Chalked stick-figure representations of the Prophet Muhammad were drawn across campus Sunday night. (Photo by Alex Katz/Northwestern Chronicle)

All was relatively quiet on the Northwestern front following one student group’s efforts to promote free speech by chalking stick-figure representations of the Muslim prophet Muhammad on sidewalks, pathways, and pavement across campus.

Groups like Northwestern’s Secular Humanists for Inquiry and Free Thought (SHIFT) are an anomaly on a politically apathetic campus, so it comes as no surprise that many students failed to notice the illustrations in their monotonous shuffle from class to class — let alone care. Reader comments on online news articles covering the controversy seemed to represent the extent of the student body’s solicitude, and the only concerned parties were limited to a select few: SHIFT, the Muslim-cultural Student Association (McSA), campus publications, and certain university administration officials who expressed their “disappointment” in SHIFT in an open letter to students.

But there was one additional group of people who took notice of the curious chalk figures inscribed at their feet: students from Northwestern’s satellite campus in Qatar who were visiting Evanston this week.

A number of the students are Muslim, which prompted some on campus to fret over how they would react to the controversial illustrations. The editorial board of The Daily Northwestern asked, “What does it say to them when one of the first things they see upon arrival on campus is an image that has the potential to seriously offend them?”

Some might be quick to decry this as a blatant act of religious insensitivity. But I would instead contend that these drawings demonstrated to our guests the democratic principles of our country, a place where freedom of speech endures and citizens are bold enough to fight to ensure that.

The land of the free and the home of the brave, as the Star-Spangled Banner goes.

The Daily’s editorial board may disagree with the timing of SHIFT’s actions for fear of offending visiting students, but in the same editorial they also claim to cherish free speech in its entirety. Unfortunately, you can’t have your freedom of speech and rebuke it, too.

The essence of free speech lies in the fact that it perseveres even when it is distasteful to some. If the United States censored all material that even had the potential to offend, it wouldn’t be a nation of democratic principles — it would be a nation of suppression, much like Qatar.

Although it is one of the more liberal Arab nations, Qatar is by no means a democracy. In fact, it is an absolute monarchy that has been ruled by the al-Thani family since the beginning of World War I. Political parties critical of the regime are not permitted, and neither are any forms of protest. Qatari women remain virtually unprotected against violence within the family, and homosexual acts are punishable under the law by up to five years in prison.

As for freedom of speech, the U.S. State Department reported that the Qatari government still imposes restrictions on the press despite constitutional provisions that say otherwise. Many journalists save government officials the trouble by simply resorting to self-censorship, a practice quite common in Qatar considering the social and political pressures.

The Northwestern community is fortunately protected by a government that adheres to its constitution’s promise of free speech, but we lack a safeguard from the mounting pressure to self-censor out of politically correct anxiety. Comedy Central’s recent censorship of an episode of South Park — the catalyst to our campus controversy — was not prompted by legal restrictions or even network policy. It was born out of fear after a radical Islamic blog threatened the show’s creators would suffer the same fate as Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker who was murdered by an Islamic militant after he made a film discussing the abuse of Muslim women in some Islamic societies.

To be sure, the members of Northwestern’s McSA are in no way comparable to their extremist co-religionists. Much to their credit, they have reacted to this entire affair with the utmost respect and dignity despite the fact that they feel hurt by these actions, President Noreen Nasir told me.

But to compromise free speech because a select few feel slighted would be to effectively destroy it, for when freedom of speech is suppressed it ceases to exist. Comedy Central may have succumbed to the threats and social pressure, but the students of SHIFT have exhibited their unwavering dedication to this core concept of democracy. The problem, it seems, is not that they possibly offended some in their mission to promote free speech but rather the widespread misunderstanding of what free speech is exactly.

In response to recent events, one student visiting from Qatar told The Daily: “I don’t believe freedom of speech allows you to disrespect other people.”

But that’s just it — free speech knows no bounds.

That’s why Northwestern faculty member Arthur Butz can so freely propagate his Holocaust denial, effectively offending Jews across campus by claiming these tragic events were “The Hoax of the Twentieth Century,” as his 1976 book is titled. He is protected under the First Amendment like every other American citizen, and that ensures his freedom of speech no matter how contemptible it might be.

There is no cow too sacred to be spared from the effects of free speech, and therein lies its inherent strength. Be it a chalked image of Muhammad, Professor Butz’s vile opinions, or even this article, freedom of speech does not discriminate. The old adage suggests that if you don’t have anything nice to say then don’t say anything at all. Whoever said that clearly doesn’t understand freedom.

 Print This Post