The editor of the Harvard Salient defended his newspaper’s decision to republish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, while other students at a Kirkland House forum said that the Salient’s move was disrespectful toward Muslims.

The forum, sponsored by the Harvard College Interfaith Council, came as death tolls mounted in worldwide riots sparked by the Muhammad cartoons. According to the Associated Press, 19 people have died in cartoon-related violence so far this month—including 11 in Afghanistan and five in Pakistan.

The contentious cartoons were first printed in a Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, last September, and they have since been republished across the globe. The Salient—which uses The Crimson’s printing presses—republished the cartoons last week. A local homeless-run publication, Spare Change News, reprinted the cartoons this week.

Islamic law forbids illustrations of Muhammad, and the nature of the images—one of them depicting Muhammad as a terrorist with a bomb in his turban—has raised ire across the globe.

Just two days ago, Associate Dean of the College Judith H. Kidd sent an e-mail to the Salient, warning staff members that “some segments of the campus...may be sufficiently upset by the publication of the cartoons that they may become dangerous.”

The Salient’s editor, Travis R. Kavulla ’06-’07, said that journalistic integrity compelled the republication of the cartoons. Kavulla is also a former Crimson editorial executive and writes a bi-weekly opinion column for The Crimson.

“We didn’t publish these cartoons first, and we didn’t publish them alone,” Kavulla said. “There is a journalistic obligation for the mainstream media to show these things.”

Other students criticized the Salient for attempting to be sensationalistic.

The president of the Harvard Islamic Society, Khalid M. Yasin ’07, said, “The question here is not about free speech— it’s about respect.”

“You can print what you want, but just because you have the right doesn’t mean you have the obligation,” Yasin said.

James M. Leaf ’09, a self-proclaimed atheist, reiterated this sentiment.

“Just because we have the right to say whatever we want, as the Salient has, that doesn’t mean that this decision is somehow brave,” Leaf said.

Rather, Leaf said, the Salient’s move is “creating deep divisions.”

Both sides seemed to agree, however, that the violent reactions to the cartoons were reprehensible. Kavulla placed the blame squarely on Muslims, claiming that “a violent response to [editorial cartoons] from Christians would be unfathomable.”

“The Islamic Middle East seems to not have a wide tolerance for religious critique,” Kavulla said.

Members of the Salient’s staff also accused the Islamic community of hypocrisy for reacting violently to the editorial cartoons, since—the Salient staffers said—there is a history of Islamic art depicting the prophet Muhammad.

Kavulla railed against the Interfaith Council for excluding the Salient from the organizational aspects of the meeting.

“This has been poorly organized; people who could have richly argued are not here because of conflicting obligations,” said Kavulla.

Om L. Lala ’06, president of the Interfaith Council, cited time constraints as the main reason why the Salient was not included in the event-planning process.