A free, vibrant and uncensored press is one of the most important components of a democratic society; it is also one of the most embattled. The senseless violence that has swept through the Muslim world this past week is indicative of the delicate state of affairs in the tinderbox Middle East. But perhaps even more frightening than the torched embassies and charred consulates is the Western world's own cowardly retreat from defending the Fourth Estate from those who seek to muzzle it. In these heady days of importing democracy to countries we deem in need, it seems we may be forgetting that political dissent, artistic freedom and criticism of authority are the very principles that make our own country worthy of protecting.
The cartoons in question -- unsympathetic depictions of the Prophet Mohammed first printed in a Danish newspaper -- are clearly provocative, broadly offensive, and not particularly culturally sensitive given the present American-sponsored clash of civilizations. However, they raise certain questions that ought to be discussed in a public forum, most importantly the undeniable connection between violence directed at innocent civilians and certain strands of fundamentalist Islam. These are issues that ought to be debated, not suppressed. To paraphrase the statement often misattributed to Voltaire, I may disagree with this man's cartoons, but I will defend to the death his right to draw them.
In a time when the American and international press face attacks on their freedom from virtually every direction, we must not let the violent overreactions of fundamentalist fanatics lead us to a renunciation of our own journalistic freedoms. The Western world, if it truly aims to serve as a beacon of light to those living under repressive regimes, ought to stand in solidarity with its reporters and editorialists, sending the message that our governments do not control our journalists and that we believe they ought not to.
The uproar over the portrayal of religious figures in political cartoons hits close to home for me, as a cartoonist who often depicts religious figures in these very pages. Months before the present controversy erupted, I drew a cartoon that featured the leading figures of the world's prevailing religions (including Mohammed) holding hands, with the caption "Can't we all just get along?" (Sept. 26, 2005). This fairly innocuous cartoon was drawn in response to the tremendous outcry against a previous cartoon of mine that featured Student Body President Noah Riner '06 discussing his Student Assembly agenda with Jesus Christ (Sept. 22, 2005).
I find it more than a little ironic that the arguments made at the time by the evangelical Christian community at Dartmouth mirror almost identically those now heard in Gaza, Damascus and Beirut. Likewise, the same conservative journalists who took potshots at my cartoon for its depiction of Jesus have now found themselves on the opposite side of the debate, arguing along with me that the Muhammad cartoons ought not be suppressed.
Fundamentalists of any stripe are often unable to remove themselves from their overzealous frames of reference to understand critiques of their own beliefs. The message of my cartoon -- that perhaps Jesus would not find himself agreeing with Riner's controversial fire and brimstone convocation address -- was lost on my critics, who were more concerned by my use of stereotypical "hippie" traits in my depiction of Jesus. Those who responded with letters to the editor taking umbrage with my message had every right to; like me, they were expressing their beliefs in a thoughtful manner in a public forum. However, those who argued that The Dartmouth ought to have fired or censored me are as ignorant of the importance of press freedoms as those viciously attacking the Danish and European press.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the press at all levels -- not least of which at Dartmouth. In a preposterous and almost embarrassing editorial published last spring in The Dartmouth Free Press, a paper I often agree with, Liz Middleton '06 argued that the College administration ought to censor or punish The Dartmouth for not properly correcting a story she deemed inaccurate. She wrote: "And adding to the already tremendous concern is the fact that The Dartmouth is not held accountable by the administration for the content it prints. While it does not get funds from the College, it does use the College's space and receives advertising contracts from campus departments."
The very idea that The Dartmouth, an independent non-profit corporation, ought to be "held accountable" by College administrators makes me think that, perhaps, Middleton would have argued that the United States government ought to have held the Washington Post "accountable" during the Watergate crisis for insinuating that President Nixon may have broken a few laws here and there.
Interestingly, it was the Washington Post itself that received a rare letter last week signed by all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff protesting an editorial cartoon that sharply criticized Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The cartoon featured Rumsfeld playing the role of doctor and telling his amputated patient that his condition was "battle-hardened" -- a clever and insightful critique of Rumsfeld's callous and insensitive description of the state of the United States military. Considering the unparalleled hostility of the current administration toward the media at large, perhaps it should come as no surprise that our military leaders are so offended by a cartoon critiquing their boss.
In my years working as an editor and cartoonist at The Dartmouth, I have rarely seen anything that could come close to being called censorship. I am constantly amazed at how far The Dartmouth lets me go with my sometimes offensive and often controversial cartoons. I have been consistently impressed with The Dartmouth's respect for political expression and artistic integrity. That is, until last week.
In a cartoon I drew for Friday's paper, a police officer peruses the popular website, Facebook.com, trying to decide which of the various "facebook groups" he would join. This was a rather obvious critique of Hanover Police officers who, according to an article that ran in Friday's paper -- which has since been significantly corrected -- routinely searched this student website in order to track down suspected lawbreakers. The caption I submitted read, "At the Hanover Police Dept." However, when the comic ran the next day, the caption simply read, "At the Police Department." Without informing me, the editors made the last minute switch because they were concerned about libel issues, particularly when the subject of the cartoon was a powerful institution that The Dartmouth often relies on as a source. Considering the subjects I have explicitly tackled over the years -- from the United States President to school administrators, foreign leaders, Safety and Security officers and fellow students -- I was amazed that my editors drew the line when it came to commenting on the Hanover Police Department.
The editors of The Dartmouth have since apologized for failing to inform me that they were changing my cartoon, explaining that the decision was made in haste just a few minutes before deadline. Nevertheless, it is extremely worrisome to me that in a week that saw some of the most heinous attacks on press freedoms in recent memory, student journalists at Dartmouth believed that they ought to censor a political cartoon in order to prevent a backlash from a law enforcement agency. It is, after all, those with the most power who benefit the most from public supervision and honest criticism. If we student journalists have failed to learn and respect these most basic tenets of freedom of expression and freedom of the press, I fear for the day that our nation's newspapers are in our hands.
In this era of systematic governmental abuse of authority, we need a press that has the strength and courage to print what it believes. We need a press that holds our leaders, our governments, and perhaps even our religions accountable for their actions, laws and teachings. We need journalists who will not cower in the face of controversy or confrontation, and we need news organizations who will protect and support them all of the way.