The rights and wrongs of Yale Press' decision to ban images of the Prophet Muhammad

Intro in Spanish: El periódico danés, Jyllands-Posten publico el 30 de Septiembre del 2005 una serie de caricaturas del profeta Mahoma que indignaron al mundo islámico. A finales del 2009, Yale University Press decidió no publicar de nuevo las dichas caricaturas que debían formar parte del libro escrito por Jytte Klausen “Cartoons that Shook the World”. Fue la decisión de Yale Press la más apropiada?

The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published on the 30th of September of 2005 a series of twelve cartoons mocking Islamic prophet Muhammad. While the newspaper stated that the cartoons were published to encourage debate about different aspects of Islam, Danish Muslim organizations and Muslim communities all over the world took serious offense. The controversy caused riots and disturbances in several Islamic countries during the following months, killing “as many as 200 people around the world.” In late 2009, Yale University Press decided not to reprint the Danish depictions of the prophet, which were to be part of a book about the original twelve cartoons that started the controversy – “Cartoons that Shook the World” by Jytte Klausen. Yale stated that the republication of the cartoons could pose a risk, given that they had “repeatedly resulted in violent incidents, including as recently as 2008.” Yale's decision reignited the controversy about the original cartoons, their relation to freedom of expression and their connection to other controversies surrounding the Western perception of the Islamic world. Was Yale's decision right or wrong?


From a journalistic perspective, it is very difficult to argue against Yale's decision. Reprinting images that are widely and readily available and, which recently caused the death of 200 people, seems gratuitous. Mere academic debate is not enough to outweigh the possible consequences of putting the finger on the sore spot, once again. In other words, if we consider some of the main tenets of media ethics and responsible journalism, such as respect and the avoidance of harm, Yale's decision seems to be justified.

However, critics of the decision seem to agree that Yale's attitude threatens the basic American concept of freedom of speech. Sheila Blair, professor of Islamic and Asian art at Norma Jean Calderwood University comma argues that “to deny that such images were made is to distort the historical record and to bow to the biased view of some modern zealots who would deny that others at other times and places perceived and illustrated Muhammad in different ways.” Others argued that the most shuddery aspect of Yale's decision is how it answered threats that had not even made yet, encouraging some type of permanent self-censorship. In my opinion, these types of arguments are American ethnocentric overstatements, that assume positions of moral, cultural and ethical superiority. From my European perspective and understanding, the symbolism and meaning behind printing images of the prophet Muhammad could compare to the act of burning American flags. Although it is a stretch, would Americans just sit back and calmly respect and watch Islamic schools teach their youth different ways of offending Americans? I do not think there is anyone that would say yes. Thus, why should Americans have the right to print images that offend Muslims? Many might answer that their right is related to American freedom of speech, the American's plural possessive quest to defend human rights around the world, the American right to defend itself against terrorism, etc. Thus, returning to the idea of overzealous American ethnocentrism and cultural relativism. However, in my opinion, the issue at stake is not finding similar weak-spots in different cultures, but to find a mutual understanding as ground for dialogue. Even though many argue the contrary, Yale's decision promoted a type of respect towards the Muslim world, which does not have many precedents.

Nevertheless, the author of the book, Jytte Klausen expressed her disagreement with Yale on several occasions, stating that “by printing the cartoons, [she is] arguing that some of them are Islamophobic, and in the tradition of anti-Semitism,” in opposition to the initial offensive context in which they were printed. Moreover, she also commented on “Yale's insistence that she read a 14-page summary of the consultants' recommendations only if she signed a confidentiality agreement.” This restrictive contract has been criticized as somewhat dubious and limiting, which partially harmed Yale's case. However, it does not seem to be other than a mere security measure to avoid further controversies.


In conclusion, Yale's decision mainly promotes the concepts of respect, the avoidance of harm and cultural awareness - concepts that could have banned the original cartoons and averted the resulting riots and deaths in the first place. Although media practitioners might not face very often the challenge of adjusting their biased ethnic-gendered-religious lenses, if they are not taught and encouraged to do so, they might never be able to do it. Thus, their work probably would result in a type of media product that would not encourage multicultural understanding and/or the creation of a cohesive society.

M.J. Soria

Quoted from:
http://slate.com/id/2225504
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/aug/14/publisher-bans-images-muhammad
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/books/13book.html?_r=2

Are Americans stupid?

No offense intended. It is just a very funny video :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE

Washington & Lee's Honor System: A mere product of the time from which it arose?

Intro en Español: El "Sistema de Honor" de la Universidad Washington y Lee es uno de los emblemas más característicos de la cultura Lexingtoniana. Sin embargo, muchos razonan que el sistema forma parte del pasado de la universidad y del siglo en el que fue fundada. El siguiente articulo debate el valor actual del sistema, desde las perspectivas de Marx y Nietzsche.

Washington and Lee University's (W&L) Honor System is considered to be one of the main moral pillars of the institution, which is traced back to the years when General Robert E. Lee assumed the presidency of the university (1865 – 1870). Since then, entering students vow to never cheat, lie, steal or behave in any manner that could compromise their reputation as gentlemen. As the current version of the White book states “the Honor System of Washington and Lee is based on the fundamental principle that a spirit of trust pervades all aspects of student life.” While the system has become one of the unique “trademarks” of the institution, debates about what actions are considered violations, the significance of having female students attending the university and, the general effectiveness of the system, are not uncommon. Is the system a dated product of the culture and time from which it arose? Are the interests it first served still a significant part of the community life at W&L?


One of the first actions taken by General Robert E. Lee in 1865, in order to start establishing a relationship of trust between faculty and students was stopping “faculty visitation of dormitories and all other clandestine supervision of students’ conduct.” Moreover, by 1905, students took over the administration of the system and created the Executive Committee of the Student Body. This focus on self-government and self-reliance closely echoes some of the basic principles of American civic and political culture that originated with the Declaration of Independence and developed throughout the following century - principles mainly regarding individualism and a widespread opposition against too centralized power. In other words, W&L's Honor System could be considered a translation of the basic American values of self-government and social responsibility, into practical notions applied to the learning environment. In my opinion, it was in Lee's best interest as W&L's President, to create a space where students could feel trusted and feel as they were considered equal independent adults, given that the country itself was undergoing a very similar transition.

However, what does this say about the moral value of having an honor system based on these premises? Karl Marx argued that “moral values are ideological in character – that is, they are not products of pure reason but are the effects of material forces that are their source” (190). Thus, Marx seems to argue that the creation of moral values is the consequence of some type of material and/or personal interest, rather than the result of pure rational concern for the common good. From this perspective, it could be argued that the Honor System and the moral values it promotes were probably the result of Lee's ideology and/or, somewhat beneficial for the interests of the contemporary administrators.

Moreover, even though currently many understand the honor system as a tool to create a sense of equality between students, initially, the system aimed at creating “gentlemen” who held up to the standards of what was considered honorable and/or good during the nineteenth century. Interestingly, the very same concept of “gentleman” probably excluded many sectors of society, as women and African Americans, to mention some. The concept of having specific moral expectations and/or standards about what is 'good' for some, while others were excluded, seems to reflect the social class structure of the time. Nietzsche argued that “the etymological significance of the various symbols for the idea 'good' […] led back to the same evolution of the same idea, [that of] “'aristocratic soul,' 'noble,' […] 'with a privileged soul”(215). Taking this perspective in consideration, it could be argued that Robert E. Lee established an elitist, aristocratic and, discriminating moral standard for a few privileged ones.


