A Lecturer Showed a Painting of the Prophet Muhammad. She Lost Her Job.
By Vimal Patel
Erika López Prater, an adjunct professor at Hamline University, said she knew many Muslims have deeply held religious beliefs that prohibit depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. So last semester for a global art history class, she took many precautions before showing a 14th-century painting of Islam's founder.
In the syllabus, she warned that images of holy figures, including the Prophet Muhammad and the Buddha, would be shown in the course. She asked students to contact her with any concerns, and she said no one did.
In class, she prepped students, telling them that in a few minutes, the painting would be displayed, in case anyone wanted to leave.
Then Dr. López Prater showed the image — and lost her teaching gig.
Officials at Hamline, a small, private university in St. Paul, Minn., with about 1,800 undergraduates, had tried to douse what they feared would become a runaway fire. Instead they ended up with what they had tried to avoid: a national controversy, which pitted advocates of academic liberty and free speech against Muslims who believe that showing the image of Prophet Muhammad is always sacrilegious.
After Dr. López Prater showed the image, a senior in the class complained to the administration. Other Muslim students, not in the course, supported the student, saying the class was an attack on their religion. They demanded that officials take action.
Officials told Dr. López Prater that her services next semester were no longer needed. In emails to students and faculty, they said that the incident was clearly Islamophobic. Hamline's president, Fayneese S. Miller, co-signed an email that said respect for the Muslim students "should have superseded academic freedom." At a town hall, an invited Muslim speaker compared showing the images to teaching that Hitler was good.
Free speech supporters started their own campaign. An Islamic art historian wrote an essay defending Dr. López Prater and started a petition demanding the university's board investigate the matter. It had more than 2,800 signatures. Free speech groups and publications issued blistering critiques; PEN America called it "one of the most egregious violations of academic freedom in recent memory." And Muslims themselves debated whether the action was Islamophobic.
Arguments over academic freedom have been fought on campuses for years, but they can be especially fraught at small private colleges like Hamline, which are facing shrinking enrollment and growing financial pressures. To attract applicants, many of these colleges have diversified their curriculums and tried to be more welcoming to students who have been historically shut out of higher education.
Meanwhile, professors everywhere often face pushback for their academic decisions from activist students or conservative lawmakers.
Dr. López Prater's situation was especially precarious. She is an adjunct, one of higher education's underclass of teachers, working for little pay and receiving few of the workplace protections enjoyed by tenured faculty members.
University officials and administrators all declined interviews. But Dr. Miller, the school's president, defended the decision in a statement.
"To look upon an image of the Prophet Muhammad, for many Muslims, is against their faith," Dr. Miller's statement said, adding, "It was important that our Muslim students, as well as all other students, feel safe, supported and respected both in and out of our classrooms."
In a December interview with the school newspaper, the student who complained to the administration, Aram Wedatalla, described being blindsided by the image.
"I'm like, 'This can't be real,'" said Ms. Wedatalla, who in a public forum described herself as Sudanese. "As a Muslim and a Black person, I don't feel like I belong, and I don't think I'll ever belong in a community where they don't value me as a member, and they don't show the same respect that I show them."
Todd H. Green, who has written books about Islamophobia, said the conflict at Hamline was "tragic" because administrators pitted natural allies — those concerned about stereotypes of Muslims and Islam — against one another.
The administration, he said, "closed down conversation when they should have opened it up."
The Image
The painting shown in Dr. López Prater's class is in one of the earliest Islamic illustrated histories of the world, "A Compendium of Chronicles," written during the 14th century by Rashid-al-Din (1247-1318).
Shown regularly in art history classes, the painting shows a winged and crowned Angel Gabriel pointing at the Prophet Muhammad and delivering to him the first Quranic revelation. Muslims believe that the Quran comprises the words of Allah revealed to the Prophet Muhammad through the Angel Gabriel.
The image is "a masterpiece of Persian manuscript painting," said Christiane Gruber, a professor of Islamic art at the University of Michigan. It is housed at the University of Edinburgh; similar paintings have been on display at places like the Metropolitan Museum of Art. And a sculpture of the prophet is at the Supreme Court.
Dr. Gruber said that showing Islamic art and depictions of the Prophet Muhammad have become more common in academia, because of a push to "decolonize the canon" — that is, expand curriculum beyond a Western model.
Dr. Gruber, who wrote the essay in New Lines Magazine defending Dr. López Prater, said that studying Islamic art without the Compendium of Chronicles image "would be like not teaching Michaelangelo's David."
Yet, most Muslims believe that visual representations of Muhammad should not be viewed, even if the Quran does not explicitly prohibit them. The prohibition stems from the belief that an image of Muhammad could lead to worshiping the prophet rather than the god he served.
There are, however, a range of beliefs. Some Muslims distinguish between respectful depictions and mocking caricatures, while others do not subscribe to the restriction at all.
Omid Safi, a professor of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies at Duke University, said he regularly shows images of the Prophet Muhammad in class and without Dr. López Prater's opt-out mechanisms. He explains to his students that these images were works of devotion created by pious artists at the behest of devout rulers.
"That's the part I want my students to grapple with," Dr. Safi said. "How does something that comes from the very middle of the tradition end up being received later on as something marginal or forbidden?"
A Warning, and Then the Image
Dr. López Prater, a self-described art nerd, said she knew about the potential for conflict on Oct. 6, when she began her online lecture with 30 or so students.
She said she spent a few minutes explaining why she was showing the image, how different religions have depicted the divine and how standards change over time.
"I do not want to present the art of Islam as something that is monolithic," she said in an interview, adding that she had been shown the image as a graduate student. She also showed a second image, from the 16th century, which depicted Muhammad wearing a veil.
Dr. López Prater said that no one in class raised concerns, and there was no disrespectful commentary.
After the class ended, Ms. Wedatalla, a business major and president of the university's Muslim Student Association, stuck around to voice her discomfort.
Immediately afterward, Dr. López Prater sent an email to her department head, Allison Baker, about the encounter; she thought that Ms. Wedatalla might complain.
Ms. Baker, the chair of the digital and studio art department, responded to the email four minutes later.
"It sounded like you did everything right," Ms. Baker said. "I believe in academic freedom so you have my support."
As Dr. López Prater predicted, Ms. Wedatalla reached out to administrators. Dr. López Prater, with Ms. Baker's help, wrote an apology, explaining that sometimes "diversity involves bringing contradicting, uncomfortable and coexisting truths into conversation with each other."
Ms. Wedatalla declined an interview request, and did not explain why she had not raised concerns before the image was shown. But in an email statement, she said images of Prophet Muhammad should never be displayed, and that Dr. López Prater gave a trigger warning precisely because she knew such images were offensive to many Muslims. The lecture was so disturbing, she said, that she could no longer see herself in that course.
Four days after the class, Dr. López Prater was summoned to a video meeting with the dean of the college of liberal arts, Marcela Kostihova.
Dr. Kostihova compared showing the image to using a racial epithet for Black people, according to Dr. López Prater.
"It was very clear to me that she had not talked to any art historians," Dr. López Prater said.
A couple of weeks later, the university rescinded its offer to teach next semester.
Dr. López Prater said she was ready to move on. She had teaching jobs at other schools. But on Nov. 7, David Everett, the vice president for inclusive excellence, sent an email to all university employees, saying that certain actions taken in an online class were "undeniably inconsiderate, disrespectful and Islamophobic."
The administration, after meeting with the school's Muslim Student Association, would host an open forum "on the subject of Islamophobia," he wrote.
Dr. López Prater, who had only begun teaching at Hamline in the fall, said she felt like a bucket of ice water had been dumped over her head, but the shock soon gave way to "blistering anger at being characterized in those terms by somebody who I have never even met or spoken with." She reached out to Dr. Gruber, who ended up writing the essay and starting the petition.
An Emotional Forum
At the Dec. 8 forum, which was attended by several dozen students, faculty and administrators, Ms. Wedatalla described, often through tears, how she felt seeing the image.
"Who do I call at 8 a.m.," she asked, when "you see someone disrespecting and offending your religion?"
Other Muslim students on the panel, all Black women, also spoke tearfully about struggling to fit in at Hamline. Students of color in recent years had protested what they called racist incidents; the university, they said, paid lip service to diversity and did not support students with institutional resources... https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/08/us/hamline-university-islam-prophet-muhammad.html
Just FYI: This is over on the "Cancelling Dr. Suess" thread, but I am glad to see a thread dedicated to the story.
I'm in the arts, so this has been blowing up my socials. I'll just say that I don't think what she did was wise, given the fact that she was teaching online (didn't know the students and couldn't read the room); it sounds like a required/general education course, so it's harder for students to opt out; and she was an adjunct with no job security and probably not a lot of experience at that school. That said, this professor absolutely introduced the topic well, explained what she was doing and why, and did tell students they could leave the class and/or turn off their screens. I don't think it was Islamophobic or a fireable offense, but I wouldn't have done it in that context.
Quote from: artalot on January 11, 2023, 11:49:13 AM
I'm in the arts, so this has been blowing up my socials. I'll just say that I don't think what she did was wise, given the fact that she was teaching online (didn't know the students and couldn't read the room); it sounds like a required/general education course, so it's harder for students to opt out; and she was an adjunct with no job security and probably not a lot of experience at that school. That said, this professor absolutely introduced the topic well, explained what she was doing and why, and did tell students they could leave the class and/or turn off their screens. I don't think it was Islamophobic or a fireable offense, but I wouldn't have done it in that context.
Was she teaching online?
Hamline student, former instructor at center of debate over religion, academic freedom speak out (https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/01/11/hamline-student-former-instructor-at-center-of-debate)
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 11, 2023, 05:12:06 PM
Quote from: artalot on January 11, 2023, 11:49:13 AM
I'm in the arts, so this has been blowing up my socials. I'll just say that I don't think what she did was wise, given the fact that she was teaching online (didn't know the students and couldn't read the room); it sounds like a required/general education course, so it's harder for students to opt out; and she was an adjunct with no job security and probably not a lot of experience at that school. That said, this professor absolutely introduced the topic well, explained what she was doing and why, and did tell students they could leave the class and/or turn off their screens. I don't think it was Islamophobic or a fireable offense, but I wouldn't have done it in that context.
Was she teaching online?
The article quoted in the OP said she was.
ETA: from the OP "Dr. López Prater, a self-described art nerd, said she knew about the potential for conflict on Oct. 6, when she began her online lecture with 30 or so students."
At some point, overpaid, underworked, and self-important adminiscritters need to tell spoiled children like this, 'too bad. Shut up. Go away. College is designed to teach you stuff, including how to think and act.'.
Someone should also have pointed out to the young woman who complained that the offending painting was actually painted by a devout Muslim, on orders from a devout Muslim ruler, who were both acting in accordance with the views of an admittedly minority approach to this subject, within Islam.
Quote from: artalot on January 11, 2023, 11:49:13 AM
I'm in the arts, so this has been blowing up my socials. I'll just say that I don't think what she did was wise, given the fact that she was teaching online (didn't know the students and couldn't read the room); it sounds like a required/general education course, so it's harder for students to opt out; and she was an adjunct with no job security and probably not a lot of experience at that school. That said, this professor absolutely introduced the topic well, explained what she was doing and why, and did tell students they could leave the class and/or turn off their screens. I don't think it was Islamophobic or a fireable offense, but I wouldn't have done it in that context.
It's very sad that higher education has come to this.Instead of being a place where students can
expect to be presented with ideas and information that will be unsettling at times, now the expectation has become the reverse; i.e. that encountering anything unsettling means that the place is "unsafe" for the student.
NOTE: Having a job, getting married, raising children, and most other adventures in life are EXTREMELY UNSAFE.
Again, I don't think she did anything objectively wrong and she should not have been fired or been called Islamaphobic (which one of the administrators did). BUT, images of the Prophet Muhammad are extremely offensive to Sunni Muslims, and they have been weaponized against them as anti-Islamic statements. There was the Dutch cartoon, Charlie Hebdo, and more recently a 'free speech' drawathon in Texas. Again, all legal, but also all aimed at offending Muslims; at least Charlie Hebdo made fun of everyone, the others were more targeted. In a world where images of the Prophet have been used in such hateful ways, I simply wouldn't show them in a general education course, especially an online course where so many of the students may have tuned out your framing, warnings, cautions, etc. The gut reaction of many Sunni Muslims would be to feel persecuted, that's not a space I want to create in the classroom. I don't mind offending students or making them uncomfortable when pedagogically relevant, but I don't want them to feel persecuted, especially when there are a lot of other images from that manuscript that she could have shown. This kind of imagery is more appropriate to upper-level courses with a smaller group of people, more familiarity with the material, and a greater opportunity to have a discussion.
Quote from: artalot on January 12, 2023, 08:50:08 AM
This kind of imagery is more appropriate to upper-level courses with a smaller group of people, more familiarity with the material, and a greater opportunity to have a discussion.
They're not going to be "familiar with the material" until someone
presents the material, by definition. This situation is unavoidable, since there will always be a "first" time this is introduced.
