Yale U. Press is publishing book about Muhammad cartoons without the cartoons

I’ll repeat that: Yale University Press is publishing a book about the Muhammad Cartoon controversy, and they’re leaving out of the book the cartoons that are the subject of the book.

How do we describe such an act? The climax of self-cancellation? The acme of psychological dhimmitude? “Kick me, I’m a coward”?

Note also the little editorial prompt (“It’s not all that surprising…”) with which Patricia Cohen of the New York Times—her initials aren’t P.C. for nothing—begins the article. At the end of the article, see my further discussion about how Cohen dishonestly manipulates the censored author’s words to stifle the reader’s reaction to what the publisher has done.

Yale Press Bans Images of Muhammad in New Book
By PATRICIA COHEN
Published: August 12, 2009

It’s not all that surprising that Yale University Press would be wary of reprinting notoriously controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a forthcoming book. After all, when the 12 caricatures were first published by a Danish newspaper a few years ago and reprinted by other European publications, Muslims all over the world angrily protested, calling the images—which included one in which Muhammad wore a turban in the shape of a bomb—blasphemous. In the Middle East and Africa some rioted, burning and vandalizing embassies; others demanded a boycott of Danish goods; a few nations recalled their ambassadors from Denmark. In the end at least 200 people were killed.

So Yale University and Yale University Press consulted two dozen authorities, including diplomats and experts on Islam and counterterrorism, and the recommendation was unanimous: The book, “The Cartoons That Shook the World,” should not include the 12 Danish drawings that originally appeared in September 2005. What’s more, they suggested that the Yale press also refrain from publishing any other illustrations of the prophet that were to be included, specifically, a drawing for a children’s book; an Ottoman print; and a sketch by the 19th-century artist Gustave Doré of Muhammad being tormented in Hell, an episode from Dante’s “Inferno” that has been depicted by Botticelli, Blake, Rodin and Dalí.

The book’s author, Jytte Klausen, a Danish-born professor of politics at Brandeis University, in Waltham, Mass., reluctantly accepted Yale University Press’s decision not to publish the cartoons. But she was disturbed by the withdrawal of the other representations of Muhammad. All of those images are widely available, Ms. Klausen said by telephone, adding that “Muslim friends, leaders and activists thought that the incident was misunderstood, so the cartoons needed to be reprinted so we could have a discussion about it.” The book is due out in November.

John Donatich, the director of Yale University Press, said by telephone that the decision was difficult, but the recommendation to withdraw the images, including the historical ones of Muhammad, was “overwhelming and unanimous.” The cartoons are freely available on the Internet and can be accurately described in words, Mr. Donatich said, so reprinting them could be interpreted easily as gratuitous.

He noted that he had been involved in publishing other controversial books—like “The King Never Smiles” by Paul M. Handley, a recent unauthorized biography of Thailand’s current monarch—and “I’ve never blinked.” But, he said, “when it came between that and blood on my hands, there was no question.”

Reza Aslan, a religion scholar and the author of “No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam,” is a fan of the book but decided to withdraw his supportive blurb that was to appear in the book after Yale University Press dropped the pictures. The book is “a definitive account of the entire controversy,” he said, “but to not include the actual cartoons is to me, frankly, idiotic.”

In Mr. Aslan’s view no danger remains. “The controversy has died out now, anyone who wants to see them can see them,” he said of the cartoons, noting that he has written and lectured extensively about the incident and shown the cartoons without any negative reaction. He added that none of the violence occurred in the United States: “There were people who were annoyed, and what kind of publishing house doesn’t publish something that annoys some people?”

“This is an academic book for an academic audience by an academic press,” he continued. “There is no chance of this book having a global audience, let alone causing a global outcry.” He added, “It’s not just academic cowardice, it is just silly and unnecessary.”

Mr. Donatich said that the images were still provoking unrest as recently as last year when the Danish police arrested three men suspected of trying to kill the artist who drew the cartoon depicting Muhammad’s turban as a bomb. He quoted one of the experts consulted by Yale—Ibrahim Gambari, special adviser to the secretary general of the United Nations and the former foreign minister of Nigeria—as concluding: “You can count on violence if any illustration of the prophet is published. It will cause riots, I predict, from Indonesia to Nigeria.”

Aside from the disagreement about the images, Ms. Klausen said she was also disturbed by Yale’s insistence that she could read a 14-page summary of the consultants’ recommendations only if she signed a confidentiality agreement that forbade her from talking about them. “I perceive it to be a gag order,” she said, after declining to sign. While she could understand why some of the individuals consulted might prefer to remain unidentified, she said, she did not see why she should be precluded from talking about their conclusions.

