Chancellor’s statement on the Badger Herald’s publishing of controversial cartoon

From Chancellor John D. Wiley, February 14, 2006:

“On Monday, Feb. 13, the Badger Herald reprinted one of the Danish newspaper cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist figure, one of several such cartoons that have provoked worldwide, often violent unrest among Muslims. In association with this cartoon, the Badger Herald Editorial Board authored an opinion piece entitled ‘Sacred Images, Sacred Rights,’ explaining its perception of the newsworthy quality of the cartoon in view of the reactions that have followed its initial publication.

In large part, the board’s stated rationale was an unapologetic defense of free speech, and the need to further public discussion with relevant information irrespective of repugnant or offensive content: “In sharing this, we seek not to offend members of the Islamic faith or insult those who see the image’s argument to be comprised of a fallacy. Rather, we print this as a symbol of our continued dedication to free speech and as a means of better informing the debate that has been sparked.”

Predictably, this action has brought home to Madison, Wisconsin, and to the university community, the same visceral, emotional response reported by the international media during the past several days. People that we all know, work with and study with are hurt, scarred by what they believe to be a senseless prolongation of an intentionally insensitive, racist and distorted commentary on the very foundation of one of the world’s great religions. Understandably, those offended desire redress – apologies, retractions and, perhaps most importantly, a sense of communal condemnation. They see no justification for speech they perceive to have been hateful in character, injurious not only to their sense of place in the broader fabric of society, but to their spiritual selves.

This is not the first time that the swords of speech and controversy have clashed on this campus, and, most assuredly, it will not be the last. Most often, the disputes have involved charges of racial, ethnic or religious insensitivity, even hostility – not unlike the situation today. But any review of these disputes demonstrates a common finding: that the public controversies which ensued represent, together, a perfect embodiment of unrestricted speech in a free society, in which all views on a given subject were given equal weight and attention, aired so that every individual could form his or her own opinions. Then, as now, it should never be routine to recall that this university has for more than 100 years championed the cause of free and open debate, the “fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found,” and that an increasingly complex world requires this standard more than ever.

Are there choices reflected here? Of course. The editorial board could have authored its statement without inclusion of the cartoon, or argued that material so clearly offensive has no place in a community such as this. The board chose a different path, has explained its decision and must answer to its readership, ultimately, regarding how it chose to balance information and community impact. It must also respond to the indignation and revulsion expressed by those most personally affected, because that is part of any honest commitment to free and open engagement on issues in the public arena. And, as views are exchanged, all of us will be better educated about the impact of our words and beliefs on each other, including the very real possibility that what some may see as “interesting” or “topical” appears to others as unwelcoming, threatening and even dangerous.

We should remember, always, that actions have consequences. Even if we don’t see these consequences – as often is the case when the impact of an action is felt most directly by the smaller social and cultural communities that help to form our complex, multicultural environment – we cannot pretend that they don’t require our attention. Part of balancing what we should be made aware of is taking the time to appreciate that the act of communicating that information often means that somebody is paying the cost.”