Hamline Student Newspaper (the Oracle) Removed Published Defense of Lecturer Who Showed Painting of Muhammad

"[T]rauma and lived experiences," the newspaper says, "are not open for debate."

One of the twists in the Hamline blasphemy firing story is that the Hamline Oracle—the student newspaper—published and then removed a defense of a lecturer who showed the painting of Muhammad. The essay defending the lecturer was written by Prof. Mark Berkson, who is the chair of the Hamline Department of Religion, so one would think that it would be worthwhile for students to read, especially as a counterpoint to the Oracle's story that seemed to endorse the criticisms of the lecturer. But Prof. Berkson's essay (reproduced below) was taken down two days after it was published.

On Saturday, I e-mailed the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper to ask why this happened, and on Sunday got a response pointing me to this item (which was published Sunday):

The Oracle is Hamline's independent, student-run newspaper. One of our core tenets, to minimize harm, exists for us to hold ourselves accountable for the way our news affects the lives of individual students, and the Hamline community and student body as a whole. Those in our community have expressed that a letter we published has caused them harm. We have decided, as an editorial board, to take it down.

In no way are any of us on this staff or on the Editorial Board experts about journalism or trauma. We are, however, dedicated to actively supporting, platforming and listening to the experiences and voices of members of our community.

We are a student publication that is here to provide a space to elevate the voices of students. Our work is of no value if at any time our publication is participating in furthering harm to members of our community.

Our website acts as a space to widely share information and as a digital archive. We believe that what we publish is a matter of public record that reflects and includes the viewpoints of our community that creates space for having conversations in the open that would otherwise be left in private. We hope these conversations can lead to transparency and accountability. However, our publication will not participate in conversations where a person must defend their lived experience and trauma as topics of discussion or debate.

Pulitzer Center describes minimizing harm as having "compassion and sensitivity for those who may be adversely affected by news coverage." We will continue to consider and scrutinize our coverage and angles to elevate the stories of members of our community. It is not a publication's job to challenge or define sensitive experiences or trauma. If and when situations arise where these stories are shared, it is our responsibility to listen to and carry them in the most supportive, respectful, safe and beneficial way for the story's stakeholders and our readers.

We have learned and experienced from our first day at Hamline, a liberal arts institution, the importance of seeing things from a nuanced perspective. However, trauma and lived experiences are not open for debate.

We also want to take this opportunity to thank the members of our community who continue to read, respond and discuss with us about how our publication affects them. We recognize it is never these members' job to educate us or anyone else at this institution and we hope to be an area of support, allies and, as Alicia Garza said, co-conspirators in the journey to a more just and equitable institution and society.

There's a lot going on here, but I wanted to highlight a few items:

[1.] The newspaper's position goes beyond the view that displaying a painting of Muhammad in art history class "harm[s]" students. Rather, it's that even publishing Prof. Berkson's detailed, thoughtful, and expert defense of the display itself "caused … harm" to students. In this debate over academic freedom, Islamic history, and the firing of a teacher, one side, in the newspaper's view, just ought not be expressed, because its very expression is "harm[ful]."

[2.] Now why is it supposedly harmful? Not because it itself contains allegedly blasphemous images (it doesn't). Nor does it include any slurs or insults towards Islam or Muslims. Rather, the "harm" apparently arises on the theory that anything that challenges some people's characterization of their "lived experience and trauma" cannot be legitimate "topics of discussion or debate"—"trauma and lived experiences are not open for debate."

Prof. Berkson's essay does identify two important debates. First is the debate about whether one religious group's offense at material that its members see as blasphemous should suffice to justify banning such material from the university, e.g.,

[Concluding that the very act of displaying an image of Muhammad is itself Islamophobic] would mean that these images could never be seen by, or shown to, anybody. In effect, it would require an erasure of an entire genre of Islamic art. Should no student be able to see this art? And what would it mean for a liberal arts institution to deem an entire subject of study prohibited?

And second is the historical debate within Islam about whether images of Muhammad should indeed be seen as blasphemous, which can be read as suggesting that Muslims should be more open to at least considering the possibility that such representations are indeed permissible, e.g.,

Muslims have created and enjoyed figural representations of Muhammad throughout much of the history of Islam in some parts of the Islamic world…. Over the past few centuries, Shia Muslims, notably in Iran, have been far more accepting of visual representation in general than many Sunnis…. Furthermore, in recent years, there have been Muslim jurists and legal scholars who have issued fatwas—legal opinions—arguing that certain representations of Muhammad are permitted.

Of course such topics have to be open for debate, regardless of how strongly some people may feel that the representations are blasphemous, "Islamophobic," "trauma[tizing]," or whatever else. Indeed, it is precisely when people feel strongly that some things must be banned (either in general or from classrooms) that we need debate about whether the objections are indeed sound. In a liberal democracy, no group can be entitled to just assert its own feelings as obligatory and demand that those feelings not be challenged.

[3.] This is of course evident if we change just a few of the facts. Say that some Jewish students condemned certain criticisms of Israel as anti-Semitic; and say that a professor who specialized in Jewish history responded with a detailed essay that argued those criticisms should actually not be perceived as anti-Semitic, and should be allowed in university classes. (Again, note for purposes of this analogy that Prof. Berkson's essay had nothing in it that was objectively insulting to Muslims, unless one views all disagreement on such matters, however politely put, as bigoted, insulting, or "caus[ing] … harm.") Should a newspaper delete the essay on the grounds that the Jewish objectors' assertions of "lived experience and trauma" connected to the incident "are not open for debate"?

Or say that some conservative Christians condemned certain criticisms of conservative Christianity as bigoted; and say that a professor responded with a detailed essay that argued those criticisms were not bigoted (and were indeed part of a longstanding debate within Christianity), and should be allowed in university classes. Should a newspaper delete the essay on the grounds that the conservative Christian objectors' assertions of "lived experience and trauma" connected to the incident "are not open for debate"?

Whatever one might say of the underlying criticisms (whether or not they were anti-Semitic or anti-conservative-Christian, for instance), surely no self-respecting newspaper should just rule the defenses of the criticisms out of bounds as having "caused [students] harm." That's true whether the objectors are Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.

[4.] I should note that the editor-in-chief of the newspaper suggested, in the e-mail responding to mine, that the removal of the letter was just "for the time being," because the item had been posted "during finals week" when people couldn't respond (not, I think, a normal basis for newspapers to remove published material):

Professor Gruber is referencing a letter of commentary written by a Hamline faculty member that The Oracle published in print and online. As an editorial board, we decided to remove this letter from our website for the time being after members of our community, specifically students, expressed the harm it was causing them during finals week. Students who are Muslim and other community members expressed an interest in writing responses, letters, and commentaries, but that they could not due to finals. Our staff are also students and needed to consider the reality that they could not commit to receiving, vetting, and editing these letters during finals. For this reason, we could not ensure that letters and comments included in our publication would serve as a forum for the productive exchange of ideas.

There are members of our student community who have been carrying the weight of this situation for over two months at the point of that letter, and while publications rarely retract letters of commentary or letters to the editor, we must consider the well-being of our fellow students.

