Conservatives complain that Yale's purge of the Mohammed images gets more sordid
Remember how the Times said Yale got a "unanimous" recommendation against publishing the images from a 24-member panel of experts (whose identities Yale refuses to reveal)? Indeed, not content with mere unanimity, John Donatich, the director of Yale University Press, insisted that the experts' recommendation to censor the images was “overwhelming and unanimous.” Well, it turns out that (a) the experts were not unanimous, and (b) the New York Times is aware of that fact but has yet to correct its story (which is dated August 12 but, I believe, first appeared in the paper's August 13 edition).
As reported in the Guardian, Sheila Blair, a professor of Islamic and Asian art at Norma Jean Calderwood University, has acknowledged being among the experts consulted by Yale, and she “strongly urged” YUP to publish the images in the book. What's more, she has written a letter to the Times, explaining her reasoning: “To deny that such images were made is to distort the historical record and to bow to the biased view of some modern zealots who would deny that others at other times and places perceived and illustrated Muhammad in different ways.”
The Times has not yet published this letter, which contradicts its story. And on that score, it's worth noting that the Times' account was dubious even before we knew about Prof. Blair. As Roger reiterates, the book was thoroughly vetted before Yale's consultation with the experts, it passed with flying colors, and at least two prominent Muslims enthusiastically supported its publication with the images...
Read entire article at National Review Online
As reported in the Guardian, Sheila Blair, a professor of Islamic and Asian art at Norma Jean Calderwood University, has acknowledged being among the experts consulted by Yale, and she “strongly urged” YUP to publish the images in the book. What's more, she has written a letter to the Times, explaining her reasoning: “To deny that such images were made is to distort the historical record and to bow to the biased view of some modern zealots who would deny that others at other times and places perceived and illustrated Muhammad in different ways.”
The Times has not yet published this letter, which contradicts its story. And on that score, it's worth noting that the Times' account was dubious even before we knew about Prof. Blair. As Roger reiterates, the book was thoroughly vetted before Yale's consultation with the experts, it passed with flying colors, and at least two prominent Muslims enthusiastically supported its publication with the images...