First, bravo to the students who took the initiative to launch the Gavel. It’s a much needed voice in the BC community.

Second, if a professor created the cartoon, then that’s all the more reason for him or her to stand by their work. Any kind of professional retaliation (ie, getting fired), would clearly violate state law, not to mention BC’s own stated commitment to the “presentation of opposing viewpoints and an openness to confrontation between ideas.” (See here: http://www.bc.edu/publications/studentguide/behavioralpolicies.html) Andrzej, could you elaborate on why this professor’s position supposedly gives him or her more of a reason to write anonymously?

Third, I take issue with Munden’s assertion in the third paragraph:

“Everyone, including whoever may have drawn this cartoon and made the decision to publish it, has the right to express their own opinion. They do not, however, have the right to publish an image that demonizes their ideological opposites.”

Why don’t they have this right? What if “demonizing” ones “ideological opponents” is a person’s chosen way of expressing their own opinion? Whether a professor or student made the cartoon in question, he or she is fully protected by BC’s own stated commitment to the “confrontation between ideas,” even if that includes making these tasteless depictions. It’s exactly how the marketplace of ideas is meant to function — when someone creates an image such as this, responsibly community members like Mr. Munden respond in kind. They point out how vile and counterproductive it is to demonize opponents in this manner. But on a campus that supposedly values the free exchange of ideas, political ends (as righteous as they may be) should never be mixed with the notion that certain voices (as offensive as they may be) deserve to be silenced.

Though angered by the image, I fully support the First Amendment right of it to be published. That said, I was disheartened by the fact that the cartoon did not contain a credit. The public has a right to know who this person is (a professor at Boston College according to the comment above) so we have the opportunity to raise our objections to him or her. People should stand by their work.

The abortionist in question is supposed to just be a grungy looking person. I’m told he is a human by a friend of the cartoonist who spoke to him about it. It’s poor coloring in print.

And the “biological material” would be human body parts. Google image search abortion to see what I mean.