The Salient received well over 100 letters in response to its Feb. 8 edition, which included the reprinting of four Danish cartoons that depicted Mohammed, Islam's prophet. A vast majority of the letters were positive; we have made an effort to publish as many critical letters as possible, however, in the interest of engaging in an open debate.

Dear Sirs:
While breezing through the Crimson online, I noted that one Eric Lesser, the head of Harvard Democrats (redundant, no?) declared that "[The Salient is] totally out of the mainstream. It doesn't reflect the values of anyone but a fringe group of people."
A profound statement! The kettle self-referencing the kettle as a pot, I suppose. Academia has made a predictable plunge since the Free Speech Riots of 1964. Indeed, those favoring republication of the cartoons are a fringe—but only in places like Syria, Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. If Mr. Lesser and his ilk wonder why Democrats have failed so dismally in recent years, they ought to be less interested in asking "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and instead wonder how Harvard has marginalized itself from a respected institution of higher learning into late-night material for Jay Leno.
As for The Salient, peace—as well as the thanks of anyone genuinely concerned with free speech—be upon it for republishing the cartoons.

Richard F. Miller '74

Dear Sirs:
The decision to reprint the cartoons was wrong. The editorial justifications provided set a dangerous precedent. With an eye to the legal consequences facing publications that have decided to reprint the cartoons, I believe that the decision by The Salient to reprint the articles as an "incitement to violence"—as opposed to an offensive claim of providing the cartoons as "incitement to dialogue."
I, further, find the decision to print anti-Semitic cartoons in conjunction with the aforementioned cartoons similarly offensive.
I, respectively [sic], ask that you resign.

Pascal Chahine '06
 

Dear Sirs:
I must admit that the violent protests are extremely frustrating to watch. Just today, I read that there have been riots all over Pakistan (my home country) in which at least two people were killed. Nothing is worth two human lives. Absolutely nothing.
However, I saw that The Salient has published the cartoons itself, and it seems to have failed to mention and even understand the fundamental problem of the cartoons. This problem is that any drawings or pictures of the Prophet are strictly forbidden in Islam. I reiterate: any drawings, not just satirical or critical ones. Pictures of the Prophet Muhammad cannot be drawn. This is why movies made on Prophet Muhammad by the West never show the Prophet himself. This is also why Muslims are infuriated by the cartoons and their constant republication. If you write down instead of draw criticisms of and jokes on Islam or the Prophet, I and many others will not care.

Shayan Rajani '09
 

Dear Sirs:
I would like to commend The Salient's editorial staff for your decision to print the now-infamous Muhammad cartoons. My politics couldn't be more different than yours, but surely we both agree that the American media's latest self-censorship in the name of political correctness is an inexcusable bastardization of the Fourth Estate's responsibility to the citizens it serves.
I unsuccessfully argued the point to my fellow senior editors that any attempt to meaningfully cover, or help readers understand, the current troubles in the Middle East without printing the cartoons constituted a flawed endeavor.
Unfortunately, few of my colleagues agreed—but I am glad to see your editorial board heeded the voice of reason, particularly given the drubbing you surely knew would be taken for doing so, which I'm convinced scared my colleagues, not to mention editors at all of our country's most prestigious media outlets, into submission.
You might have angered a few, but surely performed a great service to the majority.

Jeremy Beecher
Editorial Director, The Daily Trojan
University of Southern California
 

Dear Sirs:
Congratulations on your decision to give your readers the opportunity to examine the famous cartoons that Islamic extremists have gone berserk over.
It is utterly amazing that newspapers like the New York Times or the LA Times are so timid and politically correct that they would deny their readers a complete story. Freedom will not be advanced in the world by cowering in a corner and pretending that nothing has happened.
Do not let the know-nothing Left on campus browbeat you about sensitivity. There was nothing in those cartoons that anyone could misconstrue as vile. It was a simple critique and satire.
Keep up the good work.

Rick Jones
Prague, Czech Republic
 

Dear Sirs:
You do freedom a service by your publication of the cartoons showing the "Prophet Mohammed" as he appeared in the Danish press. Your action gives me hope that courage on the Harvard campus has not disappeared entirely. Too often individuals in the recent past have been pilloried for expressing unpopular views, out of step with the liberal orthodoxy that stifles free speech on your campus. Your courage in the face of those who threaten the free exchange of ideas with loud voices and physical threats impresses. Keep up the important work!

Jock McDonald '70, MBA '73
 

Dear Sirs:
I just wanted to write a short letter of appreciation for printing the cartoons that have recently caused so much drama. Most of the American public assume the cartoons are explicit or incredibly inflammatory, when it reality the cartoons are simple and humane. By printing the cartoons, the truth may be revealed. The cartoons are simply meant to stir up debate, just like all other editorial cartoons. Extreme Muslims need to realize they do not have the right to not be offended. Thanks again for standing up for symbolic speech and free expression!

