"Jytte Klausen, a Danish professor of political science at Brandeis
University, submitted her manuscript, The Cartoons that Shook the World to
Yale University Press. The publications committee there unanimously and
enthusiastically recommended it for publication. The Press' legal counsel
approved of it as well. The book discusses the political ramifications of the 12
cartoons depicting Mohammed which were printed in Denmark in 2005. Sometime in July 2009, Professsor Klausen was invited for a cup of coffee with Yale
University Press.
Later, the Professor was told that Linda Lorimer, Vice President and
Secretary of the University, and Marcia Inhorn, chairman of the Council on
Middle East Studies at Yale and a visiting professor at the American University
of Beirut, Lebanon, and the American University of Sharjah, United Arab
Emirates, would be joining them. Conducting research in Lebanon in 2003, she was
escorted around by Hezbollah. Inhorn had traveled to Iran during the
February-March 2006 rioting staged to protest the cartoons.
When the four of them met on July 23, the Yale officials informed
Klausen that the book could only be published without the cartoons. Klausen was
also asked to sign a confidentiality agreement. Since she did not, Yale
University would not permit her to read the 14 page memorandum.
Yale also removed from the book all pictorial representations of Muhammad,
including a 19th Century painting by Doré, which painting had never caused any
violence or led to any threats at all, apparently caving in to Sharia (Islamic
law) that there shall be no depiction of Muhammad."
By far the best comment on this sordid affair came from Cary Nelson:
"Cary Nelson, the President of American Association of University Professors
(AAUP), quickly responded on August 13 with a biting letter, "We do not
negotiate with terrorists. We just accede to their anticipated demands.""
The Yale Daily News accused those who were protesting as being conservatives. But Cary Nelson, who led the protest, descrives herself as an anti-Vietnam war protester, a union activist and as interested in the American left. Good for her. If only it had been conservatives leading the outcry. (But we can at least get on board with it!)
According to The New York Times, the Yale University Press Director said:
"John Donatich, director of Yale University Press, said the critics are
''grandstanding.'' He said it was not a case of censorship because the
university did not suppress original content that was not available in other
places. ''I would never have agreed to censor original content,'' Donatich
said."
Oh, he would never agreed to censor "original" content! (Sarcasm alert.) What courage; how could any unbiased observer doubt his raw courage and commitment to principle! Gag! The critics are not grandstanding; they are fighting for free speech. As a book publisher, John Donatich should be right behind them.
Why would Yale do such a thing? Is there any rational explanation for such irrational behaviour? Just follow the money.
So it appears that one reason why the Western left (with the honorable exception of a few like Cary Nelson) has become so enamoured of the Palestinian cause and so anti-Israel appears to have something to do with oil money. A mixture of good old fashioned greed for filthy lucre and a residual anti-Jewish bias that can now show its face in respectable company is a potent brew. We all know what Prince Al-Walheed was talking about by "adopting a more balanced stand toward the Palestinian cause," don't we? He sure is brazen about it, but there is apparently one standard for poor, garden-variety types of Jew baiters and another for wealthy Saudi princes. What a sordid, pathetic affair. Yale should be ashamed of itself."A more difficult question remains: why were the cartoons censored? The
leading explanation is that Yale was going after donations from the Saudis.
Linda Lorimer, Vice President and Secretary of Yale University, freely admitted
to Klausen that she had frequented Saudia Arabia.
President Levin initiated in 2001 Yale's World Fellowship Program, which
according to Yale has become its signature international leadership program. For
the first time, in 2009 Yale chose a Saudi, Muna Abu Sulayman, who directed the
Al-Waleed Bin Talal Foundation. In 2001, Mayor Rudy Giuliani rejected a
$10 million donation offered by Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal
for recovery following the 9/11 terror attacks. A more difficult question remains: why were the cartoons censored? The leading explanation is that Yale was going after donations from the Saudis. Linda Lorimer, Vice President and Secretary of Yale University, freely admitted to Klausen that she had frequented Saudia Arabia.
President Levin initiated in 2001 Yale's World Fellowship Program, which according to Yale has become its signature international leadership program. For the first time, in 2009 Yale chose a Saudi, Muna Abu Sulayman, who directed the Al-Waleed Bin Talal Foundation. In 2001, Mayor Rudy Giuliani rejected a $10 million donation offered by Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal for recovery following the 9/11 terror attacks. Prince Al-Waleed stated the United States "should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stand toward the Palestinian cause." Prince Al-Waleed donated $20 million each to Harvard and Georgetown Universities to establish centers for Islamic studies and "interfaith dialogue." In awarding her fellowship, Yale cited Abu Salayman for her social activism.More troubling, Prince Al-Waleed has also supported the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). The Investigative Project on Terrorism has reported extensively that ISNA has ties with Hamas, as does CAIR."
Of course, Islam is a peaceful religion. Prince Al-Waheed is sure doing his bit to convince us of that. After all, why would they bother to conquer us when it is so much easier to just buy us with their oil money?