Robert E. Lee's burial site at Washington and Lee University

Another aspect of the Honor System that points at its dated, or at least, very specific utility within the W&L community, is how the system probably would not be successful in other type of institution. For example, such system would not work in a regular European university, either because European students do not seem to hold the same standards regarding academic cheating and/or, because larger universities provide certain anonymity anonymity that often encourages cheating. Marx also expressed this point by stating that, “there are no moral philosophies that hold for all cultures and times” (191). However, it could be argued that the Student Body has attempted to address this generational gap between the first W&L students who submitted to the system, and the current students, by adding the clause that reads: “The Honor System condemns only acts that the current student generation views as breaches of the community’s trust, and although dishonorable conduct cannot be codified, lying, cheating and stealing have historically been found to be examples of breaches of the Honor System.”

Nevertheless, in my opinion, the system mainly serves the concept of tradition and the always-present reverence of Robert E. Lee's achievements, rather than aiming at creating a sense of social responsibility within and outside the W&L community. This personal opinion is mostly based on the controversies regarding the treatment of female students and sexual harassment at W&L. Concluding, even though it does create certain sense of security and trust within the community, W&L's Honor System could be considered an elitist ideology designed for few, which would not be often applicable outside Lexington.

M.J. Soria

Prof. Wasserman from Washington & Lee University added:
"To complete the thought, it would be worthwhile to consider the role of “honor” for the students of this university in the late 1860s. These were the sons of the ancestral ruling class, the rural aristocracy whose wealth disappeared with the emancipation of the slaves. “Honor” could serve as a binding ideology, a claim to moral superiority and a way to distinguish between men who belonged and those who did not."

Cited Work:
Albert, Ethel M., Theodore Cullom Denise, and Sheldon Paul Peterfreund. Great Traditions in Ethics; An Introduction. [New York]: American Book Co, 1953.
http://www.wlu.edu/x7742.xml

Bald Eagle Tired Of Everyone Just Assuming It Supports War

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bald_eagle_tired_of_everyone_just

One of my Haikus

Intro en Español: A haiku es un tipo de poema Japonés que consiste en 17 sílabas, divididas en tres línes de 5, 7 y 5 sílabas cada una. Los haikus tradicionales normalmente tratan sobre las estaciones y usan una limitada serie de recursos literarios. Ahí va uno de los míos, escrito en Kanji, o carácteres Chinos.

道なりに
枯 葉の上に
秋の 雨



Along the street,
on top of dead leaves
the fall rain.

A lo largo de la calle,
encima de hojas muertas,
la lluvia de Otoño.

M.J. Soria

Plato's “Allegory of the Cave” and media's social responsibility

Intro en Español: El siguiente ensayo/artículo trata sobre la alegoría/mito de la caverna de Platón y como puede ser aplicada al rol de los periodistas en la sociedad actual. ¿Tienen los periodistas algún tipo de responsabilidad social dada su formación profesional, en términos prácticos y éticos? En mi opinión, me atrevo a decir que probablemente, Platón habría dicho que sí.

In his “Parable of the Cave,” Plato compares society and the politics of power to a cave, where men understand reality as a mere show composed by shadows casted on a wall. The inhabitants of the cave are tied to their chairs, prevented from looking back or even looking at their peers. Thus, they have a very narrow, fabricated perception of their surroundings and ultimately, their lives. Plato states that “in every way, then, such prisoners would recognize as reality nothing but the shadows of those artificial objects” (MacDonald, 229).


However, Plato also presents the possibility of what would happen if one of the prisoners was freed and/or forced to discover the world outside the cave. The experience itself is described as very traumatic and a harsh awakening to the truth of reality, full of “distress caused by a too sudden passage from darkness to light” (MacDonald, 227). The prisoner would experience pain, confusion, fear and uncertainty, until he could figure out what was real and what was not – until he realized that what he perceived as reality within the cave was nothing else but fabrications.

Nevertheless, Plato encourages the enlightened man to return to the cave, even though his peers would not understand what he experienced outside. The other prisoners would most probably consider him a fool who “had gone up only to come back with his sight ruined,” given that he could not perceive the shadows on the wall in the same manner as they did (MacDonald, 231). Moreover, Plato also suggests that there would be even a physical risk for whoever tried to free more people, due to the fear and panic experienced by the prisoners when they considered having their current understanding and perception of their world altered. Thus, “if they could lay hands on the man who was trying to set them free and lead them up, they would kill him” (MacDonald, 231).



