September 8, 2009 10:08 AM

Yale Alums Protest Cutting Muslim Toons

(AP)  Yale University has removed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad from an upcoming book about how they caused outrage across the Muslim world, drawing criticism from prominent alumni and a national group of university professors.

Yale cited fears of violence.

Yale University Press, which the university owns, removed the 12 caricatures from the book "The Cartoons That Shook the World" by Brandeis University professor Jytte Klausen. The book is scheduled to be released next week.

A Danish newspaper originally published the cartoons - including one depicting Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban - in 2005. Other Western publications reprinted them.

The following year, the cartoons triggered massive protests from Morocco to Indonesia. Rioters torched Danish and other Western diplomatic missions. Some Muslim countries boycotted Danish products.

Islamic law generally opposes any depiction of the prophet, even favorable, for fear it could lead to idolatry.

"I think it's horrifying that the campus of Nathan Hale has become the first place where America surrenders to this kind of fear because of what extremists might possibly do," said Michael Steinberg, an attorney and Yale graduate.

Steinberg was among 25 alumni who signed a protest letter sent Friday to Yale Alumni Magazine that urged the university to restore the drawings to the book. Other signers included John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, former Bush administration speechwriter David Frum and Seth Corey, a liberal doctor.

"I think it's intellectual cowardice," Bolton said Thursday. "I think it's very self defeating on Yale's part. To me it's just inexplicable."

Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors, wrote in a recent letter that Yale's decision effectively means: "We do not negotiate with terrorists. We just accede to their anticipated demands."

In a statement explaining the decision, Yale University Press said it decided to exclude a Danish newspaper page of the cartoons and other depictions of Muhammad after asking the university for help on the issue. It said the university consulted counterterrorism officials, diplomats and the top Muslim official at the United Nations.

"The decision rested solely on the experts' assessment that there existed a substantial likelihood of violence that might take the lives of innocent victims," the statement said.

Republication of the cartoons has repeatedly resulted in violence around the world, leading to more than 200 deaths and hundreds of injuries, the statement said. It also noted that major newspapers in the United States and Britain have declined to print the cartoons.

"Yale and Yale University Press are deeply committed to freedom of speech and expression, so the issues raised here were difficult," the statement said. "The press would never have reached the decision it did on the grounds that some might be offended by portrayals of the Prophet Muhammad."

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.

Klausen was surprised by the decision when she learned of it last week. She said scholarly reviewers and Yale's publication committee comprised of faculty recommended the cartoons be included.

"I'm extremely upset about that," Klausen said.

The experts Yale consulted did not read the manuscript, Klausen said. She said she consulted Muslim leaders and did not believe including the cartoons in a scholarly debate would spark violence.

Klausen said she reluctantly agreed to have the book published without the images because she did not believe any other university press would publish them, and she hopes Yale will include them in later editions. She argues in the book that there is a misperception that Muslims spontaneously arose in anger over the cartoons when they really were symbols manipulated by those already involved in violence.

Donatich said there wasn't time for the experts to read the book, but they were told of the context. He said reviewers and the publications committee did not object, but were not asked about the security risk.

Many Muslim nations want to restrict speech to prevent insults to Islam they claim have proliferated since the terrorist attacks in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, a world affairs columnist and CNN host who serves on Yale's governing board, said he told Yale that he believed publishing the images would have provoked violence.

"As a journalist and public commentator, I believe deeply in the First Amendment and academic freedom," Zakaria said. "But in this instance Yale Press was confronted with a clear threat of violence and loss of life."

© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 23 Comments
by lloydbest1 September 8, 2009 6:28 PM EDT
I'm not sure I understand how a book that is supposed to demonstate how images can rock the world can do that effectively if those images are censored out.
Reply to this comment
by SkirtLifter September 8, 2009 12:29 PM EDT
From the Article:
"" "I think it's horrifying that the campus of Nathan Hale has become the first place where America surrenders to this kind of fear because of what extremists might possibly do," said Michael Steinberg, an attorney and Yale graduate.""
_____________
I'm amazed that anyone finds this kind of acquiescence horrifying in today's America. Especially someone from academia, because on campuss (intentional spelling), we've become 100% wussified.

We've become so wussified, that the thought of offending someone is unacceptable, even if that someone is offensive!

Good for you Michael Steinberg, but of course, judging by your name, folks will say you have an ulterior motive.
Reply to this comment
by Illuminated1 September 8, 2009 12:15 PM EDT
Whatever islamic law is concerning the cartoons.......They have no right to attack anyone in God's name or country.

If anyone does, then the line is crossed between what is right and what is wrong.
How dare the protestors be allowed to attack the embassy's as they did.
Let whatever law was broken be enforced by Mohammid, but don't assume your religions' views on the world or you will be DESTROYED.
Reply to this comment
by ibsteve2u September 8, 2009 12:13 PM EDT
Anybody care to hazard a guess as to what percentage of the protesting Yale professors and alumni are military veterans?

It is easy to give blood, when it ain't yours.
Reply to this comment
by Hosheen September 8, 2009 11:58 AM EDT
Anyone that thinks there is not a war between muslis and everyone else, simply isn't paying attention.

As for the "moderate muslims", where are they? Why haven't they been heard loudly condemning the violence and "Spreading Islam by the sword"? This will not be over until one side or the other are all dead.
Reply to this comment
by hugomutt1576 September 8, 2009 11:57 AM EDT
The Islamista are not the Catholic Church.Hence the Ivy League warriors being too cautious about the cartoons.
Reply to this comment
by Sloughfoot September 8, 2009 10:56 AM EDT
Yale???????? Look what you have become! You have soiled yourselves and your heritage.
Reply to this comment
by pollroller1 September 8, 2009 10:54 AM EDT
I don't think the cartoons should be published. No I'm not a Muslim. Think about it. There are lots of things that don't get published because some people will find them offensive. As an example, Yale wouldn't publish the "N" word because some people find it offensive.
Reply to this comment
by slownewsday_5 September 8, 2009 11:00 AM EDT
Well put.


.
by intelext September 8, 2009 11:34 AM EDT
However, this was NOT a publication on "How the 'N' word shook the world or offended the world." I do believe that IF the book were about such then "the N word" would be included for reference. I am actually rather disappointed that Americans choose to give up their rights (freedom of speech). I don't believe the Muslims bombed Fox TV for South Park showing Prophet Muhammad in a cartoon, and that was years ago now.
by gangesdak September 8, 2009 10:31 AM EDT
Fareed Zakaria ( editor of Newsweek International, a world affairs columnist and CNN host who serves on Yale's governing board) is the kind of person Muslim world likes to have as an implant in the USA who will present Muslim design in a "rational" way that would be palatable to the American media. Muslims won, America lost its prized freedom of speech. Now freedom of speech is reserved for denegrating its own president (any party), not the ruthless enemy.
Reply to this comment
by inketolstoy September 8, 2009 10:16 AM EDT
Thank you Yale University, you bastion of liberal thinking. And you too Zakaria. Your strong belief in the first ammendment and academic freedom is only overshadowed by your stronger sense of self preservation. Imagine if our forefathers had let "a clear threat of violence and loss of life" stop them. Then we would not have any ammendments at all.
Reply to this comment
by leeanna59 September 8, 2009 11:18 AM EDT
Yes, we would still be bowing to the Queen or King. Hm, with King Obama in the lead, we might be bowing yet. I guess we shall see how far the lunacy in Washington goes.
See all 23 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook