- About Us
- Community Guidelines

Advertising on BOR
- Advertise on BOR


We're Counting On You.

Burnt Orange Report is redeveloping our website for the first time in almost a decade.

We're counting on your support to continue providing you free and frequent coverage of progressive issues that matter to Texans.

Help us build a website that is as great as the content we publish on it.

Why the UT Cartoonist Should Be Reinstated

by: SamianQuazi

Sun Apr 01, 2012 at 10:42 PM CDT

(The Trayvon Martin cartoon published by The Daily Texan drew no shortage of international outrage last week. The subsequent firing of the cartoonist also drew sharp criticism. The piece below was written by a student who writes for The Daily Texan and objects to the firing. What are your thoughts about the writer's opinion of the cartoon, and separately, the call to reinstate Ms. Eisner?

You may also read this writer's other opinion pieces for The Daily Texan here.   - promoted by Katherine Haenschen)

It's understandable that the editorial staff at The Daily Texan is breathing a sigh of relief right now. After quickly apologizing and sacking its cartoonist Stephanie Eisner, the Editorial Board undoubtedly believes it can quickly move on from this episode. That's a real shame, and the paper should reinstate Eisner.

Much of the criticism focused on the use of the word "colored" in the cartoon. Protesters argued that this word was a highly derogatory and antiquated reference to African-Americans, and that using this word belittled Trayvon Martin.

But back in 2008 Lindsay Lohan used the term "colored" to describe then President-elect Obama in a television interview with Access Hollywood. Instead of protests and threats of ending Lohan's career, Lohan got a clean bill of health from the NAACP. Indeed, the nation's largest African-American civil rights organization noted that the term "colored" is neither derogatory nor offensive. It's a bit of a double standard to give Lohan a free pass on the use of the word "colored" while excoriating Eisner for doing the same.

At any rate, does anyone really think that these protesters would have been mollified by a word other than "colored"? Suppose that the term "black" or "African-American" were inserted in its stead. Would there truly be no outrage?

George Carlin once famously stated, "Language is all about context, and words have different meanings." The cartoon's critics evidently ignored the words "THE MEDIA" etched on the chair. The woman in the chair, who also personified the national media, read aloud a crude and oversimplified narrative of the tragedy in racialist terminology. Instead of acknowledging the complex and multifaceted nature of the murder, the national media persistently focused on race and race above all else.

That's why Eisner's statement that the cartoon was an indictment of base racialism should be at least considered at face value. Even a cursory interpretation of the cartoon that sees the cartoon as belittling Martin's death has flaws. Stripped of adjectives, any statement would ultimately boil down to "a man murdered a boy". Even if one set aside race in the tragedy for a moment, no journalism, yellow or otherwise, could change the veracity of that statement. How can anyone belittle the gravity of such an awful truth?

But I digress. Even if you entirely disagree with me, and hold that Eisner's cartoon is intrinsically racist to the core, you'd be hard pressed to deny a double standard in her firing. It's evident that Eisner did not set out to deliberately provoke or offend, but professional editorial cartoonists who do seek to raise tempers don't get booted from the payroll.

In 2008 the cartoonist Barry Blitt drew a cover for The New Yorker that outraged rank-and-file liberals: The Obamas, dressed in Islamic fundamentalist garb, gave each other a fist bump in the White House as American flag burned in the fireplace.  Rahm Emanuel, then a Congressman, angrily declared that he would be canceling his subscription to The New Yorker. Blitt argued that he was satirizing the Right's obsession with linking Obama to radical Islam, much as Eisner says she satirized the national media's obsession with race in the Trayvon Martin case.

The following year, The New York Post's cartoonist Sean Delonas caused a firestorm of controversy with a cartoon of a dead chimpanzee and two Connecticut police officers. In the cartoon, one of the cops remarks, "They'll have to find someone else to write the stimulus bill".  African-American leaders were justifiably outraged at the apparent depiction of President Obama as a primate, and the Post offered an apology to those offended.

Both Blitt and Delonas drew controversial cartoons far less implicit in their capability to cause outrage and indignation. In Blitt's case, the cartoon sought to ruffle feathers. Yet both men kept their jobs and continued to provide illustrations for their respective publications. Eisner, by contrast, was sacked for a far more ambiguous and arguably far less offensive cartoon.

This is a fundamental unfairness that The Daily Texan should rectify. Other than the UT Shuttle System and the Nursing School, The Daily Texan is my favorite institution at UT. I used to write for them as an opinion columnist, so I understand what it feels like to be pilloried by the campus community for my views. But freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend, and Eisner did not seek to offend. I have a petition on Change.org calling for her reinstatement, and I urge you to sign it.


Copyright Burnt Orange Report, all rights reserved.
Do not republish without express written permission.

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Two comments (0.00 / 0)
I think it's key to separate out the critique of the cartoon provided by the writer here from the larger issue of firing the cartoonist.

The critique of the cartoon here reads rather naively, as if the writer doesn't recognize why so many people found the cartoon offensive. From the misspelling of Trayvon's name to the rather ham-handed way in which it addresses the topic, the cartoon itself doesn't have many redeeming factors. Read Ben Sherman's excellent piece for more on that.