Quote from: artalot on January 12, 2023, 08:50:08 AM
Again, I don't think she did anything objectively wrong and she should not have been fired or been called Islamaphobic (which one of the administrators did). BUT, images of the Prophet Muhammad are extremely offensive to Sunni Muslims, and they have been weaponized against them as anti-Islamic statements. There was the Dutch cartoon, Charlie Hebdo, and more recently a 'free speech' drawathon in Texas. Again, all legal, but also all aimed at offending Muslims; at least Charlie Hebdo made fun of everyone, the others were more targeted. In a world where images of the Prophet have been used in such hateful ways, I simply wouldn't show them in a general education course, especially an online course where so many of the students may have tuned out your framing, warnings, cautions, etc. The gut reaction of many Sunni Muslims would be to feel persecuted, that's not a space I want to create in the classroom. I don't mind offending students or making them uncomfortable when pedagogically relevant, but I don't want them to feel persecuted, especially when there are a lot of other images from that manuscript that she could have shown. This kind of imagery is more appropriate to upper-level courses with a smaller group of people, more familiarity with the material, and a greater opportunity to have a discussion.
These are very good points, but as with some of the conversation on other threads, the big problem I see is fundamentalist religion demanding that the rest of the world cave to its beliefs.
The first line of President Miller's biography indicates that she's the "first african american and second woman" to hold the presidency at Hamline. The fact that this is the "opener" for someone who presumably has over twenty years of relevant academic experience to recount tells you all you need to know.
By the way, not for nothing, but this person's Ph.D. is from a religious institution, Texas Christian, so she obviously is comfortable with an environment where academic standards take a backseat to someone's personal superstitions. At least you know this at TCU which is clearly branded. If we were at "Hamline Christian University" or "The Hamline Institute for Islamic Studies" we'd expect this type of prioritization, but absent that branding one assumes that a traditional academic institution hold traditional academic standards including those for academic freedom.
President Miller is an example of how people from faith baith institutions should be vetted for their willingness to adhere to traditional academic standards that may be inconsistent with their training. As bad as it may be to have a creationist hijack a STEM field with non-science related ideology, it is even worse to have someone with a Jesus Degree who thinks an education should coddle someone's personal belief in talking snakes and every species of animal on an ark RUNNING THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATION. This is not really surprising.
President Miller has no business running an academic institution outside of those offering faith-based training. Why is no one running with this angle?
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 11, 2023, 09:53:29 PM
At some point, overpaid, underworked, and self-important adminiscritters need to tell spoiled children like this, 'too bad. Shut up. Go away. College is designed to teach you stuff, including how to think and act.'.
Do you seen any irony (or hypocrisy) here in context of your own comments on other threads?
Quote from: artalot on January 12, 2023, 08:50:08 AM
Again, I don't think she did anything objectively wrong and she should not have been fired or been called Islamaphobic (which one of the administrators did). BUT, images of the Prophet Muhammad are extremely offensive to Sunni Muslims, and they have been weaponized against them as anti-Islamic statements. There was the Dutch cartoon, Charlie Hebdo, and more recently a 'free speech' drawathon in Texas. Again, all legal, but also all aimed at offending Muslims; at least Charlie Hebdo made fun of everyone, the others were more targeted. In a world where images of the Prophet have been used in such hateful ways, I simply wouldn't show them in a general education course, especially an online course where so many of the students may have tuned out your framing, warnings, cautions, etc. The gut reaction of many Sunni Muslims would be to feel persecuted, that's not a space I want to create in the classroom. I don't mind offending students or making them uncomfortable when pedagogically relevant, but I don't want them to feel persecuted, especially when there are a lot of other images from that manuscript that she could have shown. This kind of imagery is more appropriate to upper-level courses with a smaller group of people, more familiarity with the material, and a greater opportunity to have a discussion.
It would probably be wiser to limit this to upper-level courses, all right.
Thanks for attempting to bring some nuance to the discussion.
Quote from: financeguy on January 12, 2023, 09:46:41 AM
The first line of President Miller's biography indicates that she's the "first african american and second woman" to hold the presidency at Hamline. The fact that this is the "opener" for someone who presumably has over twenty years of relevant academic experience to recount tells you all you need to know.
By the way, not for nothing, but this person's Ph.D. is from a religious institution, Texas Christian, so she obviously is comfortable with an environment where academic standards take a backseat to someone's personal superstitions. At least you know this at TCU which is clearly branded. If we were at "Hamline Christian University" or "The Hamline Institute for Islamic Studies" we'd expect this type of prioritization, but absent that branding one assumes that a traditional academic institution hold traditional academic standards including those for academic freedom.
President Miller is an example of how people from faith baith institutions should be vetted for their willingness to adhere to traditional academic standards that may be inconsistent with their training. As bad as it may be to have a creationist hijack a STEM field with non-science related ideology, it is even worse to have someone with a Jesus Degree who thinks an education should coddle someone's personal belief in talking snakes and every species of animal on an ark RUNNING THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATION. This is not really surprising.
President Miller has no business running an academic institution outside of those offering faith-based training. Why is no one running with this angle?
If I read this right, faith-affiliated universities are not truly legitimate institutions of higher learning? They only produce ignorant dogmatists, not people who can be trusted to have minds of their own? And academics who graduated from them aren't real academics, and shouldn't be trusted with positions anywhere else?
Are you very familiar with TCU? Or are you simply making assumptions based on the fact that it has "Christian" in its name?
QuoteThis kind of imagery is more appropriate to upper-level courses with a smaller group of people, more familiarity with the material, and a greater opportunity to have a discussion.
They're not going to be "familiar with the material" until someone presents the material, by definition. This situation is unavoidable, since there will always be a "first" time this is introduced.
I mean familiar with art history as a discipline and with some of the basic history of Islam, both of which should be covered in an intro course. Then in an upper-level you can get into nuances. I can see her argument - that we need to confront difficult images and understand their historic context - but knowing how images of the Prophet have been used against Muslims is an important part of the current context of these images. Artworks don't exist in an historical vacuum, they exist and accrue meaning over time.
I also think it's inaccurate to describe all of Islam as a fundamentalist religion. Fundamentalist Islam exists, but what this student is espousing is a basic tenet of Sunni Islam, which is a mainstream world religion. Seeing that image means that the student committed forbidden action (like a sin). This is equivalent to asking an Orthodox Jewish person to eat ham; I don't think we'd be comfortable with a professor doing that. I just think this professor didn't think it through all the way, and because she's an adjunct, she didn't get any mentoring.
The university didn't handle it well, obviously. The student should have read the syllabus and listened to the framing, and this is something the university should have brought up. Admin should also have actually gotten the professor's side, and then facilitated a conversation between the professor and the student. Now everybody will pay - Hamline will probably get sued, and both the student and the professor are probably getting a lot of hate mail.
Quote from: artalot on January 12, 2023, 11:06:02 AM
I also think it's inaccurate to describe all of Islam as a fundamentalist religion. Fundamentalist Islam exists, but what this student is espousing is a basic tenet of Sunni Islam, which is a mainstream world religion. Seeing that image means that the student committed forbidden action (like a sin). This is equivalent to asking an Orthodox Jewish person to eat ham; I don't think we'd be comfortable with a professor doing that.
So in a medical school, where some Muslim students may commit a forbidden action by seeing the naked body of someone of the opposite sex, does that mean that classes, like anatomy, can't have images in them, and residencies must avoid any examination of someone of the opposite sex?
Random points:
1) I know nothing about the president of Hamline. What about her actions her (or those of her administrative subordinates) demonstrates that her Christian university training is making her act in a fundie nutjob anti-academics way? Unless, of course, her attitudes towards supporting the Muslim protester means that she is just supportive of any and all criticism of professors based on religious belief, regardless of what religion one would be talking about? Certainly no fundamentalist Christian would be opposed to an art class showing a picture of Mohammed. Your criticism just sounds like anti-religious bias. Which does not surprise me, of course.
2) This professor did nothing wrong, and methinks no one here would think that she did, should the case have been a fundamentalist Christian student complaining about having been shown a slide of the 'Piss Christ'. And the Piss Christ was not produced by a devout Christian artist seeking to create an artistic image of religious devotion-- perhaps a better example would be said fundie Christian kid complaining about being shown a Catholic painting of Christ, claiming that since fundamentalists do not depict Christ in art (which is true, believing this sinful), that he should not have been forced to view such an image in an art history class, and the professor doing so was engaging in 'fundiephobia'.
3) This is another example, like it or not, where attempting to cater to the desires of an ideological minority runs roughshod on the rights of a majority. Which majority in this case is the professor who wishes to teach according to academic freedom, where said professor is trying to teach her class in the best possible way according to her professional judgment. No one in fora like these should oppose her right to do so. And this is different, of course, from opposition to activities designed for children's programming, which is never the case at the university level.
While I sympathize with most of the points made above, this is merely another example of how we can live with a certain tolerance. There are 3000 - 4000 colleges and universities in the United States. They can be different in many ways. What is unfair to Ms. Lopez Prater is only that the college's policy does not say speech is not free. It does say so. [FIRE is attacking them on that basis.]
But otherwise, let us not blame administrators. Their decisions are endogenous. They act in the statements of interests of students at their institution, who are paying for the privilege. If students wish to get inferior educations, let them. The only pity is government aid to such institutions via student loans.
Lest anyone worry about the quality of graduates, one must recognize that word gets around. [Apparently, it even did in ancient Athens.] Schools earn reputations that are known. The graduates will pay with statistical discrimination in the job market.
This is more specific with respect to Marsh's question about, say, Muslim medical training. If it really were restricted informationally -- I don't know that it is, yet -- word will get around. Will we know which Muslim doctor had what quality education? No. We will therefore statistically discriminate against all Muslim doctors! Unless we are suicidal. The perpetrators of unsound education will pay, but so will others. Hell, even rumors of such education would produce that result.
Let them do what they want, so long as its publicized ahead of time.
And again, among the 3000 - 4000 colleges and universities, some must be sane!
Quote from: artalot on January 12, 2023, 11:06:02 AM
I also think it's inaccurate to describe all of Islam as a fundamentalist religion. Fundamentalist Islam exists, but what this student is espousing is a basic tenet of Sunni Islam, which is a mainstream world religion. Seeing that image means that the student committed forbidden action (like a sin). This is equivalent to asking an Orthodox Jewish person to eat ham; I don't think we'd be comfortable with a professor doing that.
No, this is equivalent to having a meal and giving everyone fair advanced warning that there will be ham, and giving them a chance to let you know if they do not want to eat ham so that you can ensure they do not receive any ham. Then, the jewish person shows up at dinner, eats the ham and complains that you forced them to eat ham.
If the instructor just showed the image without any warning, I can see the issue, but according to the write-up they gave a lot of advanced warning and was completely willing to make accommodations.
When I was young, we had a number of jehovah witnesses in our area. They could not listen to the national anthem, so they would leave the room. This is the reasonable approach...
It is entirely true that an academic who is trained in a faith-based institution should be questioned about their willingness to support certain aspects of a traditional academic institution that are not consistent with this training. It is also reasonable when someone with that training sides with keeping those who are religious beliefs away from things they don't want to hear at the expense of academic freedom to point this out.
Regarding "are those with faith-based training real academics?" the answer is always "to be determined." If they uphold real academic standards and produce quality work the answer is yes. If they're writing a creationist themed paper where a triceratops has a saddle for its human owner, that would be a hard no. It looks like this president simply isn't willing to uphold the standards of a traditional academic institution and should seek employment at one of the few hundred institutions that don't pretend to be one. No problem with her working at Liberty University, Oral Roberts, etc.
Quote from: financeguy on January 12, 2023, 12:42:08 PM
It is entirely true that an academic who is trained in a faith-based institution should be questioned about their willingness to support certain aspects of a traditional academic institution that are not consistent with this training. It is also reasonable when someone with that training sides with keeping those who are religious beliefs away from things they don't want to hear at the expense of academic freedom to point this out.
Regarding "are those with faith-based training real academics?" the answer is always "to be determined." If they uphold real academic standards and produce quality work the answer is yes. If they're writing a creationist themed paper where a triceratops has a saddle for its human owner, that would be a hard no. It looks like this president simply isn't willing to uphold the standards of a traditional academic institution and should seek employment at one of the few hundred institutions that don't pretend to be one. No problem with her working at Liberty University, Oral Roberts, etc.
So...academics from religious backgrounds
can be good academics, but are to be considered guilty until proven innocent. As are any institutions with any sort of religious affiliation in their name. Unless you know something about TCU that I don't? I'm honestly curious. I don't know much about TCU, but I've never heard of their being in a league with Oral Roberts.
TCU is affiliated with the Disciples of Christ, which is main line protestant with a huge variety of political leanings. The thought that someone educated there is "religious" is silly. It is nothing like Liberty or ORU, or even Baylor for that matter.
apl68, I didn't think it was unusual to expect people to prove they are a good fit for the type of academic institution they're applying to. It's common in a music department based in a university to ask an applicant with conservatory training only their thoughts on the different objectives of a university music department and the reverse is also true. Applicants to liberal arts departments whose training occurred exclusively at R1s are expected to face questions about the difference between this environment and a liberal arts school.
I don't see why it would be inappropriate to ask the prospective president who comes from a faith-based institution, "We at University X generally prioritize academic freedom above alignment with specific religious edicts. This can sometimes be uncomfortable for those with specific beliefs, especially if they must uphold policies that are not in line with their belief system. Having attended institutions with a different priority set, is this something you're comfortable with?"
The person could respond in a variety of ways, such as "I chose the institution because of a particular specialty in which it is strong, independent of its religious affiliation." to "I believe all instruction, regardless of subject, must be rooted in faith."
Response 1 is no problem at all and the person is totally appropriate. Response 2 is an indication that the candidate should be at a different type of institution.
