Trayvon Martin Cartoonist: Texas Students Petition To Reinstate Stephanie Eisner At Campus Newspaper

The cartoon by Stephanie Eisner which was published in The Daily Texan.

A group of students at the University of Texas believe their campus newspaper went too far when they fired a cartoonist responsible for a controversial illustration about the media coverage of the Trayvon Martin shooting.

Stephanie Eisner, a sophomore at UT, caused an uproar for a cartoon which attempted to critique the media coverage of Martin's death and the investigation of shooter George Zimmerman. The editors initially defended their publishing of it, but eventually removed it from their website and announced Eisner was no longer on staff.

The dismissal of Eisner and backlash from students spurred UT student Samian Quazi to start an online petition asking The Daily Texan editors to reinstate Eisner.

Quazi used to be an opinion columnist for the paper, although he says he doesn't personally know Eisner. He tried to call the editors Monday to learn more about what happened, and whether Eisner was indeed fired, yet no one would pick up the phone.

"I'm outraged at the whole reaction," Quazi said. "People started calling the institution of the University of Texas racist. For a lot of us, that makes us pretty outraged because the school means a lot to us. We took out thousands of dollars in loans to go here, we love this school."

Other people have signed on to the petition with their own reasons for support. Most of them reflect Quazi's position that this isn't about agreeing with the cartoon, but sticking up for Eisner's right to have an unpopular cartoon.

One signer said on the Change.org website, where the petition is hosted, that "It was a cowardly decision to fire her." Another person, who claimed they worked for The Daily Texan in the 1980s, said "We had numerous cartoons that I didn't agree with, but not once would we ever have considered firing someone for basically doing her job."

Quazi further explained his position in a local blog.

"I used to write for them as an opinion columnist," he wrote, "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."

At the time of this writing, the petition has received 162 signatures.

From our partners

• 25 Signs You're A Hot Mess | Thought Catalog - thoughtcatalog.com

Comments

[Michael Boyer]

10:00 AM on 05/23/2012

isn't it interesting than now we've all learned a PR firm in cahoots with several lawyers did EXACTLY what this cartoonist portrayed..

[realitycheck101a]

03:50 PM on 04/12/2012

This cartoon could very easily apply to Emmett Till...

[Bill in Tejas]

07:17 PM on 04/10/2012

Just another Closet Racist coming out, I am glad this so called poor excuse for a person was kicked off the paper serves her right. A young boy was gunned down because the way he looked. Armed with skittles & tea what a threat. zimmerman needs to go down hard. I think the word is JUSTICE ! ! !

[przybyla]

04:32 PM on 04/09/2012

*snort* only 275 signatures

[RebelRyder]

07:16 PM on 04/07/2012

The cartoon is spot on. NBC has copped to at least some degree of yellow journalism and fired a producer over the editing of the 911 call.

[darquelourd]

05:10 PM on 04/10/2012

The cartoon doesn't even spell Trayvon's name correctly.

yeah, REAL spot on if you're an entitled white kid who doesn't want to be bother by "reality".

[RebelRyder]

05:25 PM on 04/10/2012

You think the media reporting of this story was "reality"??

Black thug jumped a Mexican, so the Mexican shot him. Case closed. That's reality.

[Michael Boyer]

10:03 AM on 05/23/2012

PBS didn't even get the white-hispanic right in their reporting, he was just "white" at the exact moment george's face came up on the screen.. I'd say reality's been missed by greater people (Gwen Ifill) than a cartoonist in a campus newspaper

[realitycheck101a]

03:58 PM on 04/12/2012

Think about Emmet Till and then look at the cartoon again. Oh, you don't know who Emmett Till was. Ok, google him, then look at the cartoon again...

[RebelRyder]

04:52 PM on 04/12/2012

I think you missed the point of the cartoon. The media sold the story inthe same mold as Emmet Till. A racist white man killing a young black kid. They skewed every detail of this story to fit that mold. They used a picture of Trayvon that is several years old, and played up the Skittles. He was 17 years old and 6'2".