You can also find Staff ed we wrote about the choice at our website: https://hamlineoracle.com/10776/opinion/staff-ed-journalism-minimizing-harm-and-trauma/

I responded with the message, "Got it, thanks very much!  But I'm puzzled: The editorial doesn't say anything about the commentary being removed 'for the time being,' or about the concern being limited to finals week—it seems to suggest that the commentary has been removed permanently.  Or is it that, now that exams are over, you'll be reposting it?" The Editor-in-Chief in turn responded,

Yes, it will be reposted at some point. For the editorial, we wanted to focus on the tenet of minimizing harm and how we as Hamline's publication are navigating that responsibility. You are correct, it does not mention finals.

I have to say that this strikes me as very hard to reconcile with the published explanation. The published explanation is that Prof. Berkson's essay had indeed "caused … harm," that the newspaper "is of no value if at any time our publication is participating in furthering harm to members of our community," and that the newspaper "will not participate in conversations where a person must defend their lived experience and trauma as topics of discussion or debate." It's hard to see how a newspaper that sincerely takes that view could then "repost[ Prof. Berkson's essay] at some point," simply because it's no longer finals and people can respond to it: Wouldn't that, according to the newspaper's own analysis, be improperly "participat[ing] in conversations where a person must defend their lived experience and trauma as topics of discussion or debate"? But if the editor-in-chief's prediction proves accurate, and the essay is indeed reposted, I will certainly let our readers know.

[5.] Finally, I appreciate that this is just the reaction of a student newspaper. By definition, student newspapers are run by people who are just learning journalism, and all learning processes involve mistakes.

But these are mistakes that dovetail perfectly with the ideology being applied and expressed by the university administration, and with views that we've seen elsewhere, in universities and outside them. Powerful forces within universities are providing positive reinforcement to them, and treating them as virtue rather than error. I thought therefore that the newspaper's actions here were worth noting.

Here is the full text of Prof. Berkson's deleted essay (which I also posted in my original post on the matter):

Dear Editor,

A controversy has erupted at Hamline over the showing of an image of the Prophet Muhammad in an online Art History class. It is important that we take this opportunity to look closely at this issue so that we gain a deeper understanding of Islamic views of figural representation over the centuries, the reasons why this issue can have an emotional impact, and how to work through the tensions that can arise between academic inquiry and religious sensibility.

The Incident

I was not present in the classroom where a historical Islamic image of the Prophet Muhammad was shown, so I cannot speak to all of the details of that particular situation. What I do know is that the image in question is a 14th century painting included in a manuscript commissioned by a Sunni Muslim king in Iran and that it forms part of a cycle of illustrations narrating and commemorating Muhammad's prophecy that is considered by art historians to be "a global artistic masterpiece." The professor gave students both written and verbal notifications that the image would be shown. I don't know the nature of the conversations that followed, so I am only reflecting on one key question—Is the showing of an image of the Prophet Muhammad in an academic context necessarily an instance of Islamophobia, as has been claimed by some members of the administration?

Islamophobia is a serious and ongoing threat in this nation, and it has numerous ugly manifestations, including the vandalism of mosques, the harassment of and violent attacks on Muslims, and hate speech across social media and, at times, at the highest levels of political power. One reason that I have given numerous public lectures about Islam in churches, synagogues, and meeting rooms around the country is to combat ignorance, stereotyping, and Islamophobia. But I believe that, in the context of an art history classroom, showing an Islamic representation of the Prophet Muhammad, a painting that was done to honor Muhammad and depict an important historical moment, is not an example of Islamophobia. Labeling it this way is not only inaccurate but also takes our attention off of real examples of bigotry and hate. What happened in this classroom might be an example of miscommunication, a misunderstanding that resulted in significant grief for some students and the faculty member. The distress caused to some students is significant and regrettable. We must recognize this and figure out the best way to avoid this in the future.

Since some Hamline administrators labeled the showing of the painting "Islamophobic" (in one case, the phrase "undeniably Islamophobic" was used), my question for those who use that word is – Exactly where does the Islamophobia lie? Islamophobia is often defined as fear, hatred, hostility, or prejudice against Muslims. The intention or motivation behind the act would seem to be essential here. In this case, the professor was motivated only to educate students about the history of Islamic art. The professor tried to ensure that Muslim students who have objections would be able to avoid seeing the images. So, when we look at intention, we can conclude that this was not Islamophobic.

Another possibility is that the very act of displaying an image of Muhammad is itself Islamophobic. But if this were the case, there are a number of very disturbing implications. First, it would mean that anybody who showed these images in a classroom, a book, or on their wall, would be an Islamophobe. Any scholar who wrote a book about Islamic art and included these images for discussion or analysis would be an Islamophobe. Even Muslims (and, as we will see, many Muslims throughout history have created and enjoyed these images) would be Islamophobic if they did this. Second, it would mean that these images could never be seen by, or shown to, anybody. In effect, it would require an erasure of an entire genre of Islamic art.

Should no student be able to see this art? And what would it mean for a liberal arts institution to deem an entire subject of study prohibited?

Finally, it seems that the interpretation of the administrators means that if an act is prohibited to members of a particular religion, then everyone has to incorporate that prohibition into their own lives. Let's quickly consider an analogy. Eating pork is forbidden to observant Muslims and Jews. Clearly, it would be an act of Islamophobia or antisemitism if someone were to intentionally sneak pork into a dish that was going to be eaten by someone for whom it is forbidden. But does this mean that Aramark can no longer serve any dish with pork? Must everyone consider pork forbidden? Most of us would agree that as long as there are plenty of alternatives for Muslims and Jews, then the mere offering of a pork dish is not Islamophobic or antisemitic. In the case of images, does the fact that many (not all) Muslims consider images forbidden mean that all of us have to incorporate this prohibition into our lives? Giving students the opportunity to see the images as part of an education in Islamic art (since using images is an essential part of the pedagogy of art historians) is not Islamophobic as long as Muslim students are not required to see them and steps are taken to ensure that no student sees them unintentionally.

We must recognize that distress can be caused to Muslims (or Jews, or anyone) without the act that did so being Islamophobic, antisemitic, etc. In the food example, if a server mixed up items and accidentally served a pork dish to a Muslim or Jewish student, we would not call that person Islamophobic or antisemitic. It would be a deeply unfortunate situation, and the student would experience distress that must be recognized and addressed. Steps would have to be taken to avoid that in the future. But it would not be an instance of bigotry or hostility.

This incident is about balancing academic freedom and religious commitments, not about Islamophobia. The situation is not helped by making accusations against a faculty member who is simply trying to share and teach the history of Islamic art with students. It is especially disturbing that some administrators who used the word "Islamophobia" never even spoke with the faculty member to get their perspective. When, as in the case here at Hamline, everyone involved has good intentions (intention is a key concept in Islam, and the Prophet Muhammad himself said that people will receive consequences for actions depending on their intentions) and is doing their best to honor principles (religious and academic) that are important to them, we can find our way forward in open conversation and mutual respect. In what follows, I hope to provide some background so that we can understand the larger context and explain more fully why this incident is not an example of Islamophobia.