The fact is, this did create an outrage, so that's something the writer here needs to consider more carefully -- what was it about this instance that upset people in a manner that was not characteristic of his other examples? How does that outrage connect to the outrage surrounding the crime itself, where a young boy was gunned down for holding Skittles?

However, this writer's post here is itself an argument for what the petition urges -- to let people speak their mind, and then have to listen to the responses and potentially learn from them.

The writer refers to being "pilloried" for his views. As a Daily Texan columnist, Samian here argued in favor of Photo Voter ID, calling concerns about the voters who would be disenfranchised "overblown." Arguably the writer himself still has potential for improved sensitivity regarding racial issues, since disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of Hispanic voters isn't really a great Texan value.  

While I think Eisner's cartoon was sloppy commentary at best and inexcusable racism at worse, there's a part of me that regrets that we won't be able to watch her future work for signs that she's learned from this experience and grown a greater appreciation for diversity or at least a recognition of the experiences of others and why incidents like the unjustified shooting of Trayvon Martin prompt such outrage.  

I'm not a player, I just Tweet a lot: @KathTX

I don't think she's racist (0.00 / 0)
I lost my first post to a misclick, this is a replacement post.

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to racism.  It is a serious charge that shouldn't be taken lightly.  When used too lightly, it loses its meaning.  Kind of like (but not to the same extent) as conservatives use "Marxist" to the point that it is meaningless.

Misspelling Trayvon's name was very careless, but I wouldn't call it offensive unless it was deliberate.  The OP pointed out that the use of the word "colored" is antiquated, but as the NAACP said in the Lohan case, not derogatory.

In general she was attacking the media portrayal of the incident.  An exaggerated portrayal, to be certain, to the point of it being a straw man.  She's attacking the media for making it so racially charged, not attempting to bring race into it herself.  Just because she's discounting the potential influence of race in this case doesn't make her racist.  It just makes her naive.

I agree 100% with what Michael Hurta said in an earlier BOR post about student's learning.  In general I don't like it that so often in politics people are fired (or lose an election) for making a mistake and saying something stupid or offensive.  I don't think that's usually conducive towards learning, understanding, or resolving an issue.  We are all human and sometimes carelessly make mistakes.  This is especially true for students, and especially true in this case.

There are people that have far more experience that have said worse.  Geraldo and his very offensive and ridiculous comment about hoodies comes to mind.

She could have chosen her words better.  She way overstated her case.  She was careless.  It was a mistake.  But she shouldn't have been fired for it.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

Reply to comments (0.00 / 0)
Thank you, Katherine and Timothy, for your insightful comments. I appreciate it!

Do the right thing (0.00 / 0)
Give the cartoonist her job back.

Robin Cravey

Cartoonists are supposed to make us uncomfortable (0.00 / 0)
Don't get me wrong -- I think it was an awful cartoon, and it made me angry. But the whole idea of political cartoons is to put in graphic form what people are thinking, and thrust those ideas forward in a way that mere words can't.

There are plenty of cartoons every day that make me angry. Michael Ramirez's hack jobs do that almost every day! Some of my favorite political Ben Sargeant cartoons made conservatives equally mad.  That's the nature of the game. It's not unbiased fact-telling.  It's opinion.

If we get to the point that expressing an unpopular opinion is a firing offense, then we're in real trouble as a society. The Daily Texan is only demeaning itself by firing Eisner.

The right response to speech you don't like is to exercise your own free speech in saying that you don't like it. Stephanie Eisner fully deserves the barrage of criticism that she got for her cartoon, and hopefully she is learning from the experience. But she does not deserve to lose her job.  

But I won't sign the petition, which badly misses the point (0.00 / 0)
The petition applauds Eisner for her "courage".  Sorry, but drawing an incendiary cartoon that completely misstates the nature of the controversy isn't "courage".

Give me a petition that says "in the name of open discourse, reinstate Eisner" and I'll sign it in an instant. But there's no way that I'll sign a statement that says she was right all along.  

Amazon Referrals
Buying Back-to-School Books?

Use BOR's Amazon Referral and we'll receive a share of your purchase, at no cost to you!

Click here to shop.

Connect With BOR

2014 Texas Elections
Follow BOR for who's in, who's out, and who's up.

Candidate Tracker:
-- Statewide Races
-- Congressional Races
-- State Senate Races
-- State Rep. Races
-- SBOE Races
-- Austin City Council

Click here for all 2014 Elections coverage


Make a New Account



Forget your username or password?

Texas Blue Pages

Texas Blue Pages
A career network for progressives.


Shared On Facebook

Burnt Orange Reporters
Editor and Publisher:
Katherine Haenschen

Senior Staff Writers:
Genevieve Cato
Joe Deshotel
Ben Sherman

Staff Writers:
Omar Araiza
Emily Cadik
Phillip Martin
Natalie San Luis
Katie Singh
Joseph Vogas

Byron LaMasters

Blogger Emeritus:
Karl-Thomas Musselman

Read staff bios here.

Traffic Ratings
- Alexa Rating
- Quantcast Ratings

Powered by: SoapBlox