They say that a picture is worth a thousand words. But when it comes to political cartoons, are some things better left unsaid?
Last week, The Mirror published a cartoon on page 18 depicting two heavily tanned Caucasian students walking through campus, with the tagline “You know it’s after spring break at Fairfield when…the diversity problem disappears for a few weeks.”
In hindsight, it’s become clearer to me that the intent of this cartoon could have been viewed as insensitive. However, let me take this opportunity to make it abundantly clear that the cartoon was published with only the best of intentions.
The intention of the cartoon was only to criticize the powers-that-be for the lack of diversity on this campus, and the way they sometimes exploit the few minority students that do attend this school as little more than admissions statistics. It was not meant in any way to degrade or offend those students, faculty and staff of different races – or more broadly, different religions, sexual orientations and socio-economic backgrounds.
Did we need to publish this particular cartoon? No: you could have played Soduko in that space instead.
We ultimately went ahead with it because we feel that, as the Editorial Board of one of the largest student forums at Fairfield, it is our right – moreover, our responsibility – to comment and editorialize those issues that permeate our tiny Connecticut campus. I would be shocked if anyone denied that racial diversity on our campus – which is 91 percent caucasian – isn’t an issue. Has everyone forgotten that The Princeton Review has named Fairfield one of the top 10 most homogenous schools in the nation?
While it is never our intent to alienate or offend our readership, I stand by the cartoon and its important message that has been reiterated ad nauseam in this publication: creating diversity on this campus should be an administrative priority.
Anyone who doesn’t live under a rock knows about the riots that ensued after a Danish newspaper published a cartoon depicting the prophet Mohammed. While this event has received enormous media attention, this isn’t a new trend; political cartoons are often received critically.
Earlier this year, there was mixed public reaction over a Tom Toles cartoon published in the Washington Post. The cartoon depicted a quadruple-amputee soldier with a bandaged head being attended to by “Doctor” Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld says “I’m listing your condition as battle-hardened.” In smaller type, at the bottom of the cartoon, Rumsfeld adds “I’m prescribing you to be stretched thin. We don’t define that as torture.”
On Feb. 2 the Joint Chiefs of Staff responded with a letter to the Post, deeming the cartoon “tasteless,” while journalists and free speech advocates defended the cartoon, some even applauding the provocative stab at the Bush administration.
“This kind of gross misinterpretation makes one wish there were a few more English majors graduating from West Point these days,” said Julie Hilden, a first amendment lawyer and columnist. “The cartoon’s sympathies are firmly with the vulnerable soldier…”
Is there any right opinion here? No, of course not. The Washington Post, The Mirror, nor any other publication will ever publish an article or cartoon that every reader agrees with – it’s the nature of the business.
But I can promise our readers two things: in the future, I’ll continue to employ the most careful judgment when it comes to our content, and the editorial board – through editorials and cartoons – will continue to represent interests and issues pertinent to Fairfield students.
Leave a Reply