Margaret Johnson
Modesto, Calif.
 

Dear Sirs:
Yet again, The Salient provides us with offensive and uneducated information. Your decision to reprint the cartoons in the midst of the growing violence and loss of lives is not only insensitive, but it also demonstrates the lack of research and fact-checking that goes into your articles.
I'm all for free expression, but your comment that "Christianity has evolved as the West has evolved, and Christians have grown thick skin. It almost goes without saying that similar depictions of Christ, or the pope, or a crucifix would have hardly elicited a response save a handful of letters to the editor. In the 21st century, a violent response would, in any case, be unfathomable" shows your western-centric views and your lack of thought, both of which contribute to the ridicule with which the Harvard community views your publication. Christianity has had a hegemonic hold over Western ideals for the past 2,000 years, so those within this dominant power structure are going to be less offended by critiques of their institution because they can, oh, I don't know, kill off all non-Christians (i.e. the Inquisition) or be smug with their religious dominance (I myself am a Christian and recognize this).
However, caricatures of Mohammed are explicitly prohibited in Islam, unlike depictions of the pope (who, by the way, is not a prophet) or Jesus, so this goes directly against Islamic law—in case you hadn't noticed, that's the big problem everyone is having with the cartoons. And your parallelism with caricatures of Jews in Muslim countries is similarly uninformed.
Although these latter cartoons are also extremely offensive, they depict actual Jews rather than prophets (I didn't see Moses or Abraham in any of those cartoons, in fact, all I saw were Israeli soldiers, who are slaughtering Palestinian children daily—that's probably the real implication of the cartoons, but I'm pretty sure you took them out of context). Anyway, I'm sure this is just one of the many angry letters in response to your decision to print these cartoons, but I echo those sentiments and hope that someday your publication will actually foster intelligent debate instead of being the gossip-mongering piece of trash that it is now. As such, I respectfully ask for the resignation of the editors of the publication.

Arianne Plasencia '06
 

The Editors Respond:

Our first and foremost reason for publishing the Danish cartoons was to prompt a conversation that we perceived was not happening. The Salient took a gamble. We knew the cartoons would offend Muslims on our campus. But we thought the risk was worth it because our decision would serve as a starting point for meaningful conversations.

We have accomplished this much. Our debate has been brought to both the Harvard community and the outside world thanks to coverage in the Boston Globe, as well as on the O'Reilly Factor, two Boston television stations, NPR's national program "Weekend America," the National Review, the Jewish Advocate, and numerous smaller publications around the country.

With an eye to the minor issues, we were well aware that most Muslims feel their religion forbids depictions of their prophet. (Notably, Muslims throughout history disagree on this key point. Two of the largest, most powerful Muslim dynasties—the Safavid and Mughal empires—both produced illuminated manuscripts that depict Muhammad's night journey.)

In any case, we felt it absurd to expect non-believers to follow others' religious proscriptions. (See our staff editorial, page 4). Moreover, this particular taboo seems to run directly contrary to the values a free society holds dear. It reminds us of the taboos Christianity once held, before the Renaissance forced the Church to evolve.

If we had thought these cartoons would provoke a violent response, we would not have published them. Yet, we trusted that Harvard students would not become violent. And we knew that Harvard ostensibly prides itself on providing a full, even risqué, climate of free speech. After all, this is the university which allows students to publish a pornographic magazine called H-Bomb—in fact, the student government funds it!

This is the same Harvard where BGLTSA once handed out blank posters to its members with instructions to let their imaginations run wild. The resulting works were emblazoned with lines like "Saint Sebastian: The First Fag in the Military" and "I Worship the Lord with my Wet Quivering Clitoris." These images were then plastered around the Yard.

And this is the same Harvard where a student dressed as the Virgin Mary was photographed masturbating, an oeuvre which was submitted as a final project for the class "American Protest Literature from Tom Paine to Tupac." That image was later posted on one of Harvard's most heavily trafficked blogs.

These are blasphemies, just as much as depicting Mohammed is. But the Harvard Interfaith Council did not call a forum to discuss Christians' feelings, nor did anyone (pace Ms. Plascencia's assertion) begin an Inquisition.

In so many ways, the reaction to The Salient's publication of the cartoons has vindicated our reason for publishing them. It has proved beyond all doubt that politically incorrect pictures and language can beget a more fruitful conversation and get more minds thinking. Isn't that what universities are meant for, anyways?

 —The Editors