The Background

First, a majority of the world's Muslims today believe that visually representing the prophet Muhammad is forbidden. Many observant Muslims would never create an image of Muhammad and will strive to avoid seeing one. So professors must not require Muslim students who believe that representation is forbidden to look at these images, and they must give students fair warning if such images are going to appear anywhere in class—in a book, a slide show, a video, etc. It is my understanding that, in the Hamline class, the professor gave students advance notice that the image would be shown (both in the syllabus and verbally), allowed students to turn off the screen if they wished, and did not require them to visually engage with the painting. The intent was to educate, not to offend or show disrespect.

Why might representation be forbidden in some interpretations of Islam (and other religions as well)? It is worth noting that in all forms of Judaism and Islam, images of God are strictly forbidden (and there is a history of iconoclasm in Christianity). For Jews and Muslims, attempts to represent God limit what is infinite and inevitably lead to the kind of idolatry that worships the representation rather than God. In some Islamic spheres, the concern about representation is extended to prophets, particularly the Prophet Muhammad, because he is so central in the lives of Muslims. Muslims believe that Muhammad, like Jewish and Christian prophets before him, was a human being, not a divine being or a being who should be worshipped. He is, however, a uniquely significant person, because he was chosen by God to be the perfect carrier for the final, complete revelation. Muhammad himself, and Muslims ever since, have been aware of the dangers of people worshipping Muhammad, and Muhammad emphasized that God alone is worthy of worship. The danger of idolatry in regard to prophets is one reason why visual representation of them is problematic.

And yet here is another fact—Muslims have created and enjoyed figural representations of Muhammad throughout much of the history of Islam in some parts of the Islamic world. There exist numerous images of Muhammad created by Persian and Turkish artists from the 13th century until today, many of which were miniatures or illustrations in book manuscripts. Some images depict Muhammad with his face obscured with a veil or a halo, but some images show his face. Many artists based their images on detailed descriptions of Muhammad's appearance given in the Hadith and early biographies.

Over the past few centuries, Shia Muslims, notably in Iran, have been far more accepting of visual representation in general than many Sunnis. But from the 13th-16th centuries, Islamic images were also made in Sunni contexts, as is the case with the 14th century painting that was taught in the Hamline classroom. Furthermore, in recent years, there have been Muslim jurists and legal scholars who have issued fatwas—legal opinions—arguing that certain representations of Muhammad are permitted. One of the most respected leaders and legal authorities in Shia Islam, Ayatollah al-Sistani, stated that representations of the Prophet Muhammad are permissible as long as they are respectful. It is clearly forbidden to make any images that are disrespectful or that are designed to elicit worship. Representations that are permitted in these fatwas are those that honor Muhammad or give historical knowledge to Muslims about their prophet.

One of the most recent fatwas regarding figural representation concerns an image of Muhammad present in a section of a frieze in the US Supreme Court building in Washington DC. This frieze depicts great lawgivers of history, including Moses and Solomon. A leading scholar of Islam and former Chair of the Fiqh (Law) Council of North America, Taha Jaber al- Alwani, issued a fatwa discussing whether or not the image of Muhammad is forbidden. After surveying the debates over representation and imagery in Islam (these usually depend on interpretations of passages in the Hadith), and emphasizing the importance of intention, al- Alwani concludes that, despite reservations, "I have a great deal of gratitude and appreciation for those who insisted on including an image of our Prophet, Muhammad, in that highly regarded site…in order to remind the whole world of the important contributions of the Prophet." He noted that "we must remember that those who carved the frieze and placed it in the Supreme Court are not Muslims…As the Prophet himself respected freedom of conscience in his own dealings, so should we."

One of the leading scholars of Islamic Art is Christiane Gruber at the University of Michigan. She has written scholarly articles and a book on Islamic paintings of the Prophet as well as widely read Newsweek essays dedicated to her subject. She writes, "Muslims of more moderate or secular Sunni or Shi'i leanings do not consider figural representations of the Prophet necessarily problematic as long as Muhammad is depicted respectfully…Over the past seven centuries, a variety of historical and poetic texts largely produced in Turkish and Persian spheres…include depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. These many images praised and commemorated the Prophet…As a result, the visual evidence clearly undermines the premise that images of Muhammad are strictly banned in Islamic law and practice."

There are Muslims today who possess and value Islamic images of Muhammad. One person who has written about how much he values a figural representation of Muhammad displayed in his home is a leading scholar of Islam, Omid Safi, who teaches at Duke University. Safi writes, "The image is a lovely depiction of a kind, gentle, yet resolute Prophet, holding on to the Qur'an and looking straight at the viewer with deep and penetrating eyes…There are millions of such depictions in Iran and elsewhere, and that for many of us it was not a distraction from God but rather a reminder of God to focus on the Messenger of God." So, the very debates that are happening in academic contexts are also happening within parts of the Muslim community, as they have for centuries.

Concluding Thoughts

Ultimately, Islamic images of the Prophet Muhammad are part of the historical record, and an academic art historian who teaches Islamic art must acknowledge and discuss this in some way. Students would be deprived of an illuminating part of Islamic art history if they were not taught about this material, which, according to Dr. Gruber, "is considered by many individuals—including Muslim believers, artists, curators, scholars, collectors, and philanthropists—a global artistic patrimony that is increasingly at risk today." Furthermore, if an art historian were to conclude that images of Muhammad are forbidden, they would be privileging the interpretation of some Muslims over others. It is not up to academics to make judgments about which forms of a religion are correct and which artworks must be purged from the historical record. We must present a religious tradition and its artistic heritage in all of its richness and diversity. While some Muslims believe that figural representations of the Prophet Muhammad are forbidden, others in the past and present do not. It is thus incumbent on a professor to teach the material and convey the full range of artistic expression, as the Hamline faculty member seems to have done.

This incident reminds us that the study of religion is not only fascinating and thought-provoking but is also essential to understanding and skillfully navigating the challenges of living together in a multifaith society. This includes engaging with diversity within faith traditions and not labeling the teaching of an Islamic artistic masterpiece an incident of "hate and discrimination."

Mark Berkson, Ph.D.
Professor and Chair
Department of Religion

Comments

[BravoCharlieDelta]

One of the problems I have with your choice of hypotheticals is that these are dressed up appeals to hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy just doesn't have the weight it used to have. Of course these people are hypocrits. Of course these people would celebrate not censor similar blasphemes against Jesus. They don't care that they are hypocrits. Their craven desire to censor and control others supercedes aby personal guilt.

Also, you shouldn't have picked Jews, there us virtually no criticism that isn't labeled "antisemitic" and punished by Jewish elites.

[David Nieporent]

That you are unable to avoid antisemitism when talking about Jews does not mean that everything people say about a Jewish person is antisemitic. It just says that you're a bigot.

As for your misreading of the piece, it is not making an appeal to hypocrisy. It is citing these hypotheticals as thought experiments.