Article in The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2023/01/hamline-university-adjunct-professor-freedom/672713/?utm_source=newslet
Quote
The Daily
Tom Nichols
STAFF WRITER
After declining to renew the contract of an adjunct professor, the president of Hamline University issued a statement that underscores the need to defend academic freedom in American universities.
Unless you follow academic politics, you might have missed the recent controversy at Hamline University, a small private college in St. Paul, Minnesota. The short version is that a professor named Erika López Prater showed students in her global-art-history class a 14th-century painting depicting the Prophet Muhammad. Aware that many Muslims regard such images as sacrilege, she warned ahead of time that she was going to show the picture and offered to excuse any student who did not want to view it.
Professor López Prater's contract has not been renewed, and she will not be returning to the classroom. The university strenuously denies that she was fired. Of course, colleges let adjuncts go all the time, often reluctantly. But this, to me, seems like something more.
I began my 35-year teaching career in the late 1980s and was once a tenure-track faculty member at an elite college, where I was one of a handful of registered Republicans among a mostly liberal faculty. I have been denied tenure at one school and granted it at two others. I have been an adjunct, contract faculty (that is, working on a long-term contract but without actual tenure), a department chair, and a tenured full professor. I have led a tenure committee, and I have written tenure and promotion letters for candidates at other schools at the request of their institution. I have been a faculty member in a U.S. government institution, where I had to balance my right to self-expression against important and necessary legal restrictions on politicking in the classroom.
So I think I have a pretty clear idea of what goes on in classrooms. I know what academic freedom means. I think I know what "fired" looks like, and it seems to me that López Prater was fired—a conclusion that seems especially likely in the wake of a highly defensive public letter the school's president, Fayneese Miller, wrote about the whole business.
After a piece about the controversy appeared in The New York Times, Miller issued a statement in which she decried how Hamline is now "under attack from forces outside our campus."
Various so-called stakeholders interpreted the incident, as reported in various media, as one of "academic freedom." The Times went so far as to cite PEN America's claim that what was happening on our campus was one of the "most egregious violations of academic freedom" it had ever encountered.
It begs the question, "How?"
Allow me to interpret. By "so-called stakeholders," Miller, I think, means people who believe this issue affects them, but who should buzz off and mind their own business. (And while I'm at it, stakeholders is a bit of jargon that should be banned from education.) About López Prater, Miller said, "The decision not to offer her another class was made at the unit level"—I assume here she means the department in which López Prater worked—"and in no way reflects on her ability to adequately teach the class." Oh? Then what prompted "the decision at the unit level"?
Miller then lists the impeccably liberal credentials of Hamline as a school, none of which have anything to do with this case. After all of this throat clearing, she gets to the real questions she thinks should have been raised about academic freedom.
First, does your defense of academic freedom infringe upon the rights of students in violation of the very principles you defend? Second, does the claim that academic freedom is sacrosanct, and owes no debt to the traditions, beliefs, and views of students, comprise a privileged reaction?
This makes no sense. The "rights" of students were not jeopardized, and no curriculum owes a "debt" to any student's "traditions, beliefs, and views." (Indeed, if you don't want your traditions, beliefs, or views challenged, then don't come to a university, at least not to study anything in the humanities or the social sciences.) Miller's view, it seems, is that academic freedom really only means as much freedom as your most sensitive students can stand, an irresponsible position that puts the university, the classroom, and the careers of scholars in the hands of students who are inexperienced in the subject matter, new to academic life, and, often, still in the throes of adolescence.
This, as I have written elsewhere, is contrary to the very notion of teaching itself. (It is also not anything close to the bedrock 1940 statement on the matter from the American Association of University Professors.) The goal of the university is to create educated and reasoning adults, not to shelter children against the pain of learning that the world is a complicated place. Classes are not a restaurant meal that must be served to students' specifications; they are not a stand-up act that must make students laugh but never offend them. Miller is leaving the door open for future curricular challenges.
I myself have issued warnings for materials I show in class, notably the gory British nuclear-war movie Threads. I have offered to excuse students who might be disturbed by it, and I would not want someone to interfere with my class on nuclear weapons any more than I would interfere with anyone else's about art history. There are, to be sure, plenty of times when professors do go off the rails, which is why their performance and syllabi—especially those of untenured faculty and outside adjuncts—are reviewed, in most schools, by a departmental or divisional committee. That doesn't seem to be what happened here. A student complained, which apparently set in motion several events, including López Prater being summoned by a dean and a Hamline administrator sending an email to campus employees saying that certain actions taken in an online class were "undeniably inconsiderate, disrespectful and Islamophobic."
Noting the school's traditional Methodist mission that includes doing "all the good you can," Miller adds, "To do all the good you can means, in part, minimizing harm." Again, this is risible: The most effective way to avoid harm would be to walk into the classroom and ask the students what they'd like to talk about, let them vote on it, and give a veto to anyone who might be offended by the class's choice.
Academic freedom is not an open invitation to be a jerk. It is not a license for faculty to harass students or to impose their will on them. But if all it means is that professors keep their jobs only at the sufferance of students, then it means nothing at all.
A significant part of the problem in American universities is the attack on tenure. López Prater was an adjunct—instructors who are far more vulnerable to dismissal at will. But that subject is too big to tackle today; I'll write more on it here soon.
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 12, 2023, 12:40:17 PM
Quote from: artalot on January 12, 2023, 11:06:02 AM
I also think it's inaccurate to describe all of Islam as a fundamentalist religion. Fundamentalist Islam exists, but what this student is espousing is a basic tenet of Sunni Islam, which is a mainstream world religion. Seeing that image means that the student committed forbidden action (like a sin). This is equivalent to asking an Orthodox Jewish person to eat ham; I don't think we'd be comfortable with a professor doing that.
No, this is equivalent to having a meal and giving everyone fair advanced warning that there will be ham, and giving them a chance to let you know if they do not want to eat ham so that you can ensure they do not receive any ham. Then, the jewish person shows up at dinner, eats the ham and complains that you forced them to eat ham.
If the instructor just showed the image without any warning, I can see the issue, but according to the write-up they gave a lot of advanced warning and was completely willing to make accommodations.
I was going to post more or less the same.
I think you're being too generous to Hamline, artalot (which is not a bad thing! It's great to see the principle of charity so judiciously applied). To my mind (I too have some relevant experience in and contact with art history), this is (1) not just a stunt, as it so often is in these kinds of cases, and (2) the instructor seems to have acted exactly in accordance with best principles. Indeed, it seems to me that her level of conscientiousness is
exactly what we should all be striving for when we deal with potentially sensitive subject matter. And so, it seems to me that she performed her due diligence, and we can't and shouldn't really require any more of her.
Not only is course content her prerogative as the instructor, but her choice of content seems perfectly appropriate and reasonable, especially when coupled with her efforts at mitigation. There's a fair bit of difficult content in intro art history, and a class which aims to do more than just require students to memorize slides should, IMO, dig into the weeds behind some of these difficult images.
But what is clear if you read the student's comments is that she was not expecting to see that image and felt that she was forced to look at it. I absolutely agree that the onus is on her to read the syllabus and listen to warnings that were given. I absolutely agree that the professor did what everything she should have done to mitigate the situation, and we can and should have conversations about image of the Prophet Muhammad in university classroom. I don't think she should have lost her job and I think Hamline have handled it all wrong.
But, I don't think saying that people who can't participate in class because of their religion have to leave is the answer. How did the Jehovah's Witnesses feel when they had to leave class because of the singing of the national anthem? Did they feel like they belonged in that classroom? And I think this is different than medical school, which is a graduate degree that people choose to pursue. I teach images of the Prophet in upper-level classes, so I'm not arguing against them per se. I'm saying that an online gen ed class that is probably required for art and history students is a bad plan for multiple reasons. If I was her chair, I wouldn't fire her, but we would have a serious discussion about knowing your audience, thinking about the ways that images can cause harm, and realizing that students don't read the syllabus or remember most of what we say.
Quote from: Langue_doc on January 12, 2023, 04:19:52 PM
Quote
The Daily
(Indeed, if you don't want your traditions, beliefs, or views challenged, then don't come to a university, at least not to study anything in the humanities or the social sciences.) Miller's view, it seems, is that academic freedom really only means as much freedom as your most sensitive students can stand, an irresponsible position that puts the university, the classroom, and the careers of scholars in the hands of students who are inexperienced in the subject matter, new to academic life, and, often, still in the throes of adolescence.
This is something I find most fascinating. It is typically
humanities faculty arguing about the importance of a broad education for expanding peoples' minds and viewpoints, etc. But, it is also disproportionately
humanities faculty engaging in and supporting cancel culture.
You can't have it both ways.
Quote from: financeguy on January 12, 2023, 03:06:23 PM
apl68, I didn't think it was unusual to expect people to prove they are a good fit for the type of academic institution they're applying to. It's common in a music department based in a university to ask an applicant with conservatory training only their thoughts on the different objectives of a university music department and the reverse is also true. Applicants to liberal arts departments whose training occurred exclusively at R1s are expected to face questions about the difference between this environment and a liberal arts school.
I don't see why it would be inappropriate to ask the prospective president who comes from a faith-based institution, "We at University X generally prioritize academic freedom above alignment with specific religious edicts. This can sometimes be uncomfortable for those with specific beliefs, especially if they must uphold policies that are not in line with their belief system. Having attended institutions with a different priority set, is this something you're comfortable with?"
The person could respond in a variety of ways, such as "I chose the institution because of a particular specialty in which it is strong, independent of its religious affiliation." to "I believe all instruction, regardless of subject, must be rooted in faith."
Response 1 is no problem at all and the person is totally appropriate. Response 2 is an indication that the candidate should be at a different type of institution.
When you put your views the way you put them above, they seem quite reasonable, and I am actually in agreement with them.
When you put it this way:
QuoteBy the way, not for nothing, but this person's Ph.D. is from a religious institution, Texas Christian, so she obviously is comfortable with an environment where academic standards take a backseat to someone's personal superstitions. At least you know this at TCU which is clearly branded. If we were at "Hamline Christian University" or "The Hamline Institute for Islamic Studies" we'd expect this type of prioritization, but absent that branding one assumes that a traditional academic institution hold traditional academic standards including those for academic freedom.
President Miller is an example of how people from faith baith institutions should be vetted for their willingness to adhere to traditional academic standards that may be inconsistent with their training. As bad as it may be to have a creationist hijack a STEM field with non-science related ideology, it is even worse to have someone with a Jesus Degree who thinks an education should coddle someone's personal belief in talking snakes and every species of animal on an ark RUNNING THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATION. This is not really surprising.
It frankly comes across as bigoted. I took my undergrad degree at a religiously-affiliated college, and this is not remotely a fair description of that school, its faculty and administration, its teaching, or its students. Nor, I suspect, is it a very fair characterization of TCU, or of most religiously-affiliated institutions.
Thank you for clarifying.
Quote from: artalot on January 13, 2023, 07:32:59 AM
But what is clear if you read the student's comments is that she was not expecting to see that image and felt that she was forced to look at it. I absolutely agree that the onus is on her to read the syllabus and listen to warnings that were given. I absolutely agree that the professor did what everything she should have done to mitigate the situation, and we can and should have conversations about image of the Prophet Muhammad in university classroom. I don't think she should have lost her job and I think Hamline have handled it all wrong.
But, I don't think saying that people who can't participate in class because of their religion have to leave is the answer. How did the Jehovah's Witnesses feel when they had to leave class because of the singing of the national anthem? Did they feel like they belonged in that classroom? And I think this is different than medical school, which is a graduate degree that people choose to pursue. I teach images of the Prophet in upper-level classes, so I'm not arguing against them per se. I'm saying that an online gen ed class that is probably required for art and history students is a bad plan for multiple reasons. If I was her chair, I wouldn't fire her, but we would have a serious discussion about knowing your audience, thinking about the ways that images can cause harm, and realizing that students don't read the syllabus or remember most of what we say.
I imagine that they didn't feel a sense of belonging, but that is the consequence of their faith. They also probably feel quite dead when they refuse critical blood transfusions, but this is the cost of their faith. You should still offer them blood....
You cannot simply skip everything someone will find offensive, or you will not have much left. The witnesses also can't celebrate birthdays, but that should not prevent classmates from doing so. You should most definitely accomodate their needs within reason, which is what has occured here and in my school.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2023, 07:58:02 AM
Quote from: Langue_doc on January 12, 2023, 04:19:52 PM
Quote
The Daily
(Indeed, if you don't want your traditions, beliefs, or views challenged, then don't come to a university, at least not to study anything in the humanities or the social sciences.) Miller's view, it seems, is that academic freedom really only means as much freedom as your most sensitive students can stand, an irresponsible position that puts the university, the classroom, and the careers of scholars in the hands of students who are inexperienced in the subject matter, new to academic life, and, often, still in the throes of adolescence.
This is something I find most fascinating. It is typically humanities faculty arguing about the importance of a broad education for expanding peoples' minds and viewpoints, etc. But, it is also disproportionately humanities faculty engaging in and supporting cancel culture.
You can't have it both ways.
Marshy, I challenge you a lot because you make these sorts of superficial blanket statements and you usually blanket the liberal arts and/or liberals without any sort of follow through. I know you see the world this way.
I too am frustrated by ideologues, but from what I have seen and posted, it is just as often conservative religious groups which foster cancel culture and at the same time demand religious exceptions. This thread is just such an example. The thread on libraries is just such an example. Much of the Republican agenda is just such an example.
