THE COMICS page, maybe the most controversial section of The Cavalier Daily last year, has caused another flare-up, giving me plenty to write about as I start my second year as the paper's ombudsman.
The first two strips drawn for the paper by third-year Grant Woolard, a new cartoonist, depicted Jesus, Mary and Joseph. The Aug. 23 comic showed Jesus nailed to a Cartesian coordinate plane -- the mathematical x and y axes. The Aug. 24 comic implied that Mary had a sexually transmitted disease: When Joseph asked how she got a bumpy rash, Mary says, "I swear, it was immaculately transmitted!"
The Catholic League, a national action committee, seized on the cartoons and denounced them in a statement to its membership and the press. The paper and the University was then barraged with thousands of e-mails from the faithful decrying the paper and demanding an apology. One woman from Tuscon, Ariz., said the university was an institution of arrogant, blaspheming bigots and vowed to broadcast that fact to everyone she knew. Another said he would pray for the paper's staff.
As a precedent, the League cited an apology the paper issued the day after it published a comic strip in November 2005 that said the crane was "the gayest of all birds."
That cartoon was one of a number of strips that enraged parts of the community. Several in the spring used religious iconography and one in the fall was considered racist. The paper apologized for a Feb. 23 comic strip that made fun of American Idol using stereotypical religious symbols, and Slaven said he should have more thoroughly analyzed the cartoon. The previous editorial staff apologized for the November 2005 cartoon. This time, the managing board made clear they will not apologize.
Many readers have attacked that inconsistency. "I do not believe that any of these cartoons warranted an apology to any group; they are in essence editorials, not factual news," wrote Jonathan Richardson, CLAS '04. "But by pushing the issue with different responses to two offended groups, the CD is making itself look foolish and embarrassing the University with actions that are incongruous with the academic and intellectual principles of the UVa community."
What Woolard's cartoons share with several of the disputed cartoons of last year is a lack of a clear message. When I asked both Editor-in-Chief Michael Slaven to explain the cartoons' messages, he asked me to speak with Woolard and repeated the artist's statement to a Cavalier Daily reporter that he wanted to make people talk by juxtaposing dissimilar ideas images and concepts.
Slaven said he submitted both cartoons to its censorship policy, hammered out by the managing board in an April 24 editorial, "Censorship Criteria," in response to the controversies of the school year.
"Our job as editors is not to judge all opinions on whether we agree," the editorial stated. "We censor very infrequently because we are committed to the First Amendment and the freedom of expression of our staff."
If the cartoon does not depict a factual historic or current event, the editors determine whether the cartoon makes a "serious, intentional point, the censoring of which would constitute viewpoint discrimination," and whether the artist is commenting on his subjects' opinions or actions, rather than for traits or situations beyond their control.
Slaven said, "[Woolard's] answers were sufficient that we decided we couldn't, under that policy, not run them." He said he did not want to be a judge of taste beyond what is considered obscene.
The managing board did not consult any other papers' policies before writing its own based off its members' experiences within The Cavalier Daily as guidance for how to craft the policy, Slaven said.
While I don't think an apology is necessary, the managing board should consider changing its policy to ensure the cartoon has a clear message.
Primarily, editors need to understand what the piece is saying so they don't unknowingly publish something they will regret -- exactly what Slaven said he would try to avoid last spring. Also, if cartoons come under attack in the future, they will be able to successfully defend their decisions.
"One of the problems with editorial cartoons is it's very hard to defend a poorly executed cartoon," said Kelly McBride, ethics group leader at the Poynter Institute. "If you can't defend it as insightful and thought-provoking, then I don't think you can defend it as good journalism."
Lastly, the paper should care more about quality control. If editors do not understand the point of an article, neither will the audience.
Woolard's two items, unfortunately, were quite inscrutable. I understand and applaud The Cavalier Daily's desire to leave the doors for speech as wide open as possible, including items that might offend people. But there needs to be a solid, understandable point or message involved. Offending just for the sake of offending -- or even to get people talking -- is juvenile and unprofessional.
Lisa Fleisher is The Cavalier Daily's ombudsman. She can be reached at ombud@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | YesterdayLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 3 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
