A cartoon that appeared in the University of Maryland--College Park's student newspaper has drawn protests and prompted a sit-in for its gross insensitivity. The cartoon shows a woman sitting in front of an approaching bulldozer, with the word "Stupidity" defined below her. One of the several meanings listed ran thus: "3. Sitting in front of a bulldozer to protect a gang of terrorists." You can view the cartoon here.

Though only ten people attended the vigil, thousands either called or emailed the paper to express their outrage (a few people expressed threats). "Every newspaper has a standard of decency," said one protester organizer. "You wouldn't see cartoon in the newspaper making fun of 9-11 victims, you wouldn't see a cartoon making fun of a suicide-bombing victim." (She's wrong, of course: it all depends on your definition of "victim.")

The people at The Diamondback were unimpressed by the protesters' demands for an apology and an article honoring the life of Rachel Corrie, citing the importance of free speech in a staff editorial the following day: "Though many staff members objected to the cartoon's viewpoint, the editors unanimously determined that by apologizing for the cartoon, we would call into question the First Amendment - a blessing from our forefathers every newspaper and every protester in America lives by." These sentiments were eloquently echoed by the paper's editor-in-chief, who had this to say about the decision to run the cartoon: "Friedman's cartoons are often jarring and controversial, but clearly this one went further than any other. When he submitted his cartoon Tuesday evening, several editors and I had a brief discussion and some voiced disagreement with Mr. Friedman's viewpoint. But ultimately, this decision was not about a viewpoint. The decision was about freedom of speech, and that made the decision easy. Though the cartoon represents a radical view, The Diamondback's editorial board believes wholeheartedly in freedom of speech. We would be hypocritical to revoke any speech on the grounds of radicalism." He concluded his piece by reminding the UM community that The Diamondback is an independent newspaper that receives no university funding, apart from paid ad space, and no money from student fees.

University officials have left education in the First Amendment up to the paper, preferring to devote their public commentary on the matter to deriding the taste of the cartoonist and the editors who printed his creation. While the student editor of The Diamondback has studiously refused to state his personal opinion of the cartoon, stating that the paper made a viewpoint neutral decision to run it and reminding protesters that it is the obligation of a respectable free press not to shy away from printing radical views because they might offend, Maryland's chief of staff Ann Wylie has denounced the cartoon as "tasteless" and "crude" and has called the paper an "embarrassment." Not content to stop there, she has also claimed to speak for UM President Dan Mote himself: "Mote feels exactly like I do. We're embarrassed. The Diamondback embarrassed the university. People across the world think the University of Maryland is supporting this. The Diamondback has damaged me by publishing something as distasteful as this."

Yes, that's right, Wylie actually said the paper had damaged her by printing the piece. It's pretty clear she means that the paper has damaged her career, and it's pretty clear she thinks her career is more important than free speech. Wylie did add, as an afterthought, the obligatory acknowledgement that the paper had "the right to do it." But her comments make it unmistakably clear that she is far more concerned with maintaining UM's image than with defending civil liberties on campus. They also make it clear that she cannot imagine how it might be that UM's image might be enhanced if it turned the controversy into a "teaching moment" and used it to demonstrate the value of robust debate (for an example of how to do that, see University of Pennsylvania President Judith Rodin's response to the anti-Palestinian comments made by a Penn grad student last year). Wylie's are the words of a university administrator with absolutely no concept of why free expression matters on a campus, and with no clue that her job, as a top official at a state school, includes preserving the individual rights of faculty and students at the school. She has run for cover and has left The Diamondback's editor to twist in the wind all by himself.

Meanwhile, The Diamondback continues to cover the controversy--it is the source of Wylie's comments, for example--with a grace and balance that shames the self-interested sneerings of the UM administration. Check out the Diamondback article where Wylie's comments appear for additional negative commentary from UM journalism professors, a dean, a provost, and even a Congressman. All invoke the nebulous and eminently manipulable concepts of "taste" and "sensitivity" to back their opinion that the paper should not have run the cartoon. The Diamondback has met these criticisms with a scathing editorial excerpted here:

Administrators have every right to disparage the cartoon and our editorial staff, echoing the sentiments of thousands from around the world. But their eagerness to speak with passion on this issue while languishing in apathy on more important matters borders on hypocrisy.