But the reason that calling someone a hypocrite (note the spelling) is often ineffective is that it generally takes the form of whataboutism — a dodge rather than a response.

A: Person X did this terrible thing!
B: Oh yeah? Whatabout this time when someone on your 'side' did something like that?

It doesn't deny that person X did the thing. It doesn't defend person X for doing that thing. It's just an "IKYABWAI?", an attempt to change the subject.

Even worse, many of these responses involve hypothetical hypocrisy, which isn't even a thing.

A: Person X did this terrible thing!
B: Oh yeah? Well, if this similar situation confronted someone on your side, they'd do just as bad a thing!

That's not hypocrisy at all! It didn't happen!

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Please quote his antisemitism.

All I see is a comment that antisemitism is such a loaded term that a non-Jewish analogy would be less prone to being hijacked, and you fell right into that trap, proving his point.

[David Nieporent]

Please quote his antisemitism.

Not playing the sealioning game. He is prolific here. Look at any thread he's participating in where he discusses Jews.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Yeah, go look for any of my comments on threads about White Genocide, black poverty, porn, transgendering & grooming children, child sacrifices, central banks, illegal immigrant invasions and you'll find some rather pointed, but accurate, criticisms that get smeared as "anti-semitic", but rarely debunked.

[Krychek_2]

That’s because they’ve been debunked so often that there’s a sense of why bother to keep repeating the debunking. No one here is going to convince you that “the Jooos” aren’t responsible for the laundry list of ills that you think are their fault. So why bother? Why should I waste ten minutes of my life composing a thoughtful response to your prejudices that you probably won’t even bother to finish reading?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol no they haven't been debunked. You can't debunk reality dude.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

What's that got to do with THIS comment?

[Sarcastr0]

Dude with a history of antisemitism says 'You're just laying a trap for me to look antisemetic to all the Jewish elites.'

I know you like being a contrarian, but this is ridiculous.

[Josh R]

Please quote his antisemitism.

you shouldn’t have picked Jews, there us virtually no criticism that isn’t labeled “antisemitic” and punished by Jewish elites.

The complaint about Jewish elites strikes me as antisemitic.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

That seems pretty weak to me, but I will admit is is plausible, if someone is looking for antisemitism.

[Josh R]

I don’t look for antisemitism. It reminded me of the antisemitic trope of blaming a Jewish cabal for your problems.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The Jews are ALWAYS looking for it. It's how they keep all the goyim silenced.

[Josh R]

I hope that reply convinces you BravoCharlieDelta is an antisemite.

[Frank Drackman]

You're on to all of our schemes!

[Ed Grinberg]

BCD,
I, for one, do not wish to silence you (though I do find your antisemitism rather tiresome).

[Ben_]

Does this post prove his point? Hmm.

[jdgalt1]

Whataboutism is not a dodge. Objection to it is an admission of hypocrisy. The concept itself is a dodge.

As for Jews you're both sort-of right. There is no useful statement about them as a group that isn't either bias or envy.

[Krychek_2]

And if hypocrisy had any relevance you’d have a point. But it doesn't. A parent with a drug problem who tells his children not to do drugs is in once sense a hypocrite, but that doesn’t mean his advice isn’t dead-on accurate.

There are many problems with what-aboutism and the central one is that it makes it impossible to hold anyone accountable for anything. Hitler gets a free pass because what about Stalin, and Stalin gets a free pass because what about Hitler. So nobody is ever accountable for anything. Imagine if criminal court worked like that: Yes, Your Honor, my client did in fact commit a brutal murder, but so did (insert name of some other murderer who escaped prosecution) so WHAT ABOUT HIM!”

What aboutism is also basically an acknowledgment that you don’t have a defense for the guy we’re discussing. If you did, presumably you’d make it rather than trying to change the subject.

[David Nieporent]

Whataboutism is absolutely a dodge.

Whether person B did something wrong is in no way a response to an accusation that person A did something wrong.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

"He lied to his kids!"

Sounds awful.

"Everybody lies to their kids about Santa Claus."

Suddenly it's not.

[Krychek_2]

Except that’s almost never the specific type of what aboutism we get. Usually it’s more along the lines of “Oh, Trump did something bad, what about Hillary’s emails.”

And by the way, if you’re so concerned about hypocrisy, maybe from time to time you could what about the Republicans. The fact that your what aboutism is all one sided makes you one of the biggest hypocrites here.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I’d say it depends on the specific hypocritical comment one is replying to.

If the hypocrite is simply more aware of the faults and crimes of the other side than of his own, then it might be tiresome to point this out repeatedly.

If the hypocrite says the side he opposes is uniquely evil, fascist, etc., and therefore every decent person must support his side, then it’s open season on his own side, pointing out the evil and fascist-like behavior of that side and why the situation is more nuanced than which side is pure and which side is evil. Then we get to argue over which is the lesser evil, so that at least the moral presumption of the hypocrite is punctured and the discussion is on a more realistic basis.

As to the context in which such a situation might arise, consider an election in which there are only two evil candidates but one candidate portrays himself as the good and pure candidate, the valiant crusader against all that is evil.

Or a discussion of someone being appointed to a position, where the real question is who among possible candidates (and given political realism, there may be a limited pool) is least bad. But the hypocrite says the candidate is uniquely good or bad and therefore must obviously be supported/opposed.

[Krychek_2]

And I think there’s a distinction you’re not drawing.

In matters of policy, of course I think my side is right and the other one is wrong. If I didn’t think that, I wouldn’t be a member of my party. And of course I expect the other side to believe they are right and I’m wrong. That’s all fair game.

But if the subject is the ethics (or lack thereof) of individual politicians, you can always find bad actors on both sides. Only someone totally out of touch with reality would believe either party is run by angels.

Which takes us back to my earlier comment about what aboutism simply giving everyone a free pass. So long as you can find someone on the other side behaving badly, no one can ever be held accountable for anything.

One last thing. This may be confirmation bias on my part, but it seems to me that most of the what aboutism is done by Republicans. If I’m right about that, perhaps that should tell us something.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I don't know which party does it more.

It's not about covering up both candidates being evil, it's about a situation in which one candidate (or his supporters) claims to be a champion of virtue. Or even if he doesn't make such a presumptuous claim but all the coverage is on the evilness of Evil Person #1 while ignoring the evil of Evil Person #2.

[Krychek_2]

Since when does the media only report on the evil of one side? Ask Hillary Clinton what kind of media coverage her emails got in 2016; it was universally awful. Hunter Biden's laptop and ties to the Ukraine have been well covered in the media (at least the media I follow). The idea that the media only gives bad coverage to one side is a fairy tale.

And besides, Hunter isn't really on point anyway since he has no official role in government, unlike Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump. His sole connection to the federal government is that his dad is President. I sure would not want to be held accountable for everything any of my relatives did; I suspect neither would you.

[Randal]

all the coverage

I know of no “evilness” on any side that hasn’t been exhaustively covered and amplified and re-covered again and again.