Plato argues that the enlightened prisoner is obligated to return to the cave “to live with the rest and let [his/her] eyes grow accustomed to the darkness” (MacDonald, 234). This probably means that he should have a sense of social responsibility towards his original cave community, where he can play a new role. In other words, as an enlightened man, he ought to come back and live in the darkness with the others, where he “will recognize every image for what it is and know what it represents, because [he had] seen justice, beauty, and goodness in their reality” (MacDonald, 234). Only by coming back and becoming used to the darkness again will he understand what the fabrications in the cave really meant, through which techniques and for which motives his oppressors tied them down to their chairs and blurred their perception of reality. When the enlightened prisoner understands the strings and manipulations behind the puppet show, he acquires a higher level of consciousness and therefore a new desire for knowledge. His/her desires could also go beyond the acquisition of power within the normative standards of the cave, having a genuine interest in the common good of the society he belongs to.



Finally, it could be argued that Plato's allegory aims at paralleling the role and experience of the philosopher who takes a step back from his/her society's conventions and understanding of reality, to realize how many aspects of our lives have been systematically presented and organized for us, without further questioning on our part. Moreover, it could also apply to the politicians and rulers who “live fighting one another about shadows and quarreling for power,” rather than wondering what they are actually fighting for and, if it serves any other interests than their own. Although it is a personal interpretation, the allegory could also be applied to the media and media practitioners in terms of their social responsibility to the communities and clients they serve. In other words, that media practitioners who have an understanding of factors such as communication techniques, the different degrees of influence that certain media can have, media ethics and, journalistic values, have a responsibility to use them for the common good, rather than for selfish, unethical interests. As Plato stated, the enlightened prisoner “sees a thousand times better than those who live [in the cave] always,” having a more accurate perception of reality and ultimately, a broader range of knowledge (MacDonald, 234).

M.J. Soria


Prof. Wasserman at W&L also noted that:
Beyond that, the prisoner did not achieve enlightenment unaided. S/he was led from the cave by other people and was shown the light (educated) by other people. So enlightenment has a social origin, and creates a corresponding obligation to reciprocate. That’s a reason she prisoner must return—to save the city (the cave) from being ruled by the vain and the ambitious, the same people who believe in the reality of the shadows on the wall.

Consulted version of Plato's “The Republic:”
Macdonald Cornford, Francis. The Republic of Plato. London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1977.

Morality in the film “Saving Private Ryan”

Introducción en Español:
Aunque muchos no lo podrán creer, la semana pasada vi por primera vez en mi vida, la película “Salvar al Soldado Ryan”. El siguiente ensayo debate algunos de los dilemas éticos presentados en la película, desde diferentes puntos de vista y/o filosofías.

Introduction in English:
Believe it or not, I watched the movie "Saving Private Ryan" for the first time, just few days ago. The following is a discussion of some of the ethical issues presented in the film, from different moral perspectives.
Having to write this essay and attending a talk given last week at Washington & Lee University by NPR Correspondent Jackie Northam has got me thinking about writing another article about Afghanistan and many of the US-War controversies. Stay tuned.

Quotes from "Great Traditions in Ethics" - Denise, White & Peterfreund.


Morality in the film “Saving Private Ryan”

Mrs. Ryan, an American mother whose four sons had been deployed to Europe during World War II, was about to receive several telegrams informing her of the death of three of her sons. When the news reached the Chief of Staff George C. Marshall, he decided to send out a team of eight men to rescue the fourth brother, Private Ryan. Marshall argued that rescuing him would be the only way to alleviate some of the grief of a mother and a family who had sacrificed everything for America. However, the mission entailed a rather high level of risk given that they had no information about his exact location and if he was still alive or not. As the story line develops, the members of the team die one by one in different circumstances, both before and after they found Private Ryan. The last scene of the film presents an aged Mr. Ryan, with a numerous family accompanying him to a military cemetery where he remembered the members of the team that rescued him. Even after so many decades, he wondered if he actually earned the chance of living his life while others lost theirs for him. Was the squad's mission the right thing to do?

