Notre Dame Student Newspaper The Observer Apologizes For Publishing Dangerous Anti-Gay Cartoon
January 14, 2010 by Adam @ GLAAD
On Wednesday, 13 January, The Observer, the student newspaper at Notre Dame University ran an incredibly troubling cartoon that promotes violence against the LGBT community.
The cartoon depicted a conversation between two figures. The conversation read,
"The Mobile Party" from The Observer January 13, 2010
“What’s the easiest way to turn a fruit into a vegetable?”
“No idea.”
“A baseball bat.”
As many people know, “fruit” is often used as a derogatory term for members of the LGBT community.
This type of advocacy of anti-LGBT violence must stop. It isn’t funny. What’s more, it promotes hate crimes, which are all too prevalent in society today.
The cartoonist had posted on his blog – though it’s since been removed – his original version of the cartoon. In the original version, it shows that the punchline read, “AIDS” instead of “A baseball bat.” The paper, he reported, preferred “not to make light of fatal diseases.”
The Observer made a dangerously misguided decision that promoting violence was somehow superior to making fun of HIV/AIDS. Both versions of the cartoon were abhorrent.
GLAAD contacted The Observer immediately upon seeing this cartoon. The Editor in Chief Jenn Metz relayed a tearful and what appeared to be heartfelt apology by phone. She explained that she was not present when the decision to run this cartoon was made, and that she was incredibly upset that others on staff had made that decision.
Metz plans to run what she describes as a “full retraction and apology,” in Friday’s edition of The Observer. GLAAD will watch for that retraction and apology. Additionally, GLAAD asked Metz to ensure that the staff responsible for running this cartoon – both the cartoonist and editor who decided it was fit for print – be reprimanded.
GLAAD has also reached out to the office of the President of Notre Dame University, and called upon that office to issue a statement condemning violence and this cartoon that promotes violence. We await response from the University on how they plan to address this type of violent dialogue from continuing to be advanced on campus.
We’ll update this post when we receive Metz’s written apology and when we hear back from the University.
Update: Today The Observer published an apology for the cartoon. It read, in part, “The editors of The Observer would like to publicly apologize for the publication of “The Mobile Party” in the Jan. 13 edition. The burden of responsibility ultimately lies on us for allowing it to go to print. There is no excuse that can be given and nothing that can be said to reverse the damage that has already been done by this egregious error in judgment.”
This is absolutely shameful…
I don’t understand why you published it? Aren’t you just as guilty as the college paper? Why give this crap an audience at all?
How can an institution of higher education be so stupid as to allow something so hateful to be printed?
It is my experience with the comic editing staff at the Observer that the editor responsible for the comic probably didn’t get the joke or play on the phrase “fruit” to mean homosexual.
I think it is important for people who are not familiar with the Observer (and Notre Dame) to know that the cartoon likely ran as a result of negligence and not of deliberate action on the part of the paper.
The Mobile Party is not typically known for its witty wordplay or humor so taken at absolute face value that statement about turning certain types of “produce” into other types of produce (though nonsensicle) wouldn’t be unexpected.
I guess what i’m trying to say is that this cartoon ran because the Observer staff is incompetent and not because they condone violence.
HeartStrong, the only organization in the world with the sole mission of helping GLBT students persecuted at religious schools has begun a letter writing campaign to call this religious university to order.
Send us your emails at heartstrong@heartstrong.org and they will be forwarded daily to the president, the newspaper editor and the notoriously anti gay board of regents.
Thanks!
@Chuck Martens
I’m glad that GLAAD published a picture of the offending cartoon. I’d like to see just what it is I’m being told I should be outraged about. And I am.
To Notre Dame Student: I’m sorry, if the original version did not have “AIDS” instead of “a baseball bat” I might be willing to buy your opinion. However, the progression of editing decision is clear to me and should be as well to any other person with reason: I agree the staff is incompetent…but not for the reason you state. If this is the type of critical thinking that is taught at Notre Damned, they should get out of the business of higher education…or simply become an extension school for Liberty University.