George Zimmerman is not white, yet they pushed that angle as well, calling him "white hispanic" No such thing. He's hispanic.

They editied the 911 tape to Zimmerman sound racist as well. He's not racist either. Don't believe me? Google: Sherman Ware.

[hydeparkblvd]

03:02 PM on 04/06/2012

Surely Eisner is not jewish.

[Jasel]

02:53 PM on 04/06/2012

I'll take the excessive media coverage over the cover-up with no investigation whatsoever that most likely would have successfully occurred if the national media hadn't gotten involved to begin with.

[Tulka2]

02:44 AM on 04/07/2012

Hear, hear. Well said.

[AmericanPieHole]

08:03 AM on 04/06/2012

This cartoon is brilliant and clear that it was criticizing the media. Anyone that does not get it will never get it. The tragic shooting of Trayvon Martin is one thing this cartoon is quite another. The point is the media has tried and convicted Zimmerman with false facts, lies and then retractions followed by more speculations. While I want justice for Trayvon I also want justice for Zimmerman.

[Tulka2]

02:43 AM on 04/07/2012

No. The media wants Zimmerman arrested just as if it was year of our Lord 2012.  It doesn't matter what the media says.  It only matters what the justice system says, but i suppose if they don't get that, they never will.

[hardtohandle]

12:57 AM on 04/06/2012

disgusting

[heboprotagonist]

09:38 PM on 04/05/2012

Quazi has a fundamental misunderstanding of the 1st amendment.

The first amendment protects us from the government w/r/t our speech. That means that when Eisner or Limbaugh or Maddow say something stupid they can't be arrested for it. The 1st amendment offers no such protection when it comes to our jobs, our friends, or our public perception.

Also, if he doesn't know Eisner- then how would he know if she sought to offend?

[SouthAustin]

07:12 PM on 04/05/2012

Do you notice that none of the Eisner apologists is using the "f" word ? They are agreeing with her ultra fascist viewpoint but they aren't saying the first thing that should come to mind when reading a good cartoon. Drum roll please. They're not saying it's funny . Hello !!!! Cartoons are supposed to make people laugh. Eisner didn't make anyone laugh with her sorry excuse for a cartoon and then she adds insult to injury by apparently thinking she was writing only for the attendees of a KKK rally in 1920. She should have been fired for incompetence.

[Samian Quazi]

08:09 PM on 04/05/2012

It's a political cartoon, not a comic. Political cartoons generally are not humorous in nature. They are supposed to be sardonic.

[Caryn Banker]

08:26 PM on 04/05/2012

Mmmmm. OK. Not supposed to be funny and not supposed to be 'offensive'. What was she aiming for?

Do you think you can be controversial, biting, revelatory of an unfair system without being offensive to some?

[SouthAustin]

03:11 PM on 04/06/2012

They're still supposed to be funny. That's waht speartes

[Kev Bat]

07:06 PM on 04/05/2012

Remind me again . Just what crime did Trayvon Martin commit ? And that fight that lead to Zimmerman shooting Martin while Martin was on top of him ? Nice of police and EMS to clean off Zimmerman's coat of all that blood . Freedom of Speech ? Newspapers , Business and Schools have standards and if you go outside that standard -- bye bye !
" Colored" really ? Was the " N" word too harsh ?

[yj dt]

06:45 PM on 04/05/2012

I disagree with this cartoon because it shows poor taste and makes its point in a kind of nasty way. However, I disagree vehemently with the actions taken against the editor for reasons of political correctness. When you ban a cartoon like this you not only ban the offensive material, you also put a chilling effect on the expression of free speech. The lesson to be learned here is that if the editor's commentary is ignorant and incorrect, it will be made abundantly clear once the Travon Martin case is resolved. However, banning it before all the facts are even out gives it even more power if it proves to be even a moderately accurate assesment of how the mainstream media has handled this case.