From Kant's perspective on morality, the squad's mission was probably the right thing to do if we consider that America had a duty to lessen Ms. Ryan’s pain after all her sons had sacrificed themselves for their country. Moreover, the members of the squad performed a moral action by rescuing him due to the fact that they did not do it because they wanted to, rather because they felt it was their duty to obey orders in order to earn their right to go home.



Kant emphasizes the value of good will and/or intention, arguing that “a good will is good not because of what it performs or effects, […] but simply by virtue of the volition, that is, it is good in itself” (145). Thus, the fact that the rescuing team died would not affect the moral value of their action as a whole. Moreover, when arguing categorical imperatives, Kant is of the opinion that there are universal values and laws that we should take into consideration when judging the moral value of an action. In other words, there are actions that we perform because we either hope, wish and/or think that they should be performed by everyone for the common good. Thus, it could be argued that Marshall's decision to send the rescue team had a positive moral value given that ideally, we would not want to live in a scenario where government officials easily disregarded the feelings of a grieving mother and a patriotic family, such as Ms. Ryan's. Moreover, by rescuing Private Ryan, Marshall treated a soldier and his mother as ends in themselves, rather than means to an end. In other words, if he had treated all soldiers as mere means to winning the war, he would not have cared about Private Ryan or his family.

From Prof. John Rawl's perspective on the meaning of justice, the squad's mission was probably also the right thing to do for Ms. Ryan for three reasons. First, if all the members involved in the story were to be “impartial – that is, [...] operate under a Rawlsian 'veil of ignorance,'” it would be difficult to believe that any of the squad members would not like to be rescued if their mother had lost all her other sons (307). Second, even though Marshall's order privileged the life of Private Ryan over the lives of the members of the rescue team, from the Rawlsian perspective, it could be argued that this inequality should be allowed given that it benefits the least privileged, or in this case, the most grieving. Lastly, Rawl emphasized the concept of justice as a type of reciprocity based on the “mutual acknowledgment of principles by free and equal persons who have not authority over one another” (308). Thus, although most of the soldiers were not participating in the mission voluntarily, it could be argued that Private Ryan could have engaged in a similar rescue mission if it have been asked of him, for any other soldier. This possibility would be reflected by his reluctance to leave the bridge and his sense of responsibility towards his country.


The third and last perspective on moral dilemmas is John's Stuart Mill's concept of Utilitarianism, which mainly judges actions by the magnitude and value of their consequences. Mills argues that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (160). Moreover, Mills argues that pain and “pleasures vary in kind as well as in degree” (160). From this perspective, it is very difficult to draw a clear line between what could be consider wrong or right. First, it could be argued that saving Private Ryan did not only lessen the pain of a grieving mother, but contributed to the winning of the war by influencing the battle for the bridge into Paris. Regardless of the intentions and/or attitudes of Marshall and the squad, thousands of lives were saved by the rescuing team. Thus, in this case, more happiness was generated in the long term. On the other hand, it could be argued that all the relatives of the squad team would also suffer by the loss of their husbands, brothers and/or sons, rather than just having one grieving mother. Thus, generating in this case more grief in the short term. However, these are all hypothetical cases that deal with imaginary consequences that cannot be predicted or measured.


In my opinion, sending a group of men into an almost suicidal mission to rescue someone who might be most likely dead is not immoral, just very irresponsible. I cannot help keep thinking that, it is rather ironic that governments around the world often take actions that harm their citizens, like avoiding taking measures against environmental pollution, because they would suppose a great economic cost. While sacrificing both, civilian and military, human lives in wars are often considered mere collateral damages. When arguing all these different moral perspectives, I had to refrain myself from creating a graded scale to measure the value of one human life against eight other lives, due to the common taboo about putting a price on human life in general. However, it seems that in practical reality, these perspectives and the value they place on human life are rarely applied.

M.J. Soria