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

[artalot]

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.

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.

[marshwiggle]

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?

[kaysixteen]

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.

[dismalist]

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!

[Kron3007]

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...

[financeguy]

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.

[apl68]

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.

[jimbogumbo]

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.

[financeguy]

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.

[Langue_doc]

Article in The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2023/01/hamline-university-adjunct-professor-freedom/672713/?utm_source=newslet

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.

[Parasaurolophus]

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.

[artalot]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

[apl68]

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:

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.

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.

[Kron3007]

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.