Thank you for participating on NYTimes.com. Your published submission can be found at this link:
Is doublespeak the governing ethic in Univ. of Chicago? Martha Nussbaum a UChicago faculty defending her colleague Wendy D indulges in doublespeak. Now it is Wendy D's turn. There is nothing called blasphemy law in India and the Court which had received Batra's complaint did NOT have to decide in the case because the Publisher Penguin chose to voluntarily withdraw the book and pulp it, as out of court settlement. If in fact, Penguin did not pulp the books as voluntarily agreed in the out-of-court settlement, was the settlement made in good faith?
She should know that India has a penal code which has Section 295A which is in vogue since 1860, one of the clauses under which Batra had made the complaint.
It is shocking that she has expressed no apologies for hurting the sentiments of Hindus whose history she is trying to narrate by her alternative method driven by libido. The cover of her book is a mare pretending to be a horse showing a jutting hand of a woman between the hindlegs. In fact, it is a donkey and depicts the University of Chicago faculty. Go, Wendy, psycho-analyse yourself and write a Drain Inspector's Report -- the title given by MK Gandhi in 1927, Katherine Mayo's book onIndia.
Surely, there is a US Penal Code and Chapter 43 clearly defines harmful material which may arouse the prurient interests of minors. Wendy D's book can be established to be harmful material which calls for punishment under this Code for Public Decency. Civil responsibility of US academe?