The UCLA and USC speech and debate teams met Thursday night at
UCLA to discuss the controversy surrounding the political cartoons
of the Prophet Muhammad that have caused international debate and
turmoil in the Middle East.
The first cartoon ran in a Danish newspaper in September 2005
and depicted the Prophet Muhammad wearing a turban with a bomb in
it. This cartoon and others that followed have caused great
controversy not only because of the political statement behind the
drawings but because many considered it violation of Islamic law to
portray Muhammad in pictures.
The theme for the debate was: “Should the press be
censored from publishing caricatures of the Prophet
Muhammad?” UCLA argued in favor of government censorship, and
USC argued against it.
Speech and Debate team co-captain Mark Jenkins, a second-year
communication studies student, said UCLA and USC had already
planned on debating the subject before UC Irvine was put in the
national spotlight for displaying the cartoons Feb. 28.
“We’re not here to make any political statements or
change anyone’s views,” Jenkins said.
“We’re hoping tonight will draw attention to our team,
our successes, and hopefully help us recruit some new members for
the upcoming academic year.”
Co-captain Hugh Carlson served as the moderator for the event.
When he explained the question-and-answer session taking place
after the 45-minute debate he took a lighthearted jab at the
competition.
“Try to simplify the questions,” he joked.
“I’m impartial, by the way.”
Four debaters from each school participated in the event, with
cross examination occurring after three speeches.
“We think that public debates are valuable for the campus
community,” said USC’s Bunny Tucker, a fourth-year
environmental studies student. “As part of the USC Trojan
debate squad, we’re interested in promoting public discussion
on current events.” Tucker began the debate by citing the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and said that
“intellectual freedom serves as the foundation of a
democracy.” Tucker also said that journalists, not
governments, should decide what to publish.
Katie Allen, a first-year political science student who opened
debate for UCLA, countered by saying that “speech is never
free.”
Kamil Chaudhary, a fourth-year business administration student
on USC’s team, argued the cartoons “were not explicitly
racist,” and that while they were printed in September,
controversy didn’t erupt until December.
Chaudhary went on to challenge the idea of censorship, saying
“should we censor the college sports page of the L.A. Times
because somebody doesn’t like losing to the
Trojans?”
For UCLA’s team, Shiva Fatoorechi said that it was the
republication of the cartoons in February in countries such as
France, Germany, Italy and Spain that sparked many of the riots
that resulted in violence.
“It’s clear that the only purpose was to insult the
Islamic community,” said Fatoorechi, a fourth-year English
and women’s studies student.
Brian Berggren, a second-year political science and
communication studies student at USC, said the purpose of political
cartoons is to make “quick jabs, mockery and
generalizations,” and that the Muslims who protested the
cartoon were “rioting against liberty, democracy and
freedom.”
First-year international relations and communication studies USC
student Clare Velasquez summed up the pro-free speech argument from
USC.
“Simply because a view is unpopular to someone
doesn’t mean it should be silenced,” she said.
“The point is that journalists should have the discretion,
not the government.”