Quote from: artalot on January 13, 2023, 07:32:59 AM
But what is clear if you read the student's comments is that she was not expecting to see that image and felt that she was forced to look at it. I absolutely agree that the onus is on her to read the syllabus and listen to warnings that were given. I absolutely agree that the professor did what everything she should have done to mitigate the situation, and we can and should have conversations about image of the Prophet Muhammad in university classroom. I don't think she should have lost her job and I think Hamline have handled it all wrong.
But, I don't think saying that people who can't participate in class because of their religion have to leave is the answer. How did the Jehovah's Witnesses feel when they had to leave class because of the singing of the national anthem? Did they feel like they belonged in that classroom? And I think this is different than medical school, which is a graduate degree that people choose to pursue. I teach images of the Prophet in upper-level classes, so I'm not arguing against them per se. I'm saying that an online gen ed class that is probably required for art and history students is a bad plan for multiple reasons. If I was her chair, I wouldn't fire her, but we would have a serious discussion about knowing your audience, thinking about the ways that images can cause harm, and realizing that students don't read the syllabus or remember most of what we say.
In both Canada and the USA, medicine is an undergraduate degree, not a graduate degree.
Quote from: MarathonRunner on January 13, 2023, 01:43:14 PM
In both Canada and the USA, medicine is an undergraduate degree, not a graduate degree.
Not in the USA. It is most definitely a graduate degree for doctors (medical, dental, vision).
Quote from: MarathonRunner on January 13, 2023, 01:43:14 PM
In both Canada and the USA, medicine is an undergraduate degree, not a graduate degree.
Sort of. You typically need an undergraduate degree to study medicine in Canada, although there are some exceptions (e.g. CEGEP in Québec). It
is considered a bachelor's-level qualification, however.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 13, 2023, 03:14:28 PM
Quote from: MarathonRunner on January 13, 2023, 01:43:14 PM
In both Canada and the USA, medicine is an undergraduate degree, not a graduate degree.
Sort of. You typically need an undergraduate degree to study medicine in Canada, although there are some exceptions (e.g. CEGEP in Québec). It is considered a bachelor's-level qualification, however.
That's like the whole British Empire and Europe and Japan -- skip college, go to medical school. In the US of A, the anomaly, the American Medical Association makes sure that doctors are scarce, so they have high income. So, an extra four years! The AMA killed midwifery in the US. They do this with the connivance of government -- they couldn't otherwise -- through the Liaison Committee on Medical Education. Talk about strong unions ... .
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 13, 2023, 03:14:28 PM
Quote from: MarathonRunner on January 13, 2023, 01:43:14 PM
In both Canada and the USA, medicine is an undergraduate degree, not a graduate degree.
Sort of. You typically need an undergraduate degree to study medicine in Canada, although there are some exceptions (e.g. CEGEP in Québec). It is considered a bachelor's-level qualification, however.
You don't technically need a BSc to go to med school in Canada. In practice there are very few that make it into grad school before completing the BSc, but as far as I know it is not actually a requirement.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 13, 2023, 12:43:28 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 13, 2023, 07:58:02 AM
Quote from: Langue_doc on January 12, 2023, 04:19:52 PM
Quote
The Daily
(Indeed, if you don't want your traditions, beliefs, or views challenged, then don't come to a university, at least not to study anything in the humanities or the social sciences.) Miller's view, it seems, is that academic freedom really only means as much freedom as your most sensitive students can stand, an irresponsible position that puts the university, the classroom, and the careers of scholars in the hands of students who are inexperienced in the subject matter, new to academic life, and, often, still in the throes of adolescence.
This is something I find most fascinating. It is typically humanities faculty arguing about the importance of a broad education for expanding peoples' minds and viewpoints, etc. But, it is also disproportionately humanities faculty engaging in and supporting cancel culture.
You can't have it both ways.
Marshy, I challenge you a lot because you make these sorts of superficial blanket statements and you usually blanket the liberal arts and/or liberals without any sort of follow through. I know you see the world this way.
I too am frustrated by ideologues, but from what I have seen and posted, it is just as often conservative religious groups which foster cancel culture and at the same time demand religious exceptions. This thread is just such an example. The thread on libraries is just such an example. Much of the Republican agenda is just such an example.
When have I argued for conservative religious exceptions?
My goal is to make
universal rules that are
consistently applied. It's the extremists on both ends of the political spectrum who tend to make draconian rules and then wind up violating them when it suits them.
The religious sensibilities of *conservative Christians and conservative Muslims deserve similar respect, but also
must not be allowed to undermine the educational goals of higher education.
(* and any other religious group)
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 14, 2023, 07:24:36 AM
When have I argued for conservative religious exceptions?
You have not. But many religious people, most particularly fundamentalists, feel they have the right to limit the rights of other people based upon their own religious and moral precepts (see any of these threads) but are deeply offended when they feel their own religious convictions are being limited (see any of these threads). For many, "religious freedom" (https://www.thedailybeast.com/missouri-gop-representative-vicky-hartzler-sobs-while-begging-colleagues-to-vote-down-same-sex-marriage-bill) means the ability to control other people's lifestyles and choices.
Quote
My goal is to make universal rules that are consistently applied. It's the extremists on both ends of the political spectrum who tend to make draconian rules and then wind up violating them when it suits them.
Okay. I'm not sure you always sound that way when you post, but fine by me.
Quote
The religious sensibilities of *conservative Christians and conservative Muslims deserve similar respect, but also must not be allowed to undermine the educational goals of higher education.
Fine. But, as you said, "you cannot have it both ways."
Do not expect the rest of us to follow someone else's religious convictions. That is one of the big problems with the Hamline controversy. That is one of the big problems with opposing drag queens in the library.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 13, 2023, 02:16:12 PM
Quote from: MarathonRunner on January 13, 2023, 01:43:14 PM
In both Canada and the USA, medicine is an undergraduate degree, not a graduate degree.
Not in the USA. It is most definitely a graduate degree for doctors (medical, dental, vision).
Not according to the medical schools I'm familiar with in the US. It's considered a bachelor's degree, not a graduate degree. Maybe it varies by state. It is definitely a bachelor's degree in Canada, despite the fact that some witless have another bachelor's, master's, or even a PhD before being admitted.
Quote from: MarathonRunner on January 14, 2023, 12:45:48 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on January 13, 2023, 02:16:12 PM
Quote from: MarathonRunner on January 13, 2023, 01:43:14 PM
In both Canada and the USA, medicine is an undergraduate degree, not a graduate degree.
Not in the USA. It is most definitely a graduate degree for doctors (medical, dental, vision).
This is copied from the Indiana University School of Medicine website:
"Yes, Medical school matriculants must have been awarded a Bachelor's degree unless applying and accepted through an IU School of Medicine program which has waived the requirement. In order to apply, applicants must have a minimum of 90 credit hours from a U.S. or Canadian institution and permanent resident visa".
My understanding having lived in the US for 70 years is that this is true across all 50 states.
Not according to the medical schools I'm familiar with in the US. It's considered a bachelor's degree, not a graduate degree. Maybe it varies by state. It is definitely a bachelor's degree in Canada, despite the fact that some witless have another bachelor's, master's, or even a PhD before being admitted.
I hope this leads to better opportunities for the adjunct.
Quote from: Mobius on January 15, 2023, 08:58:01 AM
I hope this leads to better opportunities for the adjunct.
It probably won't. That's part of the problem.
NBC News: Minnesota university under fire for professor's dismissal over showing images of Prophet Muhammad (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/minnesota-university-fire-professors-dismissal-showing-images-prophet-rcna65881?cid=referral_taboolafeed)
Quote
[A] statement released Friday by Board of Trustees Chair Ellen Watters gave more credence to the school's critics, and promised that trustees "are listening and we are learning."
"The Hamline University Board of Trustees is actively involved in reviewing the University's policies and responses to recent student concerns and subsequent faculty concerns about academic freedom," Watters wrote. "Upholding academic freedom and fostering an inclusive, respectful learning environment for our students are both required to fulfill our Mission."
The statement did not provide more detail on the board's process and a school spokesman did not immediately respond to messages seeking information.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 15, 2023, 02:01:18 PM
Quote
[A] statement released Friday by Board of Trustees Chair Ellen Watters gave more credence to the school's critics, and promised that trustees "are listening and we are learning."
"The Hamline University Board of Trustees is actively involved in reviewing the University's policies and responses to recent student concerns and subsequent faculty concerns about academic freedom," Watters wrote. "Upholding academic freedom and fostering an inclusive, respectful learning environment for our students are both required to fulfill our Mission."
Fascinating to see how they try to square that circle. (Well, it's easy if they acknowledge that "inclusive" doesn't mean "everyone gets exactly what they want" and "respectful" doesn't mean "grovelling".)
NY Time: After Lecturer Sues, Hamline University Walks Back Its 'Islamophobic' Comments (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/17/us/hamline-lawsuit-prophet-muhammad-religion.html)
Quote
Hamline University officials made an about-face on Tuesday in its treatment of a lecturer who showed an image of the Prophet Muhammad in an art history class, walking back one of their most controversial statements — that showing the image was Islamophobic. They also said that respect for Muslim students should not have superseded academic freedom.
University officials changed their stance after the lecturer, who lost her teaching job, sued the small Minnesota school for religious discrimination and defamation.
Well, there ya go.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 17, 2023, 07:32:41 PM
NY Time: After Lecturer Sues, Hamline University Walks Back Its 'Islamophobic' Comments (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/17/us/hamline-lawsuit-prophet-muhammad-religion.html)
Quote
Hamline University officials made an about-face on Tuesday in its treatment of a lecturer who showed an image of the Prophet Muhammad in an art history class, walking back one of their most controversial statements — that showing the image was Islamophobic. They also said that respect for Muslim students should not have superseded academic freedom.
University officials changed their stance after the lecturer, who lost her teaching job, sued the small Minnesota school for religious discrimination and defamation.
Well, there ya go.
The thot plickens!
We'll, they've decided it wasn't 'undeniably Islamophobic' after all. But they haven't reinstated her or apologized to her, and she'll certainly have a harder time finding gigs with that label hanging over her head.
Looks to me like an attempt to circumvent potential damages. (Although admitting error may not help.)
Some quotes from the article:
QuoteIn an about-face, the school said that using the term was "flawed" and that respect for Muslim students should not have superseded academic freedom.
Quote"Like all organizations, sometimes we misstep," said a statement from Ellen Watters, the chair of the university's board of trustees, and Fayneese S. Miller, the president. "In the interest of hearing from and supporting our Muslim students, language was used that does not reflect our sentiments on academic freedom. Based on all that we have learned, we have determined that our usage of the term 'Islamophobic' was therefore flawed."
The statement added, "It was never our intent to suggest that academic freedom is of lower concern or value than our students — care does not 'supersede' academic freedom, the two coexist."
QuoteThe lawsuit, in Minnesota district court, states that Hamline's actions have caused Dr. López Prater the loss of income from her adjunct position, emotional distress and damage to her professional reputation and job prospects.
In a statement, David Redden, a lawyer for Dr. López Prater, said that having had her actions labeled Islamophobic would follow her "throughout her career" and hurt her ability to obtain a tenure-track position.
According to the lawsuit, Ms. Wedatalla "wanted to impose her specific religious views on López Prater, non-Muslim students and Muslim students who did not object to images."
Mr. Redden said that the university's new stance would not affect the lawsuit.
The lawsuit added that Hamline treated Dr. López Prater negatively because "she is not Muslim, because she did not conform her conduct to the specific beliefs of a Muslim sect, and because she did not conform her conduct to the religion-based preferences of Hamline that images of Muhammad not be shown to any Hamline student."
QuoteMuslim groups are also divided over the Hamline controversy. Jaylani Hussein, the executive director of the Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, believes that showing the image was Islamophobic. But the national group disagreed.
"Although we strongly discourage showing visual depictions of the prophet," the group said in a statement, "professors who analyze ancient paintings for an academic purpose are not the same as Islamophobes who show such images to cause offense."
After Lecturer Sues, Hamline University Walks Back Its 'Islamophobic' Comments
By Vimal Patel
Hamline University officials made an about-face on Tuesday in its treatment of a lecturer who showed an image of the Prophet Muhammad in an art history class, walking back one of their most controversial statements — that showing the image was Islamophobic. They also said that respect for Muslim students should not have superseded academic freedom.
University officials changed their stance after the lecturer, who lost her teaching job, sued the small Minnesota school for religious discrimination and defamation.
"Like all organizations, sometimes we misstep," said a statement from Ellen Watters, the chair of the university's board of trustees, and Fayneese S. Miller, the president. "In the interest of hearing from and supporting our Muslim students, language was used that does not reflect our sentiments on academic freedom. Based on all that we have learned, we have determined that our usage of the term 'Islamophobic' was therefore flawed."
The statement added, "It was never our intent to suggest that academic freedom is of lower concern or value than our students — care does not 'supersede' academic freedom, the two coexist."
The controversy began in October, when Erika López Prater, an adjunct professor, warned students multiple times before showing a reverential image of the holy figure created in the 14th-century. Many Muslims believe they are prohibited from viewing visual representations of Muhammad. But historians of Islamic art said that images of the Prophet Muhammad are regularly shown in art history classrooms without incident.
After Aram Wedatalla, an observant Muslim student, complained to administrators, Dr. López Prater was told that she would no longer be teaching an art history course in the spring. An email to students and faculty from David Everett, a senior administrator, said the instructor's actions were clearly Islamophobic. The university's president co-signed a statement saying that respect for the Muslim students in the online class "should have superseded academic freedom."