And GLAAD/Adam – I’m sorry, I don’t think you went far enough in your demands of this newspaper. A full retraction and apology with a reprimand for the staff responsible is appropriate. The next step is the staff responsible SHOULD do at least an article, if not a series, on anti-gay violence. A reprimand will do nothing – in order to keep their position on the paper, force them to learn from this!
I don’t believe for one moment that all involved did not know that the cartoon would not be offensive to anyone. You would have to be from another planet to not know. What they thought they had was “buy in” from the students and faculty since they are a relgious school and in that enviroment it is ok to bash the “sinful” homos. Case in point..student who wrote in and defended their school paper staff as being innocent. hmph!
@Notre Dame Student: If The Mobile Party, a *comic* strip, is not known for its witty wordplay or humor then what, exactly, is it known for? Why is it published at all if it’s not funny?
I am skeptical that students at a very prestigious school would not understand what was being said in this cartoon.
It’s difficult, though not impossible, to imagine a scenario where someone didn’t know that fruit was slang for a gay person. However, your explanation makes even less sense. Literally turning a fruit into a vegetable with a baseball bat? That doesn’t make you pause to wonder what the hell they’re talking about? Wouldn’t it make a newspaper editor pause and do a 30-second Google search? Maybe ask the author what they meant? Isn’t that the editor’s job?
I agree with you that this error was due to incompetence on the part of the editing staff, who were clearly out to lunch on this matter. That does not absolve the author(s) from responsibility. The fact that the punchline was switched from making fun of AIDS to condoning violence further illustrates the intentions of the author.
By the way, it’s spelled “nonsensical.”
@ Notre Dame Student
As an ‘06 ND grad myself, I completely understand your take where the Observer is coming from, i.e. from a place of possible incompetence. But please. PLEASE do not try to explain this as a matter of editing staff not knowing what this strip was about. Incompetence aside, that is one very dark, violent joke, and to excuse it as anything else is giving the cartoonist/s an out they don’t deserve.
[...] as outside groups to learn of this comic. Yesterday, the Gay-Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation demanded an apology and retraction of the comic. The editor-in-chief, who was not working that evening, gave a “tearful [...]
[...] No, I’m not going to demand an apology. I can’t imagine it would be sincere. Could anyone? [...]
I thank you for posting this. I have certainly heard this joke before but the idea that a college newspaper in this day and age would print such a hate-filled vile joke is disgusting. As a graduate of college with a student run newspaper I know that editing standards are not always up to par with major newspapers but someone at the newspaper showed a pitifully low taste in judgment and as a result should lose their job over this. Is that what college is about training us for the real world…
I agree with Notre Dame Student’s post. As an alumnus and former member of Notre Dame’s only official (yet woefully insufficient) effort to support the GLB(T???) community at ND, I am outraged. At the same time, I’m not surprised. The Observer, though amateur its staff may be, is not homophobic in my opinion. However, there are certain ignorant segments of the student (and faculty/staff) population that hold such attitudes. Thanks to the “don’t rock the boat” strategy of the administration, such egregious actions are generally given a light slap on the wrist at most so as not to draw much attention from the Catholic hierarchy and the generally conservative (and wealthy) students and alumni.
I want to encourage any GLBT students and student, faculty, or staff allies at ND to get angry and do something about it. I plan on making a personal visit to Fr. Jenkins. It’s time for the University to decide where it stands and take more significant action to address such attitudes and violence. The hands-tied Core Council is not and never will be enough. To do what’s right, the University will have to make some (rich and powerful) people upset. They’ll get over it. Notre Dame will lose donations. However, their endowment is large enough to handle it.
On the other hand, if the University were to stand up for GLBT individuals in a more significant way, it could help many embittered GLBT students, faculty, staff, and alumni find and practice their faith again. As I said, it’s time for the University to wake up and get off the fence. You can’t both love the “sinner” and hate the “sin”. Let’s be a little more creative… Notre Dame, among other religious institutions, is a living example of how that hypocritical policy has failed and will continue to fail the GLBT of all faiths and no faith.
FYI- It is “University of Notre Dame,” not “Notre Dame University.”
Even as a proud alum, I agree: running the cartoon was a terrible choice. Disgraceful.
