| Free speech, civility and the impact on campus climate forum By Ben Freund |
| Among the many responses to the controversial publication of one of the notorious "Muhammad Cartoons" in the independent University of Wisconsin-Madison student newspaper The Badger Herald was one that hoped to present all sides of the contentious issue. The "Free Speech, Civility and the Impact on Campus Climate Forum" brought panelists of varying ages, backgrounds, and professions to discuss the responsibilities of a free press as they pertained to the publication of the blatantly racist, but also legitimately newsworthy cartoon. Curiously, while the event was emphatically described as a 'forum,' Chancellor John Wiley did not balk at welcoming the audience to a 'debate.' With emotions running high among many present, both in the audience and on the panel, it was clear that as Wiley promised, those in attendance would witness a "debate about real issues that are on us at the moment -- not things that are considered in a theoretical context in a classroom -- things that are actually happening and affecting people's lives." Ironically, most of those in attendance and some on the panel were themselves students accustomed to the theoretical context of the classroom rather than the practical realities of journalism and the effect it has on its audience. Badger Herald Editor Mac VerStandig, Suri Kempe of the Multicultural Student Coalition, and Ovamir Anjum of the Muslim Student Association were the youngest and perhaps most vocal panelists. The voices of these student leaders and their respective organizations had been heard extensively in the days since the controversial publication, and they spoke eloquently again in defense of their relatively idealistic positions. Another young panelist, opinion editor of The Daily Cardinal (UW-Madison's official student paper) Adam Schmidt was also present, and restricted his comments to contrasts between his paper's stance on the issue and the Herald's. But professors and journalists who had spent a lifetime in studying and practicing effective and responsible communication offered moderate viewpoints that acknowledged the essential conflicts of religion and free speech, minority interests and the public interest, truth and wisdom./ Tejumoh Olaniyan, an expert on political cartoons, noted "the fundamental fact that there will never be a comfortable meeting place between religion and free speech," and that "cartoons are supposed to be offensive and we just have to accept it that way," which meant that ironically this means "the cartoons are incredibly successful -- more successful than the artists ever would have liked." Professor Michael Thomas offered an interesting perspective as an African-American Son of the Confederacy. His grandfather fought on the side of the Confederacy in the civil war, and his reaction upon seeing a Confederate flag on the side of a car during his arrival in Madison may bear some resemblance to the reactions the cartoons inspired in the Muslim minority on campus who deal daily with the cultural fallout of the 'war on terror.' Thomas quoted not just the prophet Muhammad -- a popular rhetorical device of the evening -- but also comedian Chris Rock and Jedi Master Yoda to illustrate the burden of a free press to use discretion and be mindful of repercussions in its responsibility to present the truth. Alexis Simendinger, a writer for the National Journal, had been visiting campus as a guest instructor and was a fortuitous addition to the forum. With two questions, she identified the essential hypocrisy in publishing the cartoon in the name of 'truth.' As an unexpected guest, she was not fully prepared to discuss the full impact and backlash on the campus, and so for her opening remarks, she simply asked "Could I see a raise of hands of how many people went on the Internet to see the cartoons?" Most of the room raised their hands. Clearly, nobody who had an interest in seeing these news-making cartoons had any difficulty in doing so. After hearing more from all the panelists present, Simendinger asked VerStandig if the Herald had an ombudsman. A news ombudsman is a mediator between the press and the readership and advises a newspaper on which stories are relevant and ethical to publish. The Badger Herald does have an ombudsman, who strongly advised against the cartoon's publication. In the course of the forum, some panelists commented on the unfortunate tendency of the audience to clap selectively for the speakers they supported while booing at opposing rhetoric. "From here it looks very strange," said UW-Madison journalism professor Dietram Scheufele, "It violates my expectation of a university." Nearly 20 students rose to ask the panel questions at the conclusion of the forum, but almost without exception the questions consisted of attacks-in-the-form-of-a-question directed at Mac VerStandig. The session was a powerful display of the emotions that had been inflamed by the crude cartoon and the implied threat to free speech, but a disappointing end to a frank discussion. It was clear that most in attendance had not had their minds swayed from the opinions they held upon entering the forum, and the public venting of anger seemed to be the only result. Ultimately, while both sides of the debate were justified in their positions, it is doubtful that anybody was enriched by the controversy. But it is heartening that the reaction from UW administration was an attempt to generate positive dialogue rather than quash the offending paper as has occurred on some other campuses. After all, a free press should be free to make mistakes. |
 |
| to home page |
 |