Academic freedom has been an especially fraught issue at small schools like Hamline, which is facing shrinking enrollment and growing financial pressures. To attract applicants, many small colleges have diversified their curriculums and tried to be more welcoming to students who historically have been shut out of higher education.
Ms. Wedatalla has praised Hamline, which is in St. Paul, for taking her concerns as a Muslim student seriously. She could not be immediately reached for comment about the university's latest statement.
The lawsuit, in Minnesota district court, states that Hamline's actions have caused Dr. López Prater the loss of income from her adjunct position, emotional distress and damage to her professional reputation and job prospects.
In a statement, David Redden, a lawyer for Dr. López Prater, said that having had her actions labeled Islamophobic would follow her "throughout her career" and hurt her ability to obtain a tenure-track position.
According to the lawsuit, Ms. Wedatalla "wanted to impose her specific religious views on López Prater, non-Muslim students and Muslim students who did not object to images."
Mr. Redden said that the university's new stance would not affect the lawsuit.
The lawsuit added that Hamline treated Dr. López Prater negatively because "she is not Muslim, because she did not conform her conduct to the specific beliefs of a Muslim sect, and because she did not conform her conduct to the religion-based preferences of Hamline that images of Muhammad not be shown to any Hamline student."
Many scholars and free-speech groups had denounced Hamline's treatment of Dr. López Prater as an attack on academic freedom. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a speech advocacy group, said Dr. López Prater had a right to show the paintings without fear of losing her job.
But on Tuesday, Alex Morey, FIRE's director of campus rights advocacy, said Mr. Everett's comments were legally protected speech, because he was stating his opinion.
Muslim groups are also divided over the Hamline controversy. Jaylani Hussein, the executive director of the Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, believes that showing the image was Islamophobic. But the national group disagreed.
"Although we strongly discourage showing visual depictions of the prophet," the group said in a statement, "professors who analyze ancient paintings for an academic purpose are not the same as Islamophobes who show such images to cause offense."
Quote from: Langue_doc on January 18, 2023, 07:25:57 AM
Quote"Like all organizations, sometimes we misstep," said a statement from Ellen Watters, the chair of the university's board of trustees, and Fayneese S. Miller, the president.
Given that it was the president who fired her, I'm guessing this "statement" comes a lot more from the chair of the Board of Trustees; the president probably just has to suck it up.
Quote
Quote
"In the interest of hearing from and supporting our Muslim students, language was used that does not reflect our sentiments on academic freedom. Based on all that we have learned, we have determined that our usage of the term 'Islamophobic' was therefore flawed."
"all that we have learned" = "that we are being sued". All of the information about what the prof did to warn students and let them opt out was already known, so this is ridiculous.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 18, 2023, 09:01:51 AM
Quote from: Langue_doc on January 18, 2023, 07:25:57 AM
Quote"Like all organizations, sometimes we misstep," said a statement from Ellen Watters, the chair of the university's board of trustees, and Fayneese S. Miller, the president.
Given that it was the president who fired her, I'm guessing this "statement" comes a lot more from the chair of the Board of Trustees; the president probably just has to suck it up.
Quote
Quote
"In the interest of hearing from and supporting our Muslim students, language was used that does not reflect our sentiments on academic freedom. Based on all that we have learned, we have determined that our usage of the term 'Islamophobic' was therefore flawed."
"all that we have learned" = "that we are being sued". All of the information about what the prof did to warn students and let them opt out was already known, so this is ridiculous.
Well, I guess they learned they could/would get sued...
Quote from: Langue_doc on January 18, 2023, 07:25:57 AM
Some quotes from the article:
QuoteMuslim groups are also divided over the Hamline controversy. Jaylani Hussein, the executive director of the Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, believes that showing the image was Islamophobic. But the national group disagreed.
"Although we strongly discourage showing visual depictions of the prophet," the group said in a statement, "professors who analyze ancient paintings for an academic purpose are not the same as Islamophobes who show such images to cause offense."
Interesting that the state and national chapters are in disagreement here. I suspect that somebody from the national organization is now gently trying to advise the leadership of the state chapter to consider being more careful about slinging accusations of Islamophobia in the future.
What surprises me is how little discussion there has been about the student who (to me) just lay in wait for what she knew was coming and used it to create some kind of "gotcha" situation. IANAL but what is her exposure if the instructor adds her to the lawsuit claiming defamation and damages to future earnings?
Quote from: secundem_artem on January 18, 2023, 10:51:24 AM
What surprises me is how little discussion there has been about the student who (to me) just lay in wait for what she knew was coming and used it to create some kind of "gotcha" situation. IANAL but what is her exposure if the instructor adds her to the lawsuit claiming defamation and damages to future earnings?
I'm guessing that since the student had no actual power to fire, then just claiming "Islamophobia" doesn't really create any more liability than calling someone any other name.
Quote from: secundem_artem on January 18, 2023, 10:51:24 AM
What surprises me is how little discussion there has been about the student who (to me) just lay in wait for what she knew was coming and used it to create some kind of "gotcha" situation. IANAL but what is her exposure if the instructor adds her to the lawsuit claiming defamation and damages to future earnings?
Since she will not give interviews, it is hard to know what is going on in her mind.
I'm all for Civil Rights, Title IX, and #metoo. All for these. Totally. And even BLM has its point, even if its message is often accidentally or obliquely incendiary, and even if I am ambivalent about Affirmative Action and the concept of "hate speech."
But as much good as these have done, we now live in a world in which disagreement often equals injustice in people's mind. Victimhood in the public spere is the tool with which people try to force resolutions. Our answer to any problem is teeth gnashing and tearing of hair in front of an audience.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 18, 2023, 11:33:35 AM
I'm all for Civil Rights, Title IX, and #metoo. All for these. Totally. And even BLM has its point, even if its message is often accidentally or obliquely incendiary, and even if I am ambivalent about Affirmative Action and the concept of "hate speech."
I'm not sure how "accidentally" or "obliquely" incendiary "DEFUND THE POLICE" is. It is a slogan
intended to be provocative precisely
because it lacks any nuance. If the slogan were "FUND MENTAL HEALTH INTERVENTIONS" it would have got at the (supposed) point much more directly and with much less room for confusion or conflict.
I would hope that the university's associate vice president of inclusive excellence (AVPIE), the admincritter who decided that the professor was Islamophobic was severely reprimanded.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 18, 2023, 11:45:21 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 18, 2023, 11:33:35 AM
I'm all for Civil Rights, Title IX, and #metoo. All for these. Totally. And even BLM has its point, even if its message is often accidentally or obliquely incendiary, and even if I am ambivalent about Affirmative Action and the concept of "hate speech."
I'm not sure how "accidentally" or "obliquely" incendiary "DEFUND THE POLICE" is. It is a slogan intended to be provocative precisely because it lacks any nuance. If the slogan were "FUND MENTAL HEALTH INTERVENTIONS" it would have got at the (supposed) point much more directly and with much less room for confusion or conflict.
Oops! I mentioned a typical conservative boogeyman. My friend Marshy chimed right in.
Maybe start a new thread if you want to vent about BLM so as not to derail this one. But BLM has a lot to say, much of it reasonable, but it seems to suffer from the hermetically sealed worldview of victimization that started this whole thread. Defund the police (a very, very bad idea for the places which have done so) is a great example.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 18, 2023, 12:16:09 PM
But BLM has a lot to say, much of it reasonable, but it seems to suffer from the hermetically sealed worldview of victimization that started this whole thread. Defund the police (a very, very bad idea for the places which have done so) is a great example.
We're dangerously close to agreeing on something, Wahoo.
Have you read "The Coddling of the American Mind" by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt? In it, Lukianoff points out that the victim mentality teaches exactly the opposite of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and thus makes peoples' anxiety actually increase, rather than decrease.
It isn't rocket science to see that telling people the system is, has always been, and always will be stacked against them is going to lead to anger and/or despair rather than to any sense of agency.
Quote from: secundem_artem on January 18, 2023, 10:51:24 AM
What surprises me is how little discussion there has been about the student who (to me) just lay in wait for what she knew was coming and used it to create some kind of "gotcha" situation. IANAL but what is her exposure if the instructor adds her to the lawsuit claiming defamation and damages to future earnings?
Apparently, Ms. Wedatalla is the president of Hamline's Muslim Student Association. We can infer that she is acting as a politician, not as a seeker of truth. Whatever her aims were, she miscalculated, badly.
Bret Weinstein going to hire her?
Quote from: dismalist on January 18, 2023, 01:58:55 PM
Quote from: secundem_artem on January 18, 2023, 10:51:24 AM
What surprises me is how little discussion there has been about the student who (to me) just lay in wait for what she knew was coming and used it to create some kind of "gotcha" situation. IANAL but what is her exposure if the instructor adds her to the lawsuit claiming defamation and damages to future earnings?
Apparently, Ms. Wedatalla is the president of Hamline's Muslim Student Association. We can infer that she is acting as a politician, not as a seeker of truth. Whatever her aims were, she miscalculated, badly.
The school should and could have told her that the information about the painting was in the syllabus and also in the numerous announcements sent by the instructor. At the very least, the student should have been asked why she didn't bring up her objections when she saw the syllabus. To claim that she was blindsided suggests otherwise given all the information provided by the instructor.
Quote from: Langue_doc on January 18, 2023, 02:24:51 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 18, 2023, 01:58:55 PM
Quote from: secundem_artem on January 18, 2023, 10:51:24 AM
What surprises me is how little discussion there has been about the student who (to me) just lay in wait for what she knew was coming and used it to create some kind of "gotcha" situation. IANAL but what is her exposure if the instructor adds her to the lawsuit claiming defamation and damages to future earnings?
Apparently, Ms. Wedatalla is the president of Hamline's Muslim Student Association. We can infer that she is acting as a politician, not as a seeker of truth. Whatever her aims were, she miscalculated, badly.
The school should and could have told her that the information about the painting was in the syllabus and also in the numerous announcements sent by the instructor. At the very least, the student should have been asked why she didn't bring up her objections when she saw the syllabus. To claim that she was blindsided suggests otherwise given all the information provided by the instructor.
Technically, the student didn't do anything wrong. She complained because something happened in the class that she was unhappy about. She's allowed to do that. The students are also allowed to, as a group, make a statement about the professor because they aren't considered an authority figure or having power to abuse.
She was not the one who fired the instructor and authoritatively called her an Islamophobe in a widely read public statement. That is what affected her academic freedom, livelihood and future reputation.
So the student is in the clear here.
Quote from: ciao_yall on January 19, 2023, 07:59:39 AM
Quote from: Langue_doc on January 18, 2023, 02:24:51 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 18, 2023, 01:58:55 PM
Quote from: secundem_artem on January 18, 2023, 10:51:24 AM
What surprises me is how little discussion there has been about the student who (to me) just lay in wait for what she knew was coming and used it to create some kind of "gotcha" situation. IANAL but what is her exposure if the instructor adds her to the lawsuit claiming defamation and damages to future earnings?
Apparently, Ms. Wedatalla is the president of Hamline's Muslim Student Association. We can infer that she is acting as a politician, not as a seeker of truth. Whatever her aims were, she miscalculated, badly.
The school should and could have told her that the information about the painting was in the syllabus and also in the numerous announcements sent by the instructor. At the very least, the student should have been asked why she didn't bring up her objections when she saw the syllabus. To claim that she was blindsided suggests otherwise given all the information provided by the instructor.
Technically, the student didn't do anything wrong. She complained because something happened in the class that she was unhappy about. She's allowed to do that. The students are also allowed to, as a group, make a statement about the professor because they aren't considered an authority figure or having power to abuse.
She was not the one who fired the instructor and authoritatively called her an Islamophobe in a widely read public statement. That is what affected her academic freedom, livelihood and future reputation.
So the student is in the clear here.
I mean, the student is within her rights to complain, but given all the due diligence the prof did about the potential for offense, the student mostly succeeded in revealing herself as someone who either (a)doesn't read the syllabus and doesn't pay attention to ample warnings giving her the opportunity to avoid experiencing what she experienced, or else (b) wanted to start off a firestorm exactly like the one she started off, and was waiting all semester for the chance to do exactly that as soon as she saw the warning on the syllabus o, day 1.
Students are within their right to appeal plagiarism referrals and ask for extensions or exam retakes, but we still have Opinions about it when they do these things in a way that reveals negligence or bad faith on their part.
Quote from: ergative on January 19, 2023, 08:32:37 AM
Quote from: ciao_yall on January 19, 2023, 07:59:39 AM
Quote from: Langue_doc on January 18, 2023, 02:24:51 PM
Quote from: dismalist on January 18, 2023, 01:58:55 PM
Quote from: secundem_artem on January 18, 2023, 10:51:24 AM
What surprises me is how little discussion there has been about the student who (to me) just lay in wait for what she knew was coming and used it to create some kind of "gotcha" situation. IANAL but what is her exposure if the instructor adds her to the lawsuit claiming defamation and damages to future earnings?
Apparently, Ms. Wedatalla is the president of Hamline's Muslim Student Association. We can infer that she is acting as a politician, not as a seeker of truth. Whatever her aims were, she miscalculated, badly.
The school should and could have told her that the information about the painting was in the syllabus and also in the numerous announcements sent by the instructor. At the very least, the student should have been asked why she didn't bring up her objections when she saw the syllabus. To claim that she was blindsided suggests otherwise given all the information provided by the instructor.
Technically, the student didn't do anything wrong. She complained because something happened in the class that she was unhappy about. She's allowed to do that. The students are also allowed to, as a group, make a statement about the professor because they aren't considered an authority figure or having power to abuse.