[ewwthatsnasty]

07:38 PM on 04/05/2012

they're not blocking her free speech. she's free to start a blog and put up all the cartoons she wants. also she wasn't imprisoned or fined. free speech doesn't equal no backlash from private citizens. while it's a public university, the administrators who made the decisions are not elected officials.

and by the way, we don't need to wait for a resolution to the case to decide that the cartoon was ignorant. what the heck is a "colored boy"? we can call it ignorant right now.

[Samian Quazi]

08:38 PM on 04/05/2012

She wasn't fired because her editors didn't like it. The editors all signed off on it to begin with, anyway. She was fired because of the handful of protesters who had an ultimatum to censure her (their word, in fact).

[yj dt]

08:44 PM on 04/05/2012

"and by the way, we don't need to wait for a resolution to the case to decide that the cartoon was ignorant. what the heck is a "colored boy"? we can call it ignorant right now."

It's ugly to be sure, but isn't racial politics itself an ugly thing? While I don't like this cartoon I think it makes one accurate point; the so-called 'discussion about race' the media goads us to have in the wake of an incident like this always seems to polarize more than it seems to heal race relations. That's the meaning of the use of the word 'colored boy', it's meant to poke at the media's polite, but nevertheless inflammatory racism.

[AmericanPieHole]

05:53 PM on 04/05/2012

This cartoon is brilliant and clear that it was criticizing the media. Anyone that does not get it will never get it. The tragic shooting of Trayvon Martin is one thing this cartoon is quite another. The point is the media has tried and convicted Zimmerman with false facts, lies and then retractions followed by more speculations. While I want justice for Trayvon I also want justice for Zimmerman.

[Kev Bat]

06:50 PM on 04/05/2012

Zimmerman is a criminal who should have served time for beating up an undercover cop who was trying to arrest George's underage date in a public bar . Daddy likes to pull strings !

[Kev Bat]

07:30 PM on 04/05/2012

So what were Hannity , Geraldo and Fox doing ? Balanced reporting ?

[Yossarian22]

03:19 PM on 04/05/2012

This is perhaps the most contradictory statement I've heard in a while: "But freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend, and Eisner did not seek to offend."

[Samian Quazi]

03:49 PM on 04/05/2012

It's not contradictory. All I was stating is that freedom of speech includes the freedom to offend. Ms. Eisner did not seek to offend, but even if she did seek to, that still is covered by free speech.

I apologize for any confusion.

[crd7]

06:29 PM on 04/05/2012

Ms. Eisner's use of the word "Colored" is enough to put her in a compromising position. Is Ms. Eisner racist? Perhaps. But it is her racial THINKING that I question.

To be referred to as "colored" in a non-post apartheid South African context- groups all nonwhites into one category. Ms. Eisner should have possibly substituted "colored" for "black"- but she did not. What does this mean? It means that she thinks racially- classifying and categorizing all nonwhites together- placing humanity into two groups- essentializing.

Problem? We do not study at institutions of higher learning so that we can exercise racial thought; essentialism has no place in the academy.

She did not even check the spelling of this young man's name. She placed "Treyvon" (not "Trayvon") into a category of "Other"- feeling no need to properly identify him. To Ms. Eisner he was simply another "colored boy" and the spelling of his name was of little importance.

Perhaps she should take an intensive global history course. Creating this cartoon gave her a "Linnaean" sense of power; she capitalized on the opportunity to (re)classify humanity as she saw fit; a reflection of her colonial thought.

If nothing else, she is simply not academically mature enough to hold such an important position within the academy. She created a controversial cartoon and is entitled to free speech...but it is the negligence, disrespect, lust for power, and colonial/racial thought behind her "speech" that make her underserving of any audience.

[Yossarian22]

08:11 PM on 04/05/2012

I understand what you're saying, but the syntax is terrible. Moreover, where is there any guarantee that you can hold your job after making racially offensive comments? Are newspapers required to subsidize and publish the racist rantings of anyone who walks in the door?