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

[ergative]

NY Time: After Lecturer Sues, Hamline University Walks Back Its 'Islamophobic' Comments

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 They also said that respect for Muslim students should not have superseded academic freedom.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!

[Parasaurolophus]

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.)

[Langue_doc]

Some quotes from the article:

In an about-face, the school said that using the term was "flawed" and that respect for Muslim students should not have superseded academic freedom.

"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 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."

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."

[simpleSimon]

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."

[marshwiggle]

"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.

"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.

[Kron3007]

"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.

"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...

[apl68]

Some quotes from the article:

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."

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.

[secundem_artem]

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?

[marshwiggle]

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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. 

[marshwiggle]

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.

[Langue_doc]

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

[marshwiggle]

  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.

[dismalist]

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.