Posts
4 comments:
I tend to see this issue as not wholly alien to the issues you raise in your most recent post on the hegemonic dictatorship of secularism in Britain. Surely we should have common ground with Islam in appealing for their conceptual framework to be decriminalized by a secularism which fails to countenance alternative perspectives? I'm thinking especially of the Burqa issue in France but also this "Cartoons" issue. It's one of the reasons I don't find the Islamic Europe picture as horrific as most, I honestly think we'd fare better than we do in the current Religion of state secularism. Neither are ideal of course! :) Yes it's a double standard "tolerating" all religions except Christianity but I'm not sure we can critique a slight tare in the fabric of secularism on these grounds. Am I missing something here Craig? I usually agree with you so strongly that I don't even bother posting!
ps this is David Deane - I knew you have another fan called David too :)
Well, David, as you know, I am sympathetic to Pope Benedict XVI's attempt to reach out to Islam as a partner in a dialogue of reason. But let's be honest; dialogue is a two-way street and the Islam-Christian dialogue is still in its infancy. Crucial to any success on that front is going to be Islamic leadership that renounces terrorists and their Nietzschean will to power through violence.
I don't buy the argument that terrorism is essentially the "just war of the weak." Terrorism begets not justice, but more terrorism. You can't buy off real terrorists.
The Saudis are actually guilty of doing the same thing Western insitutions like Yale are doing: giving in to fear of violence. They are playing a dangerous game; essentially paying protection money to the bin Laden types. I don't think a regieme can survive by doing that in the long run.
As for Europe: I lament the passing of Christian Europe. As long as it is not Islamicized, there is always hope for revival but once the tipping point is passed it will go the way of North Africa and Asia Minor. Is it wrong to lament the passing of something beautiful? The home of the world missionary movement of the 19th Century? The home of parliamentary democracy? The home of the first universities? The home of Gothic Cathedrals?
I believe that the radical Islamicists represent the true historical essence of Islam and the playboy princes of Saudi Arabia are basically Westernized. If the Islamicists gain power over oil wealth and get nuclear weapons through Iran, they pose a threat on a scale that the USSR did in the mid 20th century.
I don't believe that Islamic domination of Europe would be a benign Islamic rule,nor would it be an exercise in respectful pluralism; it would need to be ruthless to finish off the last remnants of Christian faith. The liberal masses (the last men) will crumble easily but there will be a minority that will fight when their backs are up against the wall and that will require the Muslims either to back down or go all the way. Where is the Muslim leadership that has demonstrated that it can reign in extremism so far?
If you think that Muslims will agree to co-exist peacefully under a multi-cultural pluralism, I think you are well-intentioned but overly optimistic.
One last thought: the cartoons issue is a way Muslims use to exert power over others. I believe that freedom of expression is a fundamental Western value that should not be compromised. It is a precious gift of the West to the world. If they can force censorship by threats of violence, then they have destroyed a fundamental Western good.
Craig,
You have me convinced on almost all of this. Yes, Islamic europe would probably be worse from the Christian Church than a secular one (although only marginally so in my opinion). Yes terrorism is indefensible. Yes the Saudi government is a dangerous mess and without their Islamic version of liberal guilt the world would be a much safer place.
I remain just short of being convinced however on the cartoons issue.
I find it interesting that the materialism of modernity brings with it a limiting of our understanding of violence as purely physical. When we see many pre-modern legal frameworks we see that offences against a person's name, status, well-being and so on can lead to the administering of physical punishment against the offender. I don't want to condone this, simply to note that material violence does not saturate the notion of violence.
Would you not rather a punch in the face than have God verbally abused in a public forum where this abuse, incapable of hurting God can hurt you? Would this not represent a greater assault on your person than a physical lap? If so then we must see, even at the cost of agreeing with liberals on some points, that legislation against violent acts on the person is confused if it simply privileges the material. Either we see an image such as "piss Christ" as an act of violence against Christians and as such as a criminal act or we don't outlaw violent acts against the person in which case a non pacifist Christian could cause equal, albeit physical offence to the "artist".
I don't see how I can stop applying this to Islam. I can't believe that p'ing off Muslims was not a goal of the cartoons no more than p'ing off Christians is the goal of "art" which shows the theotokos covered in defecation. The artist might claim "I am just trying to make them think" but really it's an act of violence borne of hate.
I am not suggesting that this should be a state issue (and certainly not an issue for the bizarre, idiotic and dangerous CHRC). I'm simply saying that the publication of the cartoons was a moral wrong. It is not good to do it.
Now I could well be, and probably am wrong on this. I consciously and subconsciously emphasize times when my positions are alien to a traditional conservative stances hoping to prove to myself and others that a theological framework, not a cultural political one, is the determining factor. This could well lead to me being too keen to take the Islamic side on this (the other area where I struggle to fully agree with you is about Palestine).
Again my concern is not "what should the state do?" but rather "what is good?". You are far more Roman Catholic than I in your desire to liaise with the body that is not yet the Church ;)
Post a Comment