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