A political cartoon published by the New York Post earlier this month stirred the waters of an age-old debate, pitting freedom of the press against political correctness.
The cartoon depicts an ape lying in a pool of blood and two policemen hunched over it, one with a smoking gun in hand while the other says, "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."
The cartoon, created by Sean Delonas, is a reference to a recent news story about a trained chimpanzee in Connecticut that was shot after posing a threat to public safety. But while the comic's creator argues it is meant to mock President Barack Obama's aptitude in authoring the national economic stimulus plan by comparing him to Connecticut's dangerous chimp, many were outraged by the illustrator's alleged racial insensitivity.
"The cartoon ... is troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys," Reverend Al Sharpton said in a statement. "One has to question whether the cartoonist is making a less than casual reference to this."
Those who felt verbal censure was not sufficient sought to inflict more severe punishment on the newspaper. ColorofChange.org, a Web site that advocates for black civil justice, asked concerned individuals to sign a letter urging Paul Carlucci, publisher of the New York Post, to fire the person responsible for the cartoon's appearance in the paper.
In addition to online reactions, indignant protestors picketed outside of the Post's offices for two days following the release of the cartoon until the publication's editors eventually agreed to issue an apology.
But an online New York Post forum, which gave individuals an opportunity to express their opinions on the controversy, showed a divided reaction. Many participants expressed varying degrees of outrage; others, however, were surprised at the negative responses to the cartoon's blatant satire, and some questioned the racist interpretation of its content.
Additionally, one post on the Web site brought to attention that those who rebuke mockery of our president "have very short memories if they can't remember the savage attacks that President Bush incurred in the name of humor and satire."
The cartoon's intentions aside, some Tufts students worry that the overbearing concern for political correctness -- like the letter publicized by ColorOfChange.org -- undermines the luxury of dissension that our nations Bill of Rights promises.
"If you're offended, it's completely appropriate to express your outrage, but I don't think that should be a reason to limit what people say," sophomore Julia Stimeck said. "People have the right to be offensive, and people have the right to be outraged. You can't say that what I feel is more important than what you feel. We should all be allowed to feel; we should all be allowed to fight."
This instance is certainly not the only time that the political correctness of an editorial cartoon has caused an uproar in recent news.
A similar controversy arose last November surrounding Keith Knight's syndicated political cartoon containing the N-word, which was published, uncensored, in The Arizona Daily Wildcat, The University of Arizona's student-run newspaper.
Knight's comic illustrates an actual occurrence on the campaign trail in which a canvasser in Pennsylvania asked a woman whom she was voting for. The woman asked her husband and repeated his answer to the volunteer: "We're voting for the [N-word]."
While Knight explained that the cartoon was intended not as a racist comment but as a means to underscore the enduring prevalence of racism in America, the University of Arizona community did not seem to condone his means of expression.
Members of the university's student body quickly drafted an e-mail calling for a boycott of the independent publication and urging Lauren LePage, the editor-in-chief, to issue a printed apology.
Still, the Daily Wildcat's charter with its governing organization, the Student Media Board, grants the Wildcat freedom from censorship. However, the paper eventually apologized, according to Mark Woodhams, adviser to the Arizona Daily Wildcat.
"No one forced the Wildcat to issue an apology," Woodhams said in an e-mail to the Daily. "The editors -- especially the [editor-in-chief,] who stood up and took full responsibility -- understood that they needed to address the issue to their readers and gain their confidence. This included recognizing that the comic offended many readers, and not just black readers ... It's not unusual for any newspaper -- college or professional -- to take responsibility for what they run and to apologize without it being seen as a 'repercussion.' It's just the right thing to do."
Tufts junior Jaleesa Anselm thinks that publications have a responsibility to be conscientious of their readers. "The newspaper should have been sensitive to the fact that the word is really a racist word and could set people off. They could have at least censored the word, which is usually done in newspapers," she said.
Sophomore Lia Tucker, however, thinks differently. She explained that, in its context, Knight's cartoon provides a critique of lingering bigotry in the United States, and to apologize for its publication would be to undo its important, anti-racist social commentary.
"Intent is very important. I don't think [the cartoon] was meant to be racist; I think it was meant to show that racism exists, and apologizing for that is not fitting," she said. "[The cartoon's protesters] are not caring about context. The outrage is close-minded; it's an automatic response, and [the cartoon] says as much about the people who use those words as it does about those who summon the cry against it."
That said, Tucker realizes that the N-word carries a history of negative racist connotation and that its use should have been expected to stir anger among its readers.
But again, the argument boils down to something larger than the single cartoon's offensiveness, namely whether political correctness infringes on the right of independent media to make their own publishing decisions.
"I think it's totally fine to create a mass letter to the editor and express distaste for a cartoon, but editorials are meant to express opinions, and they're controversial a lot of time. They may not even mean what people are interpreting them to mean," Stimeck said. "If you aren't allowed to say your point because someone thinks your point is wrong, then that's not going to get us any further."