Linda Koch Lorimer, vice president and secretary of Yale University, who had discussed the summary with Ms. Klausen, said on Wednesday that she was merely following the original wishes of the consultants, some of whom subsequently agreed to be identified.

Ms. Klausen, who is also the author of “The Islamic Challenge: Politics and Religion in Western Europe,” argued that the cartoon protests were not spontaneous but rather orchestrated demonstrations by extremists in Denmark and Egypt who were trying to influence elections there and by others hoping to destabilize governments in Pakistan, Lebanon, Libya and Nigeria. The cartoons, she maintained, were a pretext, a way to mobilize dissent in the Muslim world.

Although many Muslims believe the Koran prohibits images of the prophet, Muhammad has been depicted through the centuries in both Islamic and Western art without inciting disturbances.

Rather than sign a joint editor’s note for the book and the removal of the images, Ms. Klausen has requested instead that a statement from her be included. “I agreed,” she said, “to the press’s decision to not print the cartoons and other hitherto uncontroversial illustrations featuring images of the Muslim prophet, with sadness. But I also never intended the book to become another demonstration for or against the cartoons, and hope the book can still serve its intended purpose without illustrations.”

Other publishers, including The New York Times, chose not to print the cartoons or images of Muhammad when the controversy erupted worldwide in February 2006.

Ms. Klausen said, “I can understand that a university is risk averse, and they will make that choice” not to publish the cartoons, but Yale University Press, she added, went too far in taking out the other images of Muhammad.

“The book’s message,” Ms. Klausen said, “is that we need to calm down and look at this carefully.”

[end of Times article]

Just as Patricia Cohen began the article with an editorial manipulation, she ends it with one. The comment by the book’s author, Jytte Klausen, “The book’s message is that we need to calm down and look at this carefully,” evidently concerned the Cartoon controversy itself. Indeed, that must be the case. Since the book was written before the present controversy, the word “this” in Klausen’s remark, “we need to calm down and look at this carefully,” cannot be referring to the present controversy over the publisher’s spiking of the cartoons; it refers to the original Cartoon controversy itself. But by inappropriately putting the comment at the very end of the article, in the midst of the discussion about Yale University Press, Cohen effectively changes Klausen’s message to: “We need to calm down concerning this present controversy about what Yale University Press has done to my book.” Which is the opposite of Klausen’s actual attitude as shown in the article. As Cohen’s own quotations of Klausen make clear, Klausen is upset about the way the publisher omitted historical images of Muhammad from the book, and also she was offended by and refused to sign the non-disclosure agreement the publisher required her to sign in order for her to be able to look at the recommendations by their panel of advisors.

Read again this:

But she was disturbed by the withdrawal of the other representations of Muhammad. All of those images are widely available, Ms. Klausen said by telephone, adding that “Muslim friends, leaders and activists thought that the incident was misunderstood, so the cartoons needed to be reprinted so we could have a discussion about it.”

And this:

Aside from the disagreement about the images, Ms. Klausen said she was also disturbed by Yale’s insistence that she could read a 14-page summary of the consultants’ recommendations only if she signed a confidentiality agreement that forbade her from talking about them. “I perceive it to be a gag order,” she said, after declining to sign. While she could understand why some of the individuals consulted might prefer to remain unidentified, she said, she did not see why she should be precluded from talking about their conclusions.

And this, the article’s penultimate paragraph:

Ms. Klausen said, “I can understand that a university is risk averse, and they will make that choice” not to publish the cartoons, but Yale University Press, she added, went too far in taking out the other images of Muhammad.

But immediately after that paragraph, in the final paragraph, Cohen writes:

“The book’s message,” Ms. Klausen said, “is that we need to calm down and look at this carefully.”

By dishonestly making the author’s remark about the original Cartoon controversy appear to be about the Yale University Press controversy, Cohen subverts Klausen’s own statements about the latter. Cohen had just quoted Klausen criticizing what Yale had done; then Cohen turns around and quotes Klausen seeming to say that everyone (including Klausen herself apparently) ought to calm down.

To sum up, in the first sentence the article, Cohen, in a blatantly inappropriate editorial intrusion, justifies in advance Yale’s stunning move:

It’s not all that surprising that Yale University Press would be wary of reprinting notoriously controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a forthcoming book.

And in the last sentence of the article, Cohen, through her dishonest manipulation of Klausen’s words, tells us to sit back and take a deep breath before we react to Yale’s stunning move.

“The book’s message,” Ms. Klausen said, “is that we need to calm down and look at this carefully.”

Cohen thus brackets the article in messages that are designed to muffle the reader’s expected response of shock and indignation at Yale University Press for its shocking act of censorship and self-dhimmitude.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 13, 2009 12:10 AM | Send