You’re been told – amidst coverage of the very evilness most likely – that the evilness isn’t getting covered. It doesn’t make sense on its face, but it’s a talking point you’ve chosen to believe and even repeat.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I’m not sure why you want to insult my relatives, or assume I’d want to disavow them. Disavow your *own* relatives and leave mine out of it.

And by shifting the discussion to Hillary Clinton, Hunter Biden, Ivanka Trump, etc., you illustrate the problems with the political system I’m describing, and why most people are turned off by it.

Let’s do a counter-hypothetical to my first hypothetical – this time imagine a scenario where every evil candidate’s evilness gets fully covered and acknowledged.

And I’ll make another adjustment to this new hypothetical to make it different from the original one. This time, I’ll assume there are more than just two candidates, that there are third-party candidate to turn to, on equal terms with the to major evil candidates.

But here’s a situation in which the two lesser-evil parties would take a break from their mutual accusations of evil and hypocrisy and combine with each other to rig the system against third-party candidates.

Maybe the voters will stick to the two-party system which has served them so well (/sarc). But the establishment is taking no chances, and just in case the voters are somehow dissatisfied with the major-party choices, their option will be significantly limited so that they’ll simply choose one of traditional two evil parties.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"You’re been told – amidst coverage of the very evilness most likely – that the evilness isn’t getting covered. It doesn’t make sense on its face, but it’s a talking point you’ve chosen to believe and even repeat."

I constructed a hypothetical situation without referring to parties and the response is "the media isn't covering for the Democrats!"

"I know of no “evilness” on any side that hasn’t been exhaustively covered and amplified and re-covered again and again."

How, exactly, *would* you know what wasn't being covered, unless you did more in-depth research?

[Krychek_2]

Who said anything about disavowing one’s relatives? I said I’m not responsible for them, and that you wouldn’t want to be responsible for yours. At this point you’re not even attempting fair engagement.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

In the context of a discussion of political crookedness and overall evil, where I gave purely hypothetical situations, you blurted out that omg President Biden wasn’t responsible for what Hunter did. I’d never said anything on the subject one way or the other! So to rebut something I hadn't said, you mentioned our respective families.

[Randal]

How, exactly, *would* you know what wasn’t being covered, unless you did more in-depth research?

That's what I want to know! You're the one positing the existence of evilness not getting covered. What evilness?

[Krychek_2]

Did I say that you personally said that Biden was responsible for his son? That massive chip on your shoulder could heat lower Manhattan for a week.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Ooh, good one, I think I'll use that sometime.

If only your remark were as accurate as it was clever...but it would certainly work at a cocktail party or on a bumper sticker.

[David Nieporent]

But if the subject is the ethics (or lack thereof) of individual politicians, you can always find bad actors on both sides.

That's true, but the use of the phrase "both sides" illustrates another reason the whatabouting is so bad: there are more than two sides.

I'm not a Democrat. So when people respond to my criticisms of Trump by saying "Whatabout Hillary" or "Whatabout Stacey Abrams" or whatever, that's not even identifying hypocrisy because those aren't people on my "side."

[Michael Ejercito]

Yes, i am sure you can provide links to previous comments condemning Clinton and Abrams.

Of course, Abrams did not rope law enforcement and intelligence agencies to give the illusion of credibility to her Stab in the Back®™ conspiracy theory.

[Krayt]

The same people who say this is Islamophobia are the exact same ones who said a cross upside down in a jar of piss was a good thing to shock the stultified religious Christians.

In other words, deep and deliberate offense against the religious for who and what they believed was a good thing.

This isn't whataboutism, which is the other side doing the same thing. This is the same side engaged in situational ethics, the high valuation of a principle when it supports your already-decided position, and the low valuation of it when it gets in the way of a different one.

It demonstrates the loud blowing of the horn of principles is sophistry, lies to confuse and achieve a goal.

Unless someone old enough to remember wants to apologize for that position from the 1990s.

Which you shouldn't because it was the right one in defending free speech.

[David Nieporent]

The same people who say this is Islamophobia are the exact same ones who said a cross upside down in a jar of piss was a good thing to shock the stultified religious Christians.

They are? You have some evidence that a random student at Hamline University, or even a random administrator, was commenting on an event 33 years ago?

[Krayt]

Please. It’s an ubroken chain. I await acknowledgement of a change in opinion.

You’re a bright boy. Where is the person who says, “Back then, we were very wrong to do this, and have changed our mind. It is wrong to piss off religious people by deliberately disrespecting their religion.”

I will wait, bright boy.

Anyone younger who didn’t know this happened under Bill Clinton care to announce it was wrong as well?

Bueller? Bueller?

[Krychek_2]

I very much doubt that either Piss Christ or a drawing of Mohammad would have the same response today they would have had 33 years ago.

[Krayt]

Even easier to say that was wrong back then.

Again, I don't say it is wrong. I am fully in favor of free speech that pisses off anyone, religious or otherwise. You, for various definitions of you, are the ones trying to have your cake and eat it too.

[Krychek_2]

I was responding to your specific claim that the two were treated differently. They were, but a big part of the reason is that they happened 33 years apart.

On the merits, I think that any time any religion tries to silence people the response should be a loud fuck you. Maybe Hamline needs to have an Everybody draw Mohammad day.

[Azathoth!!]

Whataboutism was devised as a means of pointing the finger at people who notice one's own hypocrisy.

It is not--

“Oh, Trump did something bad, what about Hillary’s emails.”

But rather--

Hillary and Obama and scores of other folks you favor have done this exact thing. When called on it, this thing was said to be no big deal. You insist so much that it is no big deal that we have been forced to accept that you all seem to find this behavior acceptable

But when one of ours does something that you can attach this label to suddenly it's original wrongness is re-applied.

By you, who have been forcing all and sundry to accept this when you do it

The cry of 'whataboutism' is not and can never be valid.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

I was referring to the artist, Hypocrit.

https://open.spotify.com/artist/1qu4mw1a4eBeVXgwC5oMR

As for it being a dressed up appeal to hypocrisy, the premise goes if these people doing these things just realize that they wouldn't also do it in this other hypothetical context, then they would understand their own hypocrisy and change their ways.

[Jerry B.]

Or, the “Two wrongs make a right” theory.

[Ben_]

Here we see the tactic of finger-pointing toward someone else to distract.

[Sarcastr0]

Replying to BCD's post and talking about what he said is finger pointing...At BCD....to distract from...????

[Ben_]

Sarcastr0 being dishonest, as always.

[Jonathan Affleck]

The commentators don't know how to motivate a racist Zionist anti-Jew to start screeching vacuous accusations of antisemitism.

Just point out that vicious bloodthirsty white racial supremacist Zionist colonial settler anti-Jews founded the Zionist state by atrocious genocide after the international community banned genocide and made this ban jus cogens,

Because I used to be ultra-orthodox Jewish, I always add that the Zionist movement murdered Judaism by transforming Judaism into a program of genocide.