She was not the one who fired the instructor and authoritatively called her an Islamophobe in a widely read public statement. That is what affected her academic freedom, livelihood and future reputation.
So the student is in the clear here.
I mean, the student is within her rights to complain, but given all the due diligence the prof did about the potential for offense, the student mostly succeeded in revealing herself as someone who either (a)doesn't read the syllabus and doesn't pay attention to ample warnings giving her the opportunity to avoid experiencing what she experienced, or else (b) wanted to start off a firestorm exactly like the one she started off, and was waiting all semester for the chance to do exactly that as soon as she saw the warning on the syllabus o, day 1.
Students are within their right to appeal plagiarism referrals and ask for extensions or exam retakes, but we still have Opinions about it when they do these things in a way that reveals negligence or bad faith on their part.
I'm not saying the student comes across well in this. Just that she did act within her rights, albeit not particularly professionally or maturely.
Still, legally, she did not harm the professor in any way.
She may be legally in the clear, but in this country, you can file a suit just because you don't like someone's shoes. It may still be worth the prof's while to include her in a suit, drag her through the legal system and make her spend $10,000 on lawyers before she is dismissed from the suit by a judge. She's not at risk for paying damages, but she could still come out of this well screwed up. And if I were the faculty member, I'd think seriously about fvucking around with her just because she appears to be an a$$hole looking to put another notch on her gun of "social justice".
The student won't be sued, and the whole thing won't reflect badly on her in the circles she aspires to operate (career as a professionally-offended minority).
Quote from: secundem_artem on January 19, 2023, 08:49:30 AM
She may be legally in the clear, but in this country, you can file a suit just because you don't like someone's shoes. It may still be worth the prof's while to include her in a suit, drag her through the legal system and make her spend $10,000 on lawyers before she is dismissed from the suit by a judge. She's not at risk for paying damages, but she could still come out of this well screwed up. And if I were the faculty member, I'd think seriously about fvucking around with her just because she appears to be an a$$hole looking to put another notch on her gun of "social justice".
Eh. THe faculty member has two options at this point: sue the entity that actually hurt her, which makes enemies, but also earns the occasional 'you go girl' from people like me; or sue the person who hurt her plus a twerpy little student and lose all respect I have for her by stepping away from the good fight and into the dirty fight. I'll be disappointed if she goes the second route.
Quote from: ergative on January 19, 2023, 09:03:53 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on January 19, 2023, 08:49:30 AM
She may be legally in the clear, but in this country, you can file a suit just because you don't like someone's shoes. It may still be worth the prof's while to include her in a suit, drag her through the legal system and make her spend $10,000 on lawyers before she is dismissed from the suit by a judge. She's not at risk for paying damages, but she could still come out of this well screwed up. And if I were the faculty member, I'd think seriously about fvucking around with her just because she appears to be an a$$hole looking to put another notch on her gun of "social justice".
Eh. THe faculty member has two options at this point: sue the entity that actually hurt her, which makes enemies, but also earns the occasional 'you go girl' from people like me; or sue the person who hurt her plus a twerpy little student and lose all respect I have for her by stepping away from the good fight and into the dirty fight. I'll be disappointed if she goes the second route.
It seems to me that this is a fight worth fighting.
We have a cancel hysteria consuming our campus cultures (that's some alliteration!) and more people need to speak up about it.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 19, 2023, 12:34:06 PM
Quote from: ergative on January 19, 2023, 09:03:53 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on January 19, 2023, 08:49:30 AM
She may be legally in the clear, but in this country, you can file a suit just because you don't like someone's shoes. It may still be worth the prof's while to include her in a suit, drag her through the legal system and make her spend $10,000 on lawyers before she is dismissed from the suit by a judge. She's not at risk for paying damages, but she could still come out of this well screwed up. And if I were the faculty member, I'd think seriously about fvucking around with her just because she appears to be an a$$hole looking to put another notch on her gun of "social justice".
Eh. THe faculty member has two options at this point: sue the entity that actually hurt her, which makes enemies, but also earns the occasional 'you go girl' from people like me; or sue the person who hurt her plus a twerpy little student and lose all respect I have for her by stepping away from the good fight and into the dirty fight. I'll be disappointed if she goes the second route.
It seems to me that this is a fight worth fighting.
We have a cancel hysteria consuming our campus cultures (that's some alliteration!) and more people need to speak up about it.
I'm not saying the faculty member shouldn't sue or keep quiet. I'm saying she shouldn't sue the student. I'm thrilled she's suing the institution. 'Cancel hysteria' should be combatted at the level where change can actually made. Students need to be safe to whine, attracting scorn and opprobrium, for sure, but not crippling legal fees. Institutions need to learn when they have to listen to whining, and when they need to ignore it.
Quote from: ergative on January 19, 2023, 09:03:53 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on January 19, 2023, 08:49:30 AM
She may be legally in the clear, but in this country, you can file a suit just because you don't like someone's shoes. It may still be worth the prof's while to include her in a suit, drag her through the legal system and make her spend $10,000 on lawyers before she is dismissed from the suit by a judge. She's not at risk for paying damages, but she could still come out of this well screwed up. And if I were the faculty member, I'd think seriously about fvucking around with her just because she appears to be an a$$hole looking to put another notch on her gun of "social justice".
Eh. THe faculty member has two options at this point: sue the entity that actually hurt her, which makes enemies, but also earns the occasional 'you go girl' from people like me; or sue the person who hurt her plus a twerpy little student and lose all respect I have for her by stepping away from the good fight and into the dirty fight. I'll be disappointed if she goes the second route.
Were this me, I guess I'd just have to learn to live with your disappointment. People who are just spoiling for a chance to be offended so they can show off their social justice chops are a plague on humanity. Time to make the b@st@ards pay for it.
Going out of one's way to signal one's vices seems worse, to me, than going out of one's way to signal one's virtues. Buut I guess opinions differ.
According to López Prater's lawsuit (https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/LopezPraterComplaint.pdf):
Quote7.López Prater shared the syllabus with her supervisor Allison Baker ("Baker"), department chair of Hamline's Art and Digital Media Department, before finalizing it. After receiving and reviewing the syllabus, Baker did not make any changes to López Prater's statement in the syllabus and did not express any concern about López Prater displaying depictions of the Prophet Muhammad.
8.López Prater also submitted the syllabus to Hamline. Hamline made no changes to López Prater's statement and did not express any concern about López Prater displaying depictions of the Prophet Muhammad as part of the class. Hamline did not inform López Prater that displaying images of the Prophet Muhammad as part of the class was improper in any way.
[...]
22.During their conversation, Wedatalla did not suggest that López Prater had surprised students by showing the paintings. Instead, Wedatalla was enraged that López Prater showed the images at all, to anyone. By her statements and actions, Wedatalla wanted to impose her specific religious views on López Prater, non-Muslim students, and Muslim students who did not object to images for the Prophet Muhammad—a privilege granted to no other religion or religious belief at Hamline.
These suggest (1) Hamline is really covering itself in glory, and (2) the student behaved more poorly than we initially thought (but still, 'student is an idiot' isn't breaking news).
Also, 12-14 states that she was slated to teach until this happened, so she can show
some damage, at least.
Quote from: secundem_artem on January 19, 2023, 08:49:30 AM
She may be legally in the clear, but in this country, you can file a suit just because you don't like someone's shoes. It may still be worth the prof's while to include her in a suit, drag her through the legal system and make her spend $10,000 on lawyers before she is dismissed from the suit by a judge. She's not at risk for paying damages, but she could still come out of this well screwed up. And if I were the faculty member, I'd think seriously about fvucking around with her just because she appears to be an a$$hole looking to put another notch on her gun of "social justice".
I know you are kind of exaggerating, but no, you cannot sue unless you can prove harm. The student has a right to feelings, complaints, opinions, and to even be a bit whiny and immature and overreactive. Trying to target a student for making a stink about something runs everyone down a rabbit hole.
Some students complain about appropriately bad behavior. Do we want to make them afraid to come forward?
The job of the college and administration is to manage their affairs appropriately, which they did not do.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 19, 2023, 02:55:55 PM
[. . . ]
(2) the student behaved more poorly than we initially thought (but still, 'student is an idiot' isn't breaking news).
[. . . ]
The student is worse than an idiot, she's a religious bigot trying to force the rest of society to conform to her narrow and selective beliefs.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 19, 2023, 02:55:55 PM
Going out of one's way to signal one's vices seems worse, to me, than going out of one's way to signal one's virtues. Buut I guess opinions differ.
According to López Prater's lawsuit (https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/LopezPraterComplaint.pdf):
Quote7.López Prater shared the syllabus with her supervisor Allison Baker ("Baker"), department chair of Hamline's Art and Digital Media Department, before finalizing it. After receiving and reviewing the syllabus, Baker did not make any changes to López Prater's statement in the syllabus and did not express any concern about López Prater displaying depictions of the Prophet Muhammad.
8.López Prater also submitted the syllabus to Hamline. Hamline made no changes to López Prater's statement and did not express any concern about López Prater displaying depictions of the Prophet Muhammad as part of the class. Hamline did not inform López Prater that displaying images of the Prophet Muhammad as part of the class was improper in any way.
[...]
22.During their conversation, Wedatalla did not suggest that López Prater had surprised students by showing the paintings. Instead, Wedatalla was enraged that López Prater showed the images at all, to anyone. By her statements and actions, Wedatalla wanted to impose her specific religious views on López Prater, non-Muslim students, and Muslim students who did not object to images for the Prophet Muhammad—a privilege granted to no other religion or religious belief at Hamline.
These suggest (1) Hamline is really covering itself in glory, and (2) the student behaved more poorly than we initially thought (but still, 'student is an idiot' isn't breaking news).
Also, 12-14 states that she was slated to teach until this happened, so she can show some damage, at least.
The student knew exactly what she was doing. Both Hamline and the student should have known that accusing someone of Islamaphobia could put that person on a terrorist hit list (the attack on Salman Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo massacre are just a couple of examples).
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 19, 2023, 02:55:55 PM
Going out of one's way to signal one's vices seems worse, to me, than going out of one's way to signal one's virtues. Buut I guess opinions differ.
I disagree. "Signalling" one's virtues is not remotely the same as living them out when there is actually a
cost involved.
All kinds of people like to think they'd run into a burning building to save a baby. First responders actually
risk their lives to do it.
Talk is cheap. (And actually, if virtue signalling gets people rewarded in public opinion, then talk actually
pays.)
Quote from: spork on January 20, 2023, 04:48:41 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 19, 2023, 02:55:55 PM
[. . . ]
(2) the student behaved more poorly than we initially thought (but still, 'student is an idiot' isn't breaking news).
[. . . ]
The student is worse than an idiot, she's a religious bigot trying to force the rest of society to conform to her narrow and selective beliefs.
This. Also, in terms of precedent, what would stop, say, an Evangelical student from, if depictions of saints by Catholic artists were shown in a discussion of Christian imagery, from complaining that it is anti-Christian on the basis that the student considers Catholics to be polytheists and not Christians? It definitely opens a can of worms, as anyone can claim that their specific branch or sect are the only true Muslims/Jews/Christians/Buddhists/whatever.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 20, 2023, 05:18:34 AM
I disagree. "Signalling" one's virtues is not remotely the same as living them out when there is actually a cost involved.
All kinds of people like to think they'd run into a burning building to save a baby. First responders actually risk their lives to do it.
So what? I didn't claim that trying to show how good you are is the same as actually being good or doing good deeds.
What I said was that if you ask me to choose between someone who brags about how kind they are and someone who brags about how nasty they are, I pick the former.
If person A is telling the truth, then they're at least a kind person, even if somewhat tasteless. But if person B is telling the truth, they're a bad person
and tasteless. If A is lying, then we know they fall short of the standard they profess, and we're left to wonder how far short. If B is lying, then we're left to wonder why they think it's so important to inflate how bad they are, which suggests they don't have a firm grip on morality at all. (And, really, the implication there is that they
are bad, just not
as bad as they claim.)
In other words, even in the worst case scenario, person A comes off better than person B. George W. Bush wouldn't be any more admirable if he openly admitted he was responsible for torturing hundreds of people. As you pointed out, talk is cheap, and actual actions count for a lot more. In this case, his war crimes significantly outweigh whatever brownie points we might give him for honesty (which we can't even do, of course, because he hasn't fessed up to his crimes).
Put in simpler terms, it seems like any rational person should prefer
virtue-signalling to
vice-signalling. They're both cases of
signalling (and that seems to be what you and others actually object to), but one is signalling morally good character traits, the other morally bad traits. And good traits are preferable to bad. Unless, of course, what you object to is
virtue?
Now, you may answer that what you object to is the extension of the term 'virtue'. And certainly, reasonable people can disagree about what counts as a virtue and what doesn't (the ancient Greeks, for example, included
anger; presumably, we wouldn't). But in that case, you need to establish that what's being signalled is a vice rather than a virtue--and then it turns out that you're preferring virtue-signalling to vice-signalling, which is what you started by denying.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on January 20, 2023, 10:03:02 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 20, 2023, 05:18:34 AM
I disagree. "Signalling" one's virtues is not remotely the same as living them out when there is actually a cost involved.
All kinds of people like to think they'd run into a burning building to save a baby. First responders actually risk their lives to do it.
So what? I didn't claim that trying to show how good you are is the same as actually being good or doing good deeds.
What I said was that if you ask me to choose between someone who brags about how kind they are and someone who brags about how nasty they are, I pick the former.
