耶鲁大学出版社主任John Donatich为不出版Jytte Klausen书中的插图做了辩解。
耶鲁大学决定在出版Jytte Klausen的著作《震撼世界的卡通》（The Cartoons That Shook the World）时不刊发其中的漫画插图，这个决定引发的争议在2009年此书出版后持续了数月。不刊发这些先知默罕默德的卡通和其他图片引起了公愤。很多人把它看成审查的例子或者对学术道德的牺牲。但我认为这些观点都不对。
将这些插图放在书里能够提升这本书的质量吗？也许吧。但是这本书的读者很快就会发现，这本书并不是对这些漫画的图像分析，也不是一本先知插图史。相反，这是一部惊险的推理小说：它探索了这些漫画出版后，针对它的抗议的源头和本质。这是一部研究不满如何扩散并被政治化，以及文化间的误解如何被沉淀和放大的学术著作。
《纽约时报》在2006年2月的社论中为其不出版这些漫画作了辩解，认为“这对新闻机构来说是个理智的决定，我们不能动不动就无端攻击宗教偶像，况且描述漫画的内容也很简单。”Klausen在她的书中确实精妙地描述了漫画的内容。
这些漫画的荒诞和无礼是有意为之。它们的目的就是要找碴，就是要是造成伤害并激怒他人。说的好听一点是格调低下，说得不好听一点就是有害和中伤。出版社绝对如此约稿，也不会作为原创作品将其出版。这足以成为不出版这些图片的理由。此外，这些图片到处都是。你可以轻而易举地在维基百科或者是其他无数网站上看到它们。最后，出版这些漫画和插图只会加深误解，并且重燃冲突，这与本书对这些现象所做中立的学术解读相悖。
我们考虑了所有这些理由。但是这些理由本身并不足以改变我们的观点。在读过Klausen的手稿后，我拨通电话告诉她，我非常欣赏她的著作，但是我对于是否应该刊发漫画很矛盾。这本书的合同并不强求我们出版这些插图，但是已经有很多建议要求我们这么做。我建议作者另寻一家愿意刊发完整漫画的出版商，但是作者并不想放弃耶鲁大学出版社，而且断言这些图片的出版不会带来任何暴力的风险。
然而我依然保有疑虑，并且将这个问题提交给了大学，当本校学生和员工遇到安全问题时，我都必须这么做。我并不是安全专家，而且我觉得不应该对这些对在校园中乃至耶鲁这个国际大家庭面临的风险漫不经心。当我走在耶鲁校园里，看到学生们涌出课堂时，心里很清楚他们不应该承担出版这些漫画可能带来的风险。我们从Klausen自己所写的大事记中就能看到，2005年丹麦报纸出版这些漫画后，后全世界爆发了一系列暴力事件，导致200多人丧生。再版这些漫画屡次造成全球性的暴力事件，比如最近一起发生在2008年六月的事件，这已是漫画初版3年以后，而且这些图片在网上可以随处搜到。我对企鹅出版社当年在出版Wendy Doniger关于印度教的著作时做出的决定深表理解。他们声明：“我们负有不可推卸的道德责任在力所能及的情况下保护我们的员工不受威胁和伤害。”
耶鲁大学代表出版社咨询了许多高级学者、外交官以及国家安全专家。这些专家们对暴力威胁的洞见中最主流的看法是，如果耶鲁大学出版社在出版研究默罕默德漫画的著作中刊发这些先知默罕默德的漫画或者插图，那么有很大的可能会引发暴力事件。
最后，我决定出版社必须删除这些图片，虽然我知道这样做会有负面的效果。很多人觉得我的决定是政治不正确，或者干脆就是错的。但是我始终相信这是负责任、合理、实际以及正确的做法。最终，我要强调，出版社并没有压制任何原创内容。
在接下来大讨论中，此书作者试图将讨论重新引导回书中的议题。出版社也是这么做的。然而，我们却在Klausen提醒过我们的恶性循环中举步维艰。Klausen把她对反对者的采访比作黑泽明的电影《罗生门》，她写到：“每个人都对事实有不同的理解，而且也很难理解他人做事的动机……故事的教训就是，我们对客观现实的诠释远比现实本身更重要。”
John Donatich是耶鲁大学出版社的主任。
在Timothy Garton Ash的采访中，Jytte Klausen谈了她对于此事的看法。
reply report Report comment
The right thing to do would have been either to publish the cartoons OR make a very, very big statement by closing down Yale Press altogether. What you did instead was cave into those Muslims who fervently hate the First Amendment. Possible threats of violence (the heckler’s veto) does not negate the First Amendment in America, but apparently it does at Yale. Your excuse is lame and pro-Sharia law. Yale should be a model, not of self-censorship, but rather of freedom and the Constitution…
G. Tod Slone, Ed.
The American Dissident (Yale is surprisingly a subscriber!)
reply report Report comment
Here is the cartoon sketch I did on Klausen and Donatich.
http://wwwtheamericandissidentorg.blogspot.com/2009/08/academic-censorship-redux-ad-infinitum.html
Klausen responded, but not Donatich.
G. Tod Slone, Ed.
The American Dissident
reply report Report comment
How did we come to such a place? Where the mere depiction of a long dead “prophet” can incite people to murder in the name of religion, and the re-publication of these same readily available images can cause a western publication house to fear for the safety of it employees and students? (I’m speaking rhetorically here… I understand all too well how the human race came to such a sorry place)
Elsewhere on this blog, Iranian cleric Mohsen Kadivar argues that insulting religion should be a crime. He also defends Islam, by saying that those who follow the Qur’an “and the authentic tradition of the prophet” know that freedom of speech and religion is recognized. He seems to argue that it is only when Sharia law is enforced that these ridiculous outbreaks of violence in the name of disrespecting their profit can be explained. While I disagree with his conclusions in the strongest possible terms, I’m glad to see an actual muslim cleric write the following:
“a) Though Islam considers itself the rightful divine religion, it has accepted the diversity and plurality of religions and thoughts, regardless of truth or false, even blasphemy, polytheism and atheism as a reality in this world. It has therefore left the qualification of their truthiness to be determined on the Day of Judgment.
b) People are free to choose their beliefs and their religion and no one can be forced to accept or deny any faith.
c) No one is to be punished in this life for believing in any given religion. A crime is associated with an action and a not a particular faith or belief.
d) No one is to be punished for changing religions or leaving a faith such as Islam. Placing any sort of worldly punishments, such as execution, for apostasy is against Islamic principles.
e) No one can be forced to observe Islamic obligations and abstain from the prohibited.
f) Criticising religious beliefs is inherent within a free Islam and holds no punishments, neither in the worldly life nor in the afterlife.
g) Insulting, ridiculing and scorning religious beliefs, including Islam, is unrighteous and a violation of the integrity and dignity of its believers. According to the Qur’an, insulting atheistic beliefs is also prohibited.”
So as an atheist, I’m in the clear with Islam. Whew! That is a relief!
Still, I can’t help but wonder, how muslim clerics can sleep at night, knowing that their followers are capable of being stirred to murderous rage, in the name of a cartoonish insult to their profit…
I think it’s time that more of the liberal westerners among us (myself included) realize that by hiding behind political and religious correctness, we more tightly ensnare the moderate muslim community in the hi-jinx of their more radical brothers and sisters. The enemy of civilization and peace is sharia law, not the muslim religion. Can they be disentangled from one another? I certainly hope so.