Mote himself, in an e-mail to students on war with Iraq, eloquently said, "On campus we must maintain our principle of a free, open and civil society where differing points of view can be considered, accepted or rejected as we each decide for ourselves where the truth lies."

Guess that goes out the window when image is on the line.

The UM administration has received a lot of email from people who are offended by The Diamondback's decision to publish the cartoon; it goes without saying that such emails are being sent by individuals who neither recognize UM's obligation to free speech nor understand that The Diamondback is an independent paper that does not answer to UM administrators. One hopes that after Wylie's outburst, the administration is also receiving a lot of email from people who are offended by the university's handling of the controversy.

Ann Wylie can be reached at awylie@deans.umd.edu. Dan Mote's email address is not published on the UM website. But the addresses of the people who work in his office are.

Thanks to reader Fred R. for the tip.

"The Diamondback has damaged me by publishing something as distasteful as this.."

It's just incredible how self-centered these people are. In any situation, it's all about meeeeeeee...

It bothers me when people in high admin positions are asked about the cartoon and their first instinct is to voice their personal opinion on the cartoon when clearly the larger issue is freedom of expression. Why can't they see that their personal opinion of the cartoon is irrelevant?

The cartoon may offend but its message is clear..A self styled martyr, outside of her element, becomes the pawn of Bus Bombers and maliscious criminals. Her choice and a stupid one as well.

The cartoon obviously is "free speech," just as Ms. Corrie's burning of mock American flags in Gaza to try to inflame a Palestinian crowd was also "free speech." It's also "free speech" for those who don't like the cartoon to protest against it.

I personally think it's too bad she got herself killed, but she was doing something stupid. Going to another country and interfering with a military operation against terrorists and expecting your American nationality to protect you from harm is unrealistic and just plain stupid.

"Every newspaper has a standard of decency... You wouldn't see cartoon in the newspaper making fund of 9-11 victims, you wouldn't see a cartoon making fun of a suicide-bombing victim," Ghandehari said.

No? or No?

This whole thing just sickens me to the fullest. I used to be a student at UMCP and its a shame that the student newspaper allowed something like that to happen.

I agree fully with Raef Haggag, the organizer of the all-night protest, when he said that the Diamondback would never print a cartoon poking fun at a Suicide bombing vicitm.

http://www.inform.umd.edu/News/Diamondback/archives/2003/03/20/news1.html

What makes the editor think its ok to print a cartoon making fun of an American who was clearly peacfully protesting? I sickens me even more when I see people actually supporting the Diamondback's position to print it.

All this 'free speech' crap is just a trick. Free Speech turns into hate crimes and racial slurs if not restricted to a certain degree.

I applaud everyone who opposed the Diamondback and I encourage everyone to continue calling and sending emails to the Diamondback untill they apologize.

In one night, over 2,000 complaints poured in from around the globe - another sign on how sick this cartoon really is.
http://www.inform.umd.edu/News/Diamondback/archives/2003/03/20/news4.html

"Free Speech turns into hate crimes and racial slurs if not restricted to a certain degree."

Oh, dear. I was afraid this recently-invented "hate crime" thing was a very bad idea.

Eric, your outlook on freedom of speech is frightening. The whole point of protecting free speech is to permit things to be said and written that others might consider offensive. What is the point of protecting only speech that offends nobody?

Perhaps you should consider what has been said elsewhere on this blog and on other blogs: What makes you think that your ideological comrades are going to be forever in charge of the speech codes you've implemented, or tried to implement?

Oh, and does it really make a difference that 2,000 people emailed The Diamondback in protest? Ever hear the aphorism that ends with, "...ten billion flies can't be wrong?" I'm sure there are at least 2,000 people, if not more, who agreed with the cartoon, but don't feel the need to blackmail an apology out of any and every news outlet that offends them.

Finally, there's a big moral difference between teenagers and babies who are splattered all over a street in Tel Aviv or rendered permanently brain-damaged by a homicide bomber...and a terrorist-defending upper-middle-class American college student who sits in front of a piece of heavy machinery, assuming her privileged white ass is going to save her from the law of Darwin.

Justin, I wanted to email you about the "Terror Widows" cartoon (this comments section isn't really the forum in which to discuss it), but the pic of your business card on your home page isn't coming up (I'm getting the little red X in the box), and your addy isn't linked or mentioned on timshelarts.com. Would you please drop me an email? Thanks.