If person A is telling the truth, then they're at least a kind person, even if somewhat tasteless. But if person B is telling the truth, they're a bad person and tasteless. If A is lying, then we know they fall short of the standard they profess, and we're left to wonder how far short. If B is lying, then we're left to wonder why they think it's so important to inflate how bad they are, which suggests they don't have a firm grip on morality at all. (And, really, the implication there is that they are bad, just not as bad as they claim.)
A person can
admit their own vices without
bragging about them. That is vastly more honest than trying to convince people of the virtues you may or may not actually exhibit.
Humility is better than "signalling" anything, and involves trying to be as honest as possible about one's shortcomings.
Quote
In other words, even in the worst case scenario, person A comes off better than person B. George W. Bush wouldn't be any more admirable if he openly admitted he was responsible for torturing hundreds of people. As you pointed out, talk is cheap, and actual actions count for a lot more. In this case, his war crimes significantly outweigh whatever brownie points we might give him for honesty (which we can't even do, of course, because he hasn't fessed up to his crimes).
Put in simpler terms, it seems like any rational person should prefer virtue-signalling to vice-signalling. They're both cases of signalling (and that seems to be what you and others actually object to), but one is signalling morally good character traits, the other morally bad traits. And good traits are preferable to bad. Unless, of course, what you object to is virtue?
No, what I object to is society giving people so much credit for the "right" words, and criticizing people who don't use the "right" words,
without reserving judgement until actual concrete behaviour has been observed, preferably across a range of circumstances and over time.
In other words, don't pay attention to "signalling" at all; judge
behaviour. (Which, of course, means that judgement in the vast majority of cases must be reserved until some possible point in the future which may never in fact occur. In other words, people should not be high and mighty about their
assumptions about others unless and until they have actually seen concrete actions which reveal character.)
Quote from: spork on January 20, 2023, 04:48:41 AM
The student is worse than an idiot, she's a religious bigot trying to force the rest of society to conform to her narrow and selective beliefs.
Quote from: Langue_doc on January 20, 2023, 04:58:48 AM
The student knew exactly what she was doing. Both Hamline and the student should have known that accusing someone of Islamaphobia could put that person on a terrorist hit list (the attack on Salman Rushdie and the Charlie Hebdo massacre are just a couple of examples).
I don't disagree at all.
Quote from: ergative on January 19, 2023, 01:36:02 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 19, 2023, 12:34:06 PM
Quote from: ergative on January 19, 2023, 09:03:53 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on January 19, 2023, 08:49:30 AM
She may be legally in the clear, but in this country, you can file a suit just because you don't like someone's shoes. It may still be worth the prof's while to include her in a suit, drag her through the legal system and make her spend $10,000 on lawyers before she is dismissed from the suit by a judge. She's not at risk for paying damages, but she could still come out of this well screwed up. And if I were the faculty member, I'd think seriously about fvucking around with her just because she appears to be an a$$hole looking to put another notch on her gun of "social justice".
Eh. THe faculty member has two options at this point: sue the entity that actually hurt her, which makes enemies, but also earns the occasional 'you go girl' from people like me; or sue the person who hurt her plus a twerpy little student and lose all respect I have for her by stepping away from the good fight and into the dirty fight. I'll be disappointed if she goes the second route.
It seems to me that this is a fight worth fighting.
We have a cancel hysteria consuming our campus cultures (that's some alliteration!) and more people need to speak up about it.
I'm not saying the faculty member shouldn't sue or keep quiet. I'm saying she shouldn't sue the student. I'm thrilled she's suing the institution. 'Cancel hysteria' should be combatted at the level where change can actually made. Students need to be safe to whine, attracting scorn and opprobrium, for sure, but not crippling legal fees. Institutions need to learn when they have to listen to whining, and when they need to ignore it.
Bad though this student looks, I'd be reluctant to assume the very worst about her motives absent more knowledge about her than we have so far. As Para said above, a student having a foolish overreaction to something isn't exactly news. The institution should have done a far better job of mediating the issue between the student and the instructor. So the institution would seem like the proper object of any litigation.
Quote from: apl68 on January 20, 2023, 10:31:23 AM
Quote from: ergative on January 19, 2023, 01:36:02 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 19, 2023, 12:34:06 PM
Quote from: ergative on January 19, 2023, 09:03:53 AM
Quote from: secundem_artem on January 19, 2023, 08:49:30 AM
She may be legally in the clear, but in this country, you can file a suit just because you don't like someone's shoes. It may still be worth the prof's while to include her in a suit, drag her through the legal system and make her spend $10,000 on lawyers before she is dismissed from the suit by a judge. She's not at risk for paying damages, but she could still come out of this well screwed up. And if I were the faculty member, I'd think seriously about fvucking around with her just because she appears to be an a$$hole looking to put another notch on her gun of "social justice".
Eh. THe faculty member has two options at this point: sue the entity that actually hurt her, which makes enemies, but also earns the occasional 'you go girl' from people like me; or sue the person who hurt her plus a twerpy little student and lose all respect I have for her by stepping away from the good fight and into the dirty fight. I'll be disappointed if she goes the second route.
It seems to me that this is a fight worth fighting.
We have a cancel hysteria consuming our campus cultures (that's some alliteration!) and more people need to speak up about it.
I'm not saying the faculty member shouldn't sue or keep quiet. I'm saying she shouldn't sue the student. I'm thrilled she's suing the institution. 'Cancel hysteria' should be combatted at the level where change can actually made. Students need to be safe to whine, attracting scorn and opprobrium, for sure, but not crippling legal fees. Institutions need to learn when they have to listen to whining, and when they need to ignore it.
Bad though this student looks, I'd be reluctant to assume the very worst about her motives absent more knowledge about her than we have so far. As Para said above, a student having a foolish overreaction to something isn't exactly news. The institution should have done a far better job of mediating the issue between the student and the instructor. So the institution would seem like the proper object of any litigation.
I agree that the institution should have done a better job of mediating the conflict; the instructor appears to have discussed the syllabus with the chair, and also given numerous warnings to the students regarding the content of the course and that images of holy figures would be shown in class. The student could have discussed her objections as soon as she read the syllabus and also after seeing the announcements, instead of claiming that she was blindsided.
The instructor appears to have taken the necessary precautions: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/08/us/hamline-university-islam-prophet-muhammad.html?searchResultPosition=2
QuoteErika López Prater, an adjunct professor at Hamline University, said she knew many Muslims have deeply held religious beliefs that prohibit depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. So last semester for a global art history class, she took many precautions before showing a 14th-century painting of Islam's founder.
In the syllabus, she warned that images of holy figures, including the Prophet Muhammad and the Buddha, would be shown in the course. She asked students to contact her with any concerns, and she said no one did.
In class, she prepped students, telling them that in a few minutes, the painting would be displayed, in case anyone wanted to leave.
Then Dr. López Prater showed the image — and lost her teaching gig.
The student, however, went public with her objections:
QuoteIn a December interview with the school newspaper, the student who complained to the administration, Aram Wedatalla, described being blindsided by the image.
"I'm like, 'This can't be real,'" said Ms. Wedatalla, who in a public forum described herself as Sudanese. "As a Muslim and a Black person, I don't feel like I belong, and I don't think I'll ever belong in a community where they don't value me as a member, and they don't show the same respect that I show them."
The student has also had at least one press conference: https://religionnews.com/2023/01/11/cair-backs-hamline-student-who-says-instructor-hurt-muslims-by-showing-image-of-muhammad/
I wonder, pure conjecture on my part, if the student was put up to this by someone. Her reasoning, at least as far as we know, was remarkably melodramatic and superficial. She sounds like someone who doesn't have much imagination; her comments seemed staged and cliché.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 20, 2023, 12:48:05 PM
I wonder, pure conjecture on my part, if the student was put up to this by someone. Her reasoning, at least as far as we know, was remarkably melodramatic and superficial. She sounds like someone who doesn't have much imagination; her comments seemed staged and cliché.
That's exactly what "virtue signalling" is; it's very formulaic so that everyone who hears it knows when to cheer (or clutch their pearls, etc.). For example, saying it made her fell like she "didn't belong" is one of those clichés that are to be interpreted as ALWAYS a terrible thing.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 20, 2023, 12:48:05 PM
I wonder, pure conjecture on my part, if the student was put up to this by someone. Her reasoning, at least as far as we know, was remarkably melodramatic and superficial. She sounds like someone who doesn't have much imagination; her comments seemed staged and cliché.
The student is a senior business major and president of the university's Muslim Student Association, according to several news articles, all of which advocate for academic freedom.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2023/1/20/23562671/hamline-university-islamophobia-prophet-muhammad-picture-gene-lyons-column
Here is the article from The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/01/hamline-university-minnesota-muhammad-academic-freedom/672742/
QuoteWho's Afraid of a Portrait of Muhammad?
When Hamline University cut ties with a professor who showed a painting of Muhammad, it sided with the most intolerant element of the American Muslim spectrum.
By Graeme Wood
JANUARY 18, 2023
A mosque in Kandahar houses a relic of the Prophet Muhammad: a cloak preserved, splendid and unpilled, almost 1,400 years after its owner's death. The mosque's caretaker claims that the cloak has extraordinary qualities, such as a color that transcends the visual spectrum. The color can be seen, but it has no name. I asked the caretaker whether I could take a look. He said no; unbelievers may not see it. And even if I did, God would delete the memory from my mind immediately afterward, like Tommy Lee Jones in Men in Black. So I went home without seeing it—to the best of my recollection.
These tales of the supernatural have no basis in Islamic scripture (except in the general sense that God's powers are limitless, so if he wanted to produce a technicolor dreamcoat, he could do so). But as a matter of theology, I greatly prefer this version of the Islamic God—who does as he pleases, and simply performs a neurological reboot on those who displease him—to the one that requires defending by Fayneese Miller, the president of Hamline University, a small Methodist school in Minnesota.
Last year, Miller severed Hamline's ties with an art-history professor, Erika López Prater, after she showed her students a 14th-century Persian painting of Muhammad. A Muslim student complained that she found depictions of Muhammad offensive. The administration agreed that López Prater's act was "Islamophobic," and that the offense taken "superseded" any claim that this masterwork of Islamic art needed to be seen to be understood. The punishment: banishment. "In lieu [sic] of this incident," Hamline's administration told the student newspaper, "it was decided it was best that this faculty member was no longer part of the Hamline community."
After the story ignited the attention of the national media, Miller defended her decision. And the student, 23-year-old Aram Wedatalla, held a press conference where she wept over her distress at having looked at the painting. The usual defenders of academic freedom, such as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and PEN America, have raced to López Prater's side. Most encouraging, though, is the range of allies she has found in Muslim groups. Last week, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) supported her unequivocally. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which in the past has focused on its irritation at perceived slights against Islam, likewise called on Hamline to reconsider its position.
Who will save Muslims from their saviors? Miller's administration pronounced the class "Islamophobic," and said that such atrocities should prompt the community to "listen rather than debate the merits of or extent of that harm." In this case, "listening" meant listening to Muslims. The positions of some of the most prominent Muslim advocacy organizations in America now complicate that advice. It turns out that Muslims have different views on this matter and many others, and that the fatwa from the president of a Methodist college in St. Paul, Minnesota, has somehow sided with the most intolerant element of the American Muslim spectrum. Miller invited a Muslim speaker to campus who compared the professor's art-history class to a pro-Nazi or pro-child-molester class, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education. Then he suggested that a Muslim might want to kill her, and that these murderous feelings deserved recognition. "You've seen what happened in the horrible tragedies of Charlie Hebdo," Jaylani Hussein warned the faculty and students of Hamline. "Muslims revere our Prophet in a meaningful way, and regardless of whatever you are teaching, you have to respect them." (Hussein runs a local chapter of CAIR, which distanced itself from his comments—perhaps because "American-Islamic relations" are not improved by reminding people to watch what they say, because some Muslims might want to kill them.)
Perhaps Miller received poor counsel, which led her to assume that all Muslims are reduced to tears when they fail to read the syllabus and cast their eyes upon paintings. But the statement she wrote under pressure last week suggests conviction. She wrote that "faculty have the right to teach and research and ... publish under the purview of their peers." Did she mean "review"? This sentence alone calls into doubt her commitment to academic freedom, because academic freedom is not, in fact, limited by the scrutiny of one's peers. They can scrutinize all they like. I'm scrutinizing right now. But they can't stop her from teaching and publishing what she likes. Citing an op-ed published by Inside Higher Ed, Miller went on to say that the right to academic freedom infringed on the right not to be "emotionally, intellectually, or professionally harmed."
Miller is deferring to the most fragile Muslims. She must think Muslims have skulls like crepe paper, and brains that can be bruised by a light gust of academic inquiry. Such people exist, and her student may be one. But most Muslims—including some who would object strenuously to a depiction of the Prophet—navigate the world without the shelter offered by the Hamline administration. The Muslims I know generally realize that the world is full of insults and challenges, and that education requires willingness to live with them and learn from them. Miller wants to make this resilient Muslim majority, and everyone else, hostage to their most brittle and blubbering brothers and sisters. If any Hamline students really need this kind of protection, I suggest they enroll at a university in Kabul.
Quote from: apl68 on January 20, 2023, 10:31:23 AM
[. . .]
Bad though this student looks, I'd be reluctant to assume the very worst about her motives
[. . .]