Wow. Apparently Gay Bashing is Funny at Notre Dame…
What a load of anti-LGBT crap. This gem of a comic strip got the full print treatment in the Notre Dame Student Paper, The Observer: Character 1: “What’s the easiest way to turn a fruit into a vegetable?” Character 2: “No idea.” Character 1: “A b…
@Notre Dame Student
Please, if the cartoonist and editor who ran the cartoon didn’t get the reference, then they don’t belong at a state school let alone Notre Dame.
Read it here
http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/viewpoint/responsibility-for-offensive-comic-1.1011631?firstComment=0#forum
Kind of weird. Leave a comment.
Commenters, congratulations on incorporating Catholic-bashing into your brainy comments. Way to prove that tolerance is the answer. This kind of “hate” is no better than the kind that causes people to think that this comic was funny or acceptable.
[...] statement from GLAAD is [...]
As an alumni of Notre Dame (‘04) I am shocked and completely ashamed that this comic ran in The Observer. I personally would like to see an even bigger apology by The Observer AND by The University. I think “Jay Dywer” hit the nail on the head with the suggestion of an article or series on anti-gay violence.
And, as it was often the case when I was a student, is this cartoon drawn up by a student? Because whomever he or she is should immediately be terminated.
As a current student at ND I can tell you that I and everyone I have talked to about this comic has expressed sincere anger and even a sick feeling over this comic. I read it at lunch and returned to my room to write a quick note to the Observer about this comic, and I know many others who did the same. I comic was written by three people and approved by a couple (from the sports section of the paper for some reason), then published. The Editor-in-Chief was not even working that night. Don’t look poorly on the entire university for the idiocy of a few. We are not all Catholic (I’m an not) and we are not all as ignorant as those who make the papers.
NAME THE CARTOONIST. They are as accountable as the editor who signed off. It’s simply not excusable to approve for publication material one does not understand the content of, if this is the case. Had this material been aimed at a religious group, heads would be rolling. That said, I do believe Jenn Metz apology to be sincere and wonder if in her absence someone had succeeded in deliberately slipping this passed her. Personally speaking, I’d have given my eye teeth for an opportunity at “higher education” had I had the resources. Shame on these children!
[...] GLAAD Demands Apology and Retraction of Dangerous Anti-Gay Cartoon : glaadBLOG.org. [...]
This cartoon is very disturbing. The cartoonist should be fired immediately!
Horrifying. I expect college kids to be ill-informed, but not full on sociopaths.
GLAAD, thanks for your important work here and elsewhere.
Honestly, this is just horrible. Why would you ever publish a cartoon if it is offensive?
I am a journalist at my HIGH SCHOOL and we know better than that–a university definitely should. One rule we go by at my school is to never run an editorial, an editorial cartoon or any other article unless it will benefit at least one person. This cartoon could NEVER have benefited anyone and simply should have never been run. The editors have equal responsibly for this as the bigot that drew it.
Conservative-leaning libertarian here via National Review. I am not amused by humor that wishes death or disability on people whom the humorist dislikes.
The editorial apology is inadequate.
The offending strip should be dropped from the paper. If the cartoonist wants to offer this kind of trash, he/she is free to establish a Web site.
The person(s) who made the decision to run the cartoon should be fired and permanently barred from the paper. If an attempt is made to cover up the responsible person, everyone who knew about the cartoon should be fired and barred. If that shuts down the paper for the year, so be it.
Much as I’m inclined to expose the primary actors to public scorn, my better judgment says that, except in extreme cases, anonymity can be an essential part of free speech. Moreover, in this particular case, anonymity apparently was established precedent.
[...] GLAAD reports: [...]
i was directed here by a link from maggie gallagher at the national review site. i am gladdened by the fact that she can appreciate how this cartoon is unacceptable. hopefully, this acknowledgement on her part will lead her to understand that it is precisely the anti-equality crusades she leads against gay citizens that create the social atmoshpere wherein cartoons such as this can be considered humorous by some.
How sick. I would expect the editors to resign. Even though they didn’t draw the cartoon, they are responsible for what ends up in the paper.
Jay writes:
“A reprimand will do nothing – in order to keep their position on the paper, force them to learn from this!” and he suggests a series on GLBT issues on campus.
