WHEN GOD told Mary he hadn't had a vasectomy in a Cavalier Daily comic two weeks ago, it was cast as a broader, week-long newspaper assault on Christianity. In response, the furious minions of the Catholic League paralyzed the newspaper's operations through incessant angry calls and e-mails. More reasoned critics, including some members of the newspaper, suggested that the comics lacked "serious value." The newspaper removed the comics from its online site and issued an apology for any offense caused.
But fire-breathing Christians should not triumph over reason, no matter how much the newspaper's phone lines burn. The current comic policy does serve its limited needs, and we should not demand systematic seriousness from a comics page. But neither should comic artists be allowed to duck for cover while the newspaper takes the responsibility for their offensive humor. Therefore, the practical solution to this comic saga should be increasing the burden of responsibility of comic artists, instead of apologizing or reforming policies.
Claiming that the offensiveness of comics should be balanced with serious value sets the bar too high on a comics page. For one, some comics are designed to prove a non-serious point by poking fun at a particular aspect of a subject. Secondly, the value of the comics page, and the seriousness of it, is chiefly determined by the talent of comic artists themselves, Thirdly, as Editor-in-Chief Elizabeth Mills herself highlighted in an interview, any point can be justified as having value or seriousness given the subjectivity and flexibility of the two terms.
Nor can a comic policy or editorial staff be a fishing net that sieves out all potentially offensive material. The current policy, as it stands, already prohibits mockery of unchangeable traits like race and forces comic artists to prove a particular point to weed out "offensive material for the sake of offending." The unintended consequence of the policy has been that comic artists now focus on criticizing religion, since it is a changeable trait that is allowed by the policy as people can potentially leave their respective faiths.
While this is regrettable, the policy as it is cannot be more stringent without infringing on free speech. There is no editorial rationale to ban religious criticism that follows existing comic policy. No institution should be beyond criticism in a newspaper, and artists' voices caricaturing religion should be heard equally loudly as the religious hecklers on the Lawn. And yes, Catholic League soldiers, that same criteria should be and has been applied to all religions and gods, whether it be Muhammad of Islam or John Frum of the Tanna people. Following this strict line does not require any apologies for offense.
Under the current policy, the most readers can hope for is that the editors will ensure that offensive comics are presented to project a point and not merely to offend, and, equally importantly, make sure that the degree of the comic's offensiveness was necessary in order to prove the artist's point.
But comic artists themselves should also be made to take greater responsibility for their actions in the future. Free speech is never entirely free -- it comes with responsibility. Yet the most depressing part of this saga was the fact that the artists repeatedly refused to comment and stood by while the rest of the newspaper shouldered the blame for their not-so-funny creations. In the future, not only should artists be made to submit a written justification for potentially offensive comics as others have suggested, but this piece should be printed in The Cavalier Daily during successive days and posted on the Web site. This will further strengthen transparency and communication between the newspaper and its readers and also foster a sense of self-responsibility in comic artists.
Additionally, it would also help if The Cavalier Daily could publish a daily version of its comic policy on a small space within the comic page. This would allow individual readers to apply the criteria directly to specific comics before they rush to their keyboards or phones to harangue the newspaper's staff.
Religion is an important institution to some, but it does not deserve immunity from criticism within a newspaper's pages, be it The Cavalier Daily or The Washington Post. Accordingly, sensitivity to angry Christian callers should not lead to irrational attempts to impose "serious value" notions on a comic page, apologies or even a revisal of an already stringent editorial policy.
Free speech must and should always remain free. But those who utter it must take responsibility for their thoughts. Those who edit it must do so purely within the limits of rational policies. And most importantly, those who read these published thoughts must be equipped with the proper tools to judge them for what they are.
Prashanth Parameswaran's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at pparameswaran@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | YesterdayTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 6 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