For the coup de grâce, I point out that every Zionist under US jurisdiction must be arrested:

1. to be tried for probable violation of:
   • 18 U.S. Code § 1091 - Genocide
   • 18 U.S. Code § 2339A - Providing material support to terrorists,
2. almost certainly to be convicted, and
3. to be sentenced to a quick jab in the arm or to a long prison term

------
The cumulative fines will guarantee that every convicted Zionist anti-Jew will die penniless and impoverished.

At this point a depraved and evil Zionist anti-Jew goes into uncontrolled paroxysms of screeching vacuous charges of antisemitism.

It's pure reflexive duckspeak at a level that George Orwell could never have imagined.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Many observant Muslims would never create an image of Muhammad and will strive to avoid seeing one. So professors must not require Muslim students who believe that representation is forbidden to look at these images..."

This doesn't make sense. Students are free to decline to look at certain images for religious reasons if they choose, but their ability to engage in the study of art history will be adversely affected, and their grade might be as well.

[juris imprudent]

Perfectly fine for there to be a religious injunction against graven images - that covers creating them and/or worshiping them. That does not give license to destroy what non-believers create, nor to censor what they may choose to view, or even worship. I'm not a student of the Quran, but I'll venture that it does not require the latter behavior even if it does forbid the former. Since the latter view is not ubiquitous across all of Islam, only being stridently enforced by a noisy (and dangerous) minority.

Hmm, that does remind one of something, doesn't it?

[JohnTheRevelator]

That entire line of thinking is moronic. Unless someone was admitted to a hospital with some sort of panic attack, nobody was "harmed" nor were anyone's "lives affected." What almost certainly actually happened is that some campus karens yelled at the editors because tiktok told them any picture of Mohammed is somehow "Islamophobic." And the editors caved. It would be laughable except for the professor losing his job, and that these assholes are going to be graduating and moving into responsible positions in society.

[Krayt]

Which brings us to a probable censorship problem not far down the road.

“Look at the brain scan! Damage! Ergo elected politicians can silence that stayement.”

No. That’s how military dicatatorships rationalize banning CNN and such. “The People cannot be exposed to ideas without government to provide them context as it is damaging.”

[Ben_]

It’s not supposed to be factual. It’s just a pretext justification to do anything they want. Anything.

Arguing based on facts misses the point. They don’t care about anything you might say, factual or otherwise.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

I like the analogy to eating pork; how many even wokies would consider a Muslim ban on eating pork to require banning the entire world from eating pork?

Collectivism sucks. All attempts to dress it up as "the common good" just make it more obvious that collectivism sucks.

[juris imprudent]

Oh but you see OUR collective good is the ONLY collective good, therefore that excuses whatever excesses we indulge in to enforce it. Who can resist doing evil in the name of doing good?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Indeed, it is precisely when people feel strongly that some things must be banned (either in general or from classrooms) that we need debate about whether the objections are indeed sound. In a liberal democracy, no group can be entitled to just assert its own feelings as obligatory and demand that those feelings not be challenged. . . . This is of course evident if we change just a few of the facts. Say . . .

Say, indeed.

Say this were, instead of a student newspaper, a conservative (maybe even "often libertarian") blog operated by professors, including an ostensible advocate for free expression.

Say a commenter at that blog used a term such as "sl_ck-j_w" to describe conservatives.?

Or used terms such as "p_ssy" or "c_p succ_r" to describe conservatives at this blog?

Or employed a parody account -- say, Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland -- to poke fun at Republicans, Federalist Society members, and right-wingers.

What would the conservative professor say about that? What would he do?

Would the conservative professor's conduct with respect to criticism of conservatives differ from his conduct with respect to calls by conservatives for liberals to be gassed, placed face-down in landfills, shot in the face when answering front doors, raped, pushed into woodchippers, or sent to Zyklon showers?

Would the conservative "free speech champion" ban someone for making fun of or criticizing conservatives? Would the conservative blog cause comments criticizing conservatives to vanish?

Would the conservative professor's conduct be a worthy example for the students the professor here criticizes?

Or, if that student newspaper restores the content, would the students be several steps ahead of the professor who operates this blog and criticizes the students?

Happy hypocrisy season at the Volokh Conspiracy!

[BravoCharlieDelta]

“sl_ck-j_w”

slick jew? lmao ok, that's pretty anti-semitic but ok

[CFred]

I live hire two different people can see two different insults.
My family is from the (very) rural south and I read that as ”slack jaw" ????

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Whataboutism!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Hamline student newspaper’s staff is entitled to know that the right-wing law professor criticizing them for removing content has repeatedly engaged in viewpoint-driven censorship, removing content and banning commenters and content.

[ThanksForTheFish]

"Or, if that student newspaper restores the content, would the students be several steps ahead of the professor who operates this blog and criticizes the students?"

Unless they republished the article earlier today, how would your hypothetical work?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I believe Prof. Volokh's account indicated the newspaper would (or might) republish the relevant content.

[jdgalt1]

This piece gives rise to an interesting question. The law, at least in some places, treats hurting someone's feelings as "harm" to them. Is there, then, some formal legal term which declares some sets of feelings as so unreasonable that hurting them doesn't count as harm?

[Ed Grinberg]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_infliction_of_emotional_distress#Extreme_and_outrageous_conduct
[T]he conduct must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to feel extremely offended, shocked, and/or outraged.

[Don Nico]

What could anyone expect from brainwashed snowflakes?

[Ed Grinberg]

As Prof. Volokh points out, the "brainwashed snowflakes" here are not just the offended student(s) and the student newspaper, but the college's administration!

[great Unknown]

I am an Orthodox Rabbi for over fifty years, and I consider the statement that 'abortion is a Jewish sacrament' to be blasphemous. I eagerly await the tectonic shift in the internet that will accommodate my feelings.

[ReaderY]

Hamline’s serving as a platform of objectively hateful and offensive affronts to religious sensibilities, such as claims that the earth is more than a few thousand years old, that it revolves around the sun, or that current flora and fauna evolved over time rather than having been created in theie present, totally belie and render absurd its claim to be interested in not offending religious sensibilities.

There can be no possible justification for its facilities being used to disseminate such doctrines. Academic freedom cannot be a justification; Hamline has made clear that avoiding hate (when it wishes to avoid it) trumps it. Rather, the only possible reason for being profoundly offensive to only selected religions is that the Hamline administration doesn’t wisj to avoid hate, but rather, wishes to foster and promote it when directed against its religious enemies. It fosters the teaching of these objectively hateful doctrines for no other reason whatsoever than a deliberate wish to offend its fundamentalist Christian and Jewish students.

And in being so motivated, the progam of anti-religious hate speech the Hamline administration fosters in its astronomy, geology, and biology departments serves as evidence of its religiously discriminatory intent. Hate, the administration makes clear, is the only reason these hate doctrines are permitted to be taught in its science departments.

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

It is wise when making offensive affronts to religious sensibilities that you limit yourself to those religions that pose little or no risk of cutting your head off or tongue out. Like avoiding hate, it is all about being selective.

[End PC]

For hate you can’t beat Islam, which explicitly calls for it:

Q 60:4 : “There has arisen between us and you enmity and hatred forever unless you believe in Allah and Him alone”.
Q 98:6  "Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings." 

