s an insult to ballerinas: they are very tough women who work very hard. (Dancing on pointe isn’t just difficult, it’s painful.)