Hamline U. Lecturer Showed a Painting of the Prophet Muhammad. She Lost Her Job

[Mobius]

Bret Weinstein going to hire her?

[Langue_doc]

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.

[ciao_yall]

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.

[ergative]

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.

[ciao_yall]

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.

[secundem_artem]

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".

[bacardiandlime]

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).

[ergative]

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

[ergative]

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.

[secundem_artem]

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.

[Parasaurolophus]

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:

7.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.

[ciao_yall]

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.

[spork]

[. . . ]

(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.

[Langue_doc]

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:

7.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).