The idea of “forcing” college students to “learn” is laughable. As a 20 year college prof, I can tell you that if you try to “force” students to learn, they will simply push back in whatever way they can. Trying to “force” students to learn tolerance and respect for diversity is precisely why some of them rebel against it with the sort of despicable trash we’re talking about here.
Learning comes not from force but from patient interaction and exposure to new ideas and people. “Forcing” kids to learn is the attitude that brings about the right-wing cry of “thought police” toward academia. And rightly so.
True learning is the opposite of force.
I’m surprised none of the commenters have mentioned that this joke is about 25 years old (hence AIDS being the original punchline). In addition to tastelessness, the cartoonist is guilty of plagiarism.
The Observer has removed access to comment threads that were posted both under their ridiculous non-apology and the letter from the cartoonists. The comments showed both outrage and offered lessons that were invaluable for a discussion about journalism, gay bashing, etc. They exposed that the cartoonist asked permission to make fun of AIDS and then gays as detailed on his own blog which has also been taken down.
These are journalistic lightweights at best. Learn from the outrage and the discussion. Issue a real apology that does not deflect and details actions. Be accountable and responsible. They can do better.
To their credit, their apologies are complete and sincere. None of this “we’re sorry if someone was offended” crud seen so often these days.
What an incredible lapse of sense at the newspaper!
[...] Anti-gay cartoon [...]
[...] Notre Dame Student Newspaper The Observer Apologizes For Publishing Dangerous Anti-Gay Cartoon : gla… [...]
I’m an ND alum, grad school. I’m also not your typical midwest conservative catholic- I’m a left-wing New Yorker. Sadly, I’m not surprised to see this in the Observer nor to see this mentality from the student population. ND is a stifling place that’s much more focused on indoctrination than it is on education. A retraction and apology is fine, but the problem(s) is that someone came up with this cartoon and thought it was funny AND then someone else made a decision to publish it regardless of how offensive it is. Again, if you know ND, you know this not such a shocker. Go Irish, indeed. Very sad.
This kind of thing is inciting hatred and violence. I would imagine that the person who created it could be reported to the Police and the magazine censored.
Perhaps we should all contact the magazine to tell them of our concerns over their low standards?
Yet another National Review reader here (a classically liberal and heterosexual one, I’m white and believe in God too so I’m pretty close to the WASP stereotype
) and I want to applaud and voice support for GLAAD. While I might disagree on details of tactics in your broader struggle I can in no way disagree with anything at all in this case or for that matter with your quest for tolerance, acceptance, and respect for LGBT individuals.
Thank you GLAAD: what you are doing is to the benefit of society and humanity as a whole all across the world.
I also want to suggest to Notre Dame, Notre Dame alumni, and Notre Dame students and staff that they take the initiative to arrange or host a LGBT appreciation event of some sort. Maybe a local Love parade (is it called that in the US?) could have the University as a starting and ending location? The point of such parades is partly that they’re open to everyone who wants to show their acceptance and general support by joining and/or cheering for the party: the student paper could do much worse than to wholeheartedly join.
Raise a stink, everyone! Please!
This is disgraceful, horrible, and there is no excuse at all for such a cartoon.
@Mike Smith: “If The Mobile Party, a *comic* strip, is not known for its witty wordplay or humor then what, exactly, is it known for? Why is it published at all if it’s not funny?”
It’s known for wrenches, saws, and so on (get it? tools …) saying offensive or stupid things. I remember one cartoon depicting tools picking up on women in various ways.
This layer of irony or distance of course in no way excuses the content of the cartoon. It is also disturbing (since the ‘tools’ are apparently supposed to be ND students) that the cartoonist thought that this sort of “humor” (ugh) is present in the ND community.
I too am a alum of ND, undergrad, and just like the alum above, I’m also not surprised that this happened. It seems that in the decade since I left Notre Dame, little has changed in terms of tolerance towards any minority who is not an athlete. I think that as a Catholic University, Notre Dame has principles that form the basis of its foundation, but does very little to promote those principles to the masses of homogeneous, middle-class, primarily white, conservative students it receives each year. It thinks it does through prayer and mass, but the masses sit there and swallow it as easy as they swallow a wafer. Then mass is over and it’s back to the hypocrisy.