I'm quite comfortable assuming the very worst about her motives. She is demanding that only her personal version of a religion be regarded as authentic and acceptable by society at large. She is claiming a religious justification for having power over everyone else in the public sphere. No freedom of religion there, which actually goes against the tenets of the religion she claims to profess. Similarly, her opposition to the existence of any depiction of Muhammed, and attempts to prevent anyone from viewing such a depiction, is strictly speaking idol worship, also contrary to the tenets of Islam.
The one thing I would say is that, even though the student is 23 and should have developed a mind of her own at this point, religious mania is a thing, particularly among fundamentalist groups, and she may have been programmed to respond this way from a very young age.
On the other hand, she may have thought she would be a heroine, again because her world is (possibly) so hermetic.
Are we all agreed that the university's action was unacceptable, and that the prof will win her suit, esp given the obvious defamation of character, and threat to her life from terrorists, etc?
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 22, 2023, 12:02:05 AM
Are we all agreed that the university's action was unacceptable,
Yes, I'm with you here.
Quoteand that the prof will should win her suit, esp given the obvious defamation of character, and threat to her life from terrorists, etc?
With edits, I'm with you here too.
QuoteHamline U. faculty call on President Miller to step down over Islamophobia controversy
Hamline's full-time faculty say the dismissal of an adjunct professor has harmed the university's reputation.
https://www.twincities.com/2023/01/24/hamline-university-faculty-call-on-president-fayneese-miller-to-step-down-over-islamophobia-controversy/
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/hamline-university-fayneese-miller/
https://sahanjournal.com/education/hamline-video-shows-prophet-muhammad-painting-appeared-before-professor-warnings/
The latest is that the picture was shown to students before the trigger warning. The instructor was showing her slides in a mode where you could see the upcoming slides as well.
Tough. If we dispensed with all infantilizing 'trigger warnings' altogether, there would not even be this issue.
Quote from: Dismal on January 29, 2023, 02:09:45 PM
https://sahanjournal.com/education/hamline-video-shows-prophet-muhammad-painting-appeared-before-professor-warnings/
The latest is that the picture was shown to students before the trigger warning. The instructor was showing her slides in a mode where you could see the upcoming slides as well.
I saw that. It seems like more weak tea trying to be a tempest.
According to their website https://sahanjournal.com/about-sahan-journal/, their stated mission is:
QuoteTo provide fair, groundbreaking news coverage that illuminates issues affecting Minnesota immigrants and communities of color and to chronicle how these communities are changing and redefining what it means to be a Minnesotan.
Their response appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to a student's complaints of bias. The student, a business major, could have chosen other courses if she had religious objections to what was being taught in this particular course. Demanding that one's individual beliefs be imposed on the rest of the class or the college is analogous to demands, for instance, that pork or products containing pork not be served in college cafeterias.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 29, 2023, 06:46:13 PM
Quote from: Dismal on January 29, 2023, 02:09:45 PM
https://sahanjournal.com/education/hamline-video-shows-prophet-muhammad-painting-appeared-before-professor-warnings/
The latest is that the picture was shown to students before the trigger warning. The instructor was showing her slides in a mode where you could see the upcoming slides as well.
I saw that. It seems like more weak tea trying to be a tempest.
Indeed. Does this lead to a discussion of the
number of pixels in an image before it becomes blasphemous? (I'm assuming the "upcoming slide" view is a thumbnail in lower res. Would a
single pixel image of the prophet still cause a problem?)
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 30, 2023, 05:08:37 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 29, 2023, 06:46:13 PM
Quote from: Dismal on January 29, 2023, 02:09:45 PM
https://sahanjournal.com/education/hamline-video-shows-prophet-muhammad-painting-appeared-before-professor-warnings/
The latest is that the picture was shown to students before the trigger warning. The instructor was showing her slides in a mode where you could see the upcoming slides as well.
I saw that. It seems like more weak tea trying to be a tempest.
Indeed. Does this lead to a discussion of the number of pixels in an image before it becomes blasphemous? (I'm assuming the "upcoming slide" view is a thumbnail in lower res. Would a single pixel image of the prophet still cause a problem?)
Ha! That's pretty funny.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 30, 2023, 06:22:41 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 30, 2023, 05:08:37 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 29, 2023, 06:46:13 PM
Quote from: Dismal on January 29, 2023, 02:09:45 PM
https://sahanjournal.com/education/hamline-video-shows-prophet-muhammad-painting-appeared-before-professor-warnings/
The latest is that the picture was shown to students before the trigger warning. The instructor was showing her slides in a mode where you could see the upcoming slides as well.
I saw that. It seems like more weak tea trying to be a tempest.
Indeed. Does this lead to a discussion of the number of pixels in an image before it becomes blasphemous? (I'm assuming the "upcoming slide" view is a thumbnail in lower res. Would a single pixel image of the prophet still cause a problem?)
Ha! That's pretty funny.
A couple of other questions had earlier occurred to me.
If someone
incorrectly identified an image of
someone else as the prophet, would viewing it still be wrong?
Conversely, if there was an image of the prophet, but it wasn't identified as such, would viewing it still be wrong?
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 30, 2023, 06:38:02 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 30, 2023, 06:22:41 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 30, 2023, 05:08:37 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 29, 2023, 06:46:13 PM
Quote from: Dismal on January 29, 2023, 02:09:45 PM
https://sahanjournal.com/education/hamline-video-shows-prophet-muhammad-painting-appeared-before-professor-warnings/
The latest is that the picture was shown to students before the trigger warning. The instructor was showing her slides in a mode where you could see the upcoming slides as well.
I saw that. It seems like more weak tea trying to be a tempest.
Indeed. Does this lead to a discussion of the number of pixels in an image before it becomes blasphemous? (I'm assuming the "upcoming slide" view is a thumbnail in lower res. Would a single pixel image of the prophet still cause a problem?)
Ha! That's pretty funny.
A couple of other questions had earlier occurred to me.
If someone incorrectly identified an image of someone else as the prophet, would viewing it still be wrong?
Conversely, if there was an image of the prophet, but it wasn't identified as such, would viewing it still be wrong?
Sounds like the old George Carlin bit. "Would that then be a sin father? Would that then be a sin?"
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 30, 2023, 06:38:02 AM
A couple of other questions had earlier occurred to me.
If someone incorrectly identified an image of someone else as the prophet, would viewing it still be wrong?
Conversely, if there was an image of the prophet, but it wasn't identified as such, would viewing it still be wrong?
I'm not sure one can know whether the conditions posited in either question can be known.
Since there are no actual contemporaneous renderings, how can one objectively know that an image is of the prophet?
Why religious people think they can sensor the general public is beyond me. I am all for accommodations, but there is a point where accommodating one group infringes on the rights of another. This image is obviously part of art history, which is relevant material for the course.
https://humanists.uk/2014/02/10/satirical-spaghetti-monster-image-banned-london-south-bank-university-religiously-offensive/
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 31, 2023, 03:59:49 AM
Why religious people think they can sensor the general public is beyond me. I
To be fair, cancel culture is about
any member of
any identity group thinking they can sensor the general public, so it's not remotely limited to religious people.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 31, 2023, 05:31:26 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 31, 2023, 03:59:49 AM
Why religious people think they can sensor the general public is beyond me. I
To be fair, cancel culture is about any member of any identity group thinking they can sensor the general public, so it's not remotely limited to religious people.
While that is certainly true, the religious right has had decades of attempted censure of the general public, very loudly too.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 31, 2023, 11:03:32 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 31, 2023, 05:31:26 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 31, 2023, 03:59:49 AM
Why religious people think they can sensor the general public is beyond me. I
To be fair, cancel culture is about any member of any identity group thinking they can sensor the general public, so it's not remotely limited to religious people.
While that is certainly true, the religious right has had decades of attempted censure of the general public, very loudly too.
As has basically
any powerful religious institution anywhere, anytime, in history. See Taliban, ISIS, etc. for other current examples.
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 31, 2023, 11:06:59 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 31, 2023, 11:03:32 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 31, 2023, 05:31:26 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 31, 2023, 03:59:49 AM
Why religious people think they can sensor the general public is beyond me. I
To be fair, cancel culture is about any member of any identity group thinking they can sensor the general public, so it's not remotely limited to religious people.
While that is certainly true, the religious right has had decades of attempted censure of the general public, very loudly too.
As has basically any powerful religious institution anywhere, anytime, in history. See Taliban, ISIS, etc. for other current examples.
Which is why Kron posted as hu did.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 31, 2023, 11:08:23 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 31, 2023, 11:06:59 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on January 31, 2023, 11:03:32 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on January 31, 2023, 05:31:26 AM
Quote from: Kron3007 on January 31, 2023, 03:59:49 AM
Why religious people think they can sensor the general public is beyond me. I
To be fair, cancel culture is about any member of any identity group thinking they can sensor the general public, so it's not remotely limited to religious people.
While that is certainly true, the religious right has had decades of attempted censure of the general public, very loudly too.
As has basically any powerful religious institution anywhere, anytime, in history. See Taliban, ISIS, etc. for other current examples.
Which is why Kron posted as hu did.
It's only relatively recently that non-religious people have been a large enough group to have the kind influence that religious groups have in the past, so the non-religious cancel culture mob is just getting started. (And their techniques are
entirely like those of the religious censors/inquisitors of the past.)
FIRE: https://www.thefire.org/news/10-worst-colleges-free-speech-2023 (https://www.thefire.org/news/10-worst-colleges-free-speech-2023)
Hamline isn't even in the top 100, despite a high-profile incident.
Quote from: Mobius on February 02, 2023, 08:00:09 PM
Hamline isn't even in the top 100, despite a high-profile incident.
True, but now Hamline is internationally famous for the wrong reasons.
When liberal institutions fail us: "Envious reversal" and the Hamline University debacle (https://www.salon.com/2023/03/04/when-liberal-institutions-fail-us-envious-reversal-and-the-hamline-university-debacle/)
Quote
Everywhere we look, we're being failed by institutions that are "supposed" to protect us — and not just those, like the police, that progressives have good reason to distrust. Take the recent example of Hamline University in Minnesota, which firing an adjunct art professor, Erika López Prater, for showing her class a famous medieval Islamic painting of the Prophet Muhammad. Hamline failed both the professor and its Muslim students, though in different ways.
An update on the situation.
López-Prater has accepted a visiting instructor position at Macalaster College in St. Paul.
She filed a lawsuit against Hamline in county court. The university had it moved to Federal court, which she did not want. So she asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit so that they could refile in county court. I don't know why county court is preferable, but it does seem like Hamline is trying to make life difficult and expensive.
Glad to hear that the instructor has a job and that she isn't backing down. I'm curious as to why the university prefers the federal court as opposed to the county court.
Quote from: Langue_doc on March 07, 2023, 05:44:55 AM
Glad to hear that the instructor has a job and that she isn't backing down. I'm curious as to why the university prefers the federal court as opposed to the county court.
I have no idea about the legal angles, but is it possible it would reduce the amount of local publicity, which may be more harmful to them if their potential audience is mostly local?
Quote from: Langue_doc on March 07, 2023, 05:44:55 AM
Glad to hear that the instructor has a job and that she isn't backing down. I'm curious as to why the university prefers the federal court as opposed to the county court.
Maybe it's nothing more than a ploy to slow down and complicate the litigation, in hopes that she'll get worn down and give up.
The latest on the Hamline controversy:
QuoteHamline University's President Announces Retirement After Prophet Muhammad Controversy
Fayneese S. Miller found herself in a fierce debate over academic freedom and Islamophobia, after an art history lecturer lost her job for showing images of the prophet.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/03/us/hamline-university-prophet-president-fayneese-miller.html
Quote from: Langue_doc on April 04, 2023, 05:38:41 AM
The latest on the Hamline controversy:
QuoteHamline University's President Announces Retirement After Prophet Muhammad Controversy
Fayneese S. Miller found herself in a fierce debate over academic freedom and Islamophobia, after an art history lecturer lost her job for showing images of the prophet.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/03/us/hamline-university-prophet-president-fayneese-miller.html
I guess if she's no longer in the position, they can't ask her to apologize if they lose the lawsuit.
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 04, 2023, 06:36:33 AM
Quote from: Langue_doc on April 04, 2023, 05:38:41 AM
The latest on the Hamline controversy:
QuoteHamline University's President Announces Retirement After Prophet Muhammad Controversy
Fayneese S. Miller found herself in a fierce debate over academic freedom and Islamophobia, after an art history lecturer lost her job for showing images of the prophet.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/03/us/hamline-university-prophet-president-fayneese-miller.html
I guess if she's no longer in the position, they can't ask her to apologize if they lose the lawsuit.
On the bright side, at least nobody was forced to look at the pee pee of the statue of David. The pearl clutching would have been too much to deal with.
Quote from: secundem_artem on April 04, 2023, 07:24:01 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on April 04, 2023, 06:36:33 AM
Quote from: Langue_doc on April 04, 2023, 05:38:41 AM
The latest on the Hamline controversy:
QuoteHamline University's President Announces Retirement After Prophet Muhammad Controversy
Fayneese S. Miller found herself in a fierce debate over academic freedom and Islamophobia, after an art history lecturer lost her job for showing images of the prophet.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/03/us/hamline-university-prophet-president-fayneese-miller.html
I guess if she's no longer in the position, they can't ask her to apologize if they lose the lawsuit.
On the bright side, at least nobody was forced to look at the pee pee of the statue of David. The pearl clutching would have been too much to deal with.
Statue of David in Florence? Look at Mannekin Pis in Brussels: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCE8HezwqP4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCE8HezwqP4)