Letters to the Editor

Cartoon stuff

To the Editor:

While The New York Times may not be the best newspaper in the world, I have to disagree with Cezary Podkul's assertion ("Cartoons ought to be printed," DP, 2/21/06) that the Times, or any other paper for that matter, acted cowardly by not printing the image of the Prophet Mohammed with a bomb on his head.

Instead of taking the opportunity "to teach the Muslim world about freedom of the press," several editors have used the opportunity to exercise their freedom to not print. It is pretentious and dangerous for a news publication to believe it is the sole guardian of what's right, especially if it doesn't take the time to encapsulate the whole story, something for which our friendly campus periodical is notorious.

While the cost-benefit of printing a story defaming one absent-minded couple may not be too high, perhaps the paper realized the benefit of rehashing a tasteless jab at an entire people might be just barely over the line.

Furthermore, showing the cartoon, which, standing alone without the events that have erupted since, is no more newsworthy than derogatory slurs scribbled on walls (which many papers also don't reprint), is not necessary to explain the entire story or the missing side of the story to which Podkul alludes.

While the Times is a paper that thrives on the notion of our freedom of speech, I'm glad it understands the other half of the First Amendment and opted to not further mock a people's right to free expression of religion, minus further persecution.

Russell Armstrong

Wharton senior

Wrong conclusion

To the Editor:

I would like to respond to Cezary Podkul, ("Cartoons ought to be printed," DP, 2/21/06), who lists three reasons why newspapers have been reluctant to republish these cartoons: The prospect of continued violence; our image in the Muslim world; and the simple decency in not targeting cherished beliefs of a people. He then concludes that none of these issues should concern newspapers?

While I am supportive of freedom of the press, I do not think having the right to offend someone means we need to embrace it. Even though I had read descriptions of the cartoons, it was a full week after protests erupted before I saw an actual reprint. And I can say that, in seeing the picture, there was no flood of 1,000 words that helped me understand the controversy. It just made me sad to see that, even though people have died over these cartoons, they continue to be circulated.

Of course I think dying over a series of cartoons is ridiculous. That's not the point. The point is that people are dying. With advances in transportation and communication, our world is smaller than it ever has been. And it would be arrogant to expect the values and beliefs of people around the world to mirror our own.

It seems we are left with two choices. We can hold tight to our principles, consequences be damned. Or we can find a way to understand each other. This tragic episode is a focal point of tensions between two cultures that neither understand nor respect each other. Hopefully, we can learn from it.

Dominick Laddy

Pharmacology Ph.D.Student

Limiting free speech

To the Editor:

While Liz Hoffman may try to defend an obviously over-broad policy ("Extensive definitions a must," DP, 2/20/06) by claiming the University follows regulations of the U.S. Department of Civil Rights, these regulations are patently wrong. According to 2003 letter from the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, "any private post-secondary institution that chooses to limit free speech in ways that are more restrictive than at public educational institutions does so on its own accord and not based on requirements imposed by OCR."

If Penn is choosing to limit freedom of expression on campus, it is doing so of its own regard. And if it makes such a choice, Penn is violating the very promises of academic freedom and freedom of thought guaranteed to all students of the University.

If administrators make such a choice, they are violating the promise of the University Board of Trustees to ensure that Penn students receive the full protection of the First Amendment, whether or not it applies to private institutions.

Penn might say that it does not enforce its sexual-harassment policy. However, the simple fact that it exists in its present form is intolerable.

Penn's over-broad sexual-harassment policy is an affront to freedom, and the line must be drawn here. Freedom of thought and minds is paramount in a University, and if I want to display a sexually suggestive poster, that is my absolute right. The University and Hoffman should stand up for the rights of all students and put in place a policy that is not an inch more restrictive than required by law. Justice and reason demand it.

Brett Hartman Wharton sophomore

Offerings do exist

To the Editor:

Anna Hartley ("Penn's Anatomy," DP, 2/21/06) makes persuasive arguments for quantitative-requirement courses that balance ideas with real-world relevance, and asks administrators in several schools, including the School of Engineering and Applied Science, to encourage the creation of relevant courses. I agree.

To start addressing this need, the Engineering School supported two years ago the creation of "CSE 112, Networked Life," a class without prerequisites that teaches scientific understanding and how to measureme the webs of connections that surround us, from friendship networks to the Internet.

Fernando Pereira

chairman, Computer and Information Science Dept.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.