It even calls for violent conquest & subjugation of disbelievers in Qur'an's sura 9 especially.

Yet we Kafir are supposed to bow before Muslim sensitivities.

[David Nieporent]

Q 98:6 “Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.”

That's nothing. Wait until you hear what those wacky Christians think is going to happen to people who disbelieve.

[Mr. Bumble]

Whataboutism?

Certain Christians may have beliefs about what will happen to disbelievers in the next life. Muslims have no problem sending disbelievers to that life.

[David Nieporent]

Muslims have no problem sending disbelievers to that life.

Fortunately, Christians are all peaceful towards those with differing religious views.

[Michael P]

Very telling that you have to go back centuries for that example, versus days or weeks for examples in the other direction.

[End PC]

That's not nothing. Christian churches are not explicitly teaching hate as in Islam. Granted that Christian sects have horrible histories, at least have undergone reformations. The Catholic Church even has denounce the anathema of non-believers with Vatican II. Islam, on the other hand, has not and cannot reform.

[End PC]

What debacles like this one indicates again & again is the severe incompatibility of Islam with out Constitutional freedoms & values, for Islamic law (Sharia) does in fact forbid artistic representations of even any living animal. It even calls for the elimination of musical instruments - one can download the Sharia manual "Reliance of the Traveller" and check.

America is not an Islamic subjugated nation as others in history have been and it is shameful to bow acquiescence to Islamic law.

[End PC]

BTW images of Muhammad are today in well known books like Dante's Inferno, and a relief sculpture of Muhammad is in our Supreme Court building. What non-Muslims would demand they be removed? This disgusting "associate vice president of inclusive excellence" should be denounced & fired instead.

[Eric VonSalzen]

If you are a non-Muslim in a Muslim country, you may have to censor your expression. It used to be the case (I've been told) that a non-Muslim entering Saudi Arabia couldn't bring a Christian Bible in his/her luggage. The US doesn't do that. If a Muslim from (say) Saudi Arabia enters the US, he can bring his Koran with him. In this story, it isn't Muslims who are imposing restrictions on US speech and commentary regarding Islam. It's Americans, the primary beneficiaries of the First Amendment.
We Americans should ask ourselves, Why do we do that?

[Brett Bellmore]

At present they allow you to bring one, you only get in trouble if they think you're going to let somebody else read it.

[Mr. Bumble]

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2022/12/26/south-park-episodes-banned-from-hbo-for-depicting-islamic-prophet-muhammad/

[End PC]

BTW images of Muhammad are today in well known books like Dante’s Inferno, and a relief sculpture of Muhammad is in our Supreme Court building. This disgusting “associate vice president of inclusive excellence” should be denounced & fired instead.

[Longtobefree]

After full and careful consideration, I have allowed the Hamline Oracle to change my view on student loans. I am no longer opposed to student loans, I am now just opposed to students.

[Michael Ejercito]

Islanophobia did not exist until after 9/11.

[Brett Bellmore]

What, you mean the term?

[Michael Ejercito]

Yes.

I can personally attest yo have never heard nor read the term before 9/11.

[Sarcastr0]

Islanophobia, no.

But Islamophobia was already going gangbusters before 9-11.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Islamophobia&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=0

[Michael Ejercito]

And it jumped after 9/11.

Why did media and entertainment and academic elites suddenly decide that Islamophobia is a problem?

[Sarcastr0]

No new goalposts.

Though your new goalpost is very silly. It is not a big conspiracy why bigotry against Islam became more of a thing post 9-11.

[Brett Bellmore]

Why claims of bigotry against Islam became more of a thing.

It's always considered "bigotry" to notice what Muslims are actually doing.

[Ben_]

"Islanophobia did not exist until after 9/11."

People who don’t like America had to come up with something to blame America and Americans. Sympathy for Americans from the attack was counter to their anti-American worldview.

[darkknight9]

They shouldn't have to look far for inspiration:

Hamilton, Neil W. (1996) "Buttressing the Neglected Traditions of Academic Freedom," William Mitchell Law Review: Vol. 22: Iss. 2,
Article 13.
Available at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol22/iss2/13

Perhaps their law school could sponsor a few mandatory seminars on speech and academic freedom.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

School papers...why waste the money and effort?

[Longtobefree]

Not everyone is born a fascist; some require training.

[ThanksForTheFish]

"We are, however, dedicated to actively supporting, platforming and listening to the experiences and voices of members of our community."

I pity the organization that hires these folks out of college.

[Michael P]

Meanwhile, the Washington Post uses a picture of Orthodox Jews from New York to illustrate a story about a measles outbreak in heavily Somali communities in Ohio and Minnesota.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah yes, the antisemetic trope of Orthodox Jews not getting vaccinated...

[Ed Grinberg]

Why do I have the feeling that if someone were to bring up the "trope" of black crime, you'd be up in arms?
Is it just that Jews don't rank as highly as blacks in your personal list of "oppressed minorities" (so it's OK to make negative observations about the former, but not the latter)?

[Sarcastr0]

Naw, it's just that black criminality isn't a thing. Plenty of other explanations than that blacks have a criminal gene or even culture.

Orthodox communities really do have an issue with eschewing vaccinations. The causality there is well established.

[Gandydancer]

"black criminality isn’t a thing"

Gaslightr0 clowns himself again.

https://www.unz.com/isteve/fbi-blacks-up-to-55-9-of-known-murder-offenders-in-2019/

[Sarcastr0]

Correlation is not causation, Gandy. That's elementary. You'll need to do a lot more work to say anything real.

There's a reason this kind of shallowness is limited to antisemetic rags like Unz.

[zztop8970]

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good antisemitic narrative
- 96% of school-aged children in Hasidic schools were vaccinated against measles. https://ojpac.org/updates/video-and-statementmisleading-comments-by-drfauci-against-%E2%80%9Chasidic-jewish-peoplein-ny

You are just as poor a liar as St. Fauci

[Sarcastr0]

Are you claiming Orthodox vaccination rates and attitudes regarding same are a hoax or something? Because at least in certain enclaves, it is a well known thing. Papers on it, etc. No, that doesn't mean Orthodox Jews are inherently bad.

I won’t even pick out an article, there are plenty:

https://www.google.com/search?q=orthodox+jews+measles+vaccinations&oq=prthodox+jews+measles+vaccinations

[Bored Lawyer]

"Are you claiming Orthodox vaccination rates and attitudes regarding same are a hoax or something? Because at least in certain enclaves, it is a well known thing. Papers on it, etc. No, that doesn’t mean Orthodox Jews are inherently bad."

No. He's claiming there is no evidence that vaccination rates in Orthodox communities are any different than in the general population. Which is a fact. None of which is refuted by anything you linked to.

Now to get back to the original point:

"Meanwhile, the Washington Post uses a picture of Orthodox Jews from New York to illustrate a story about a measles outbreak in heavily Somali communities in Ohio and Minnesota."

Let's see what justification you can come up with for this bit of bigotry.

[Sarcastr0]

there is no evidence that vaccination rates in Orthodox communities are any different than in the general population. Which is a fact.

I dunno about Covid, but Measles is a thing:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/68/wr/mm6819a4.htm
Measles Outbreaks from Imported Cases in Orthodox Jewish Communities — New York and New Jersey, 2018–2019

See also: "Why Measles Hits So Hard Within N.Y. Orthodox Jewish Community" by Kaiser Health News.
And: "Interviews with Orthodox Jewish moms reveal barriers to measles vaccination"

Can you see why this might indicate that the unlinked NYT article could have been about measles vaccination issues in subpopulations generally, and Michael is full of shit?

[zztop8970]

Did you bother to read what I Iinked to? "Those two factors (young people are not fully vaccinated against Measles due to CDC rules, and Measles attacks mostly children) explains why when there is a Measles outbreak such as the one in 2018-2019, cases would more likely hit children in the Hasidic community than in other communities.

[Sarcastr0]

I did note your anecdote.
It conflates Hasidic Jews with Orthodox,
It is an opinion piece
It relates to only one event.

I don't think it's dispositive, and I don't think the medical community is riven with anti-Semites when they write about this.

[zztop8970]

It is a press release by the **Orthodox** Jewish Public Affairs Council, which explains the reason for the anecdote you mentioned (the 2019 measles outbreak.). But sure, I'll let you educate me about the importance of the Mitnagdim stream in modern Orthodox Judaism as compared to the Hasidic movement. Bonus points if you can even name a single prominent Mitnagdim congregation today.

Did I miss your explanation for why the WaPo saw fit to illustrate a story about a measles outbreak among the Somali community in Ohio and Minnesota with pictures of Orthodox Jews in NY?

[elnurmamedrafiev]

Black criminality certainly is a thing. Not only are they disproportionately represented in crime everywhere in the world they exist in large numbers, but their culture excuses and even celebrates it.

[juris imprudent]

"a criminal gene or even culture"

Neither nature nor nurture - must be all economic! I certainly agree there is no genetic propensity, but to ignore culture (or subculture to be precise) will run you afoul of Sowell's observations and theory.

[Krayt]

"[T]rauma and lived experiences," the newspaper says, "are not open for debate."

This is just a shameful retread of a religious trick to keep people in line. To even question the tenets of the religion is itself a sin.

Politics and religion are not just similar phenomena -- things you don't talk about at cocktail parties. They are the exact same phenomenon.

[elnurmamedrafiev]

Islam is a caustic blend of regurgitated paganism and twisted Bible stories. Muhammad, its lone prophet, conceived his religion solely to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money. He was a terrorist.

The depiction of the prophet by the most revered Muslim sources reveals behavior that is immoral, criminal, and violent. The five oldest and most trusted Islamic sources don't portray Muhammad as a great and godly man. They confirm that he was a thief, liar, assassin, mass murderer, terrorist, warmonger, and an unrestrained sexual pervert engaged in pedophilia, incest, and rape. He authorized deception, assassinations, torture, slavery, and genocide. He was a pirate, not a prophet.

[MDJD in NY]

What about the harm to Prof. Berkson? what about his "lived experience"? Do they receive less priority than those of the students he purportedly offended?

[Bob from Ohio]

Another data point for the elimination of tax free status and seizure of the endowments of colleges.

[Ben_]

This is why none of your intellectual talk about free speech is very useful, Prof. Volokh.

The response to arguments will always be that unwelcome speech causes injury and death. And unwelcome [anything else] also causes injury and death. And therefore leftists get to do whatever they want, because anything else causes injury and death. Absolutely anything they'd like to do is therefore justified (maybe even heroic) and always will be.

And the harm they cause doing it doesn’t matter because QAnon/Trump/nazis/bogeymen/Putin/big oil/assault weapons/climate. Or whatever else distracts from thinking about the harm they cause.

I hope you learn this before it’s too late.

[Sarcastr0]

It's weird that leftists are in complete control, and super evil, and doing whatever they want, and yet you're still free and posting about it on the Internet.

[Ben_]

Sarcastr0 being dishonest, as always.

[Sarcastr0]

You claim the leftists will do anything. And that they are in control. And that they love to ruin the lives of ordinary Americans like you.

And yet somehow that never comes to pass.

You’re posting from emotion, not reality. And your emotions seem a really angry, miserable place.

[Ben_]

Sarcastr0 making up stuff not said, as always.

[Xenantaya]

"However, trauma and lived experiences are not open for debate."

Man, that's really going to put a crimp into my career as a litigation attorney.

[Ben_]

Don’t worry. It only applies to the special people. It’s open season on people like you and your family and me and mine.

[kkoshkin]

The idea that offense equals or causes harm is toxic and obviously wrong.

At bottom of all of these stories is adults who refuse to be adults. When students in a university go to the DEI or equivalent office and complain that Professor 123 is causing harm because his/her lecture discussed Issue ABC, there is a proper response and a predictable response. The predictable response is "we hear your authentic pain, and we will support you in trying to get Professor 123 fired." The proper response is "you're an adult and a university student. You may encounter people who disagree with your positions or question your positions or even offend you. Those people are not causing you harm any more than you are causing them harm by disagreeing with them."

Of course, calling the people who staff DEI offices "adults" is probably more than a little charitable.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland likes the way you think.

Prof. Volokh sometimes likes the way you think (in particular, when he is not censoring liberal-libertarian mainstream content to which his conservative followers object).

[Ben_]

"The proper response is ‘you’re an adult and a university student’"

Now consider: what’s the useful response if you want to choose what everyone can say and do?

[kkoshkin]

The better question is - what's the useful response if you want to justify the existence of the DEI apparatus and, therefore, your job? And therein lies the problem. The entire DEI approach incentivizes childish behavior and punishes responsible behavior.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are you saying it is a religion?

[WillisEschenbach]

I'm not an Islamophobe. A "phobia" by definition is an irrational fear of something.

I have a very rational, logical, and completely historically justified fear of Islam. For the reasons, see below. Warning: contains forbidden cartoons, so if you read it, don't get "offended". That's on you.

w.
https://rosebyanyothernameblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/10/the-problem-with-islam/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Are you similarly troubled by other forms of superstition, especially in light of the vivid and sordid record of organized religion (adult-onset superstition) across centuries?

[TheAmazingEmu]

I agree with almost all of what you have written. That being said, the one point I'd push back on is where you mention "finals week" isn't normally a basis for newspapers to remove published material. I would agree, but I'd also think a student paper will have some things that are not normally part of non-student papers. The idea that something is a complicated issue and they'd like to deal with it when they aren't busy with exams that could determine their livelihoods when they're not dealing with a paper is an issue unique to student papers and wouldn't appear elsewhere.

To the extent this is legitimate and not just backtracking, I think some sympathy is warranted. If they fail to follow through after finals, I think all criticism is warranted. But I can understand not wanting to deal with this issue at this exact moment and preferring to address it after.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If that's the case, they could have said it in their editorial, not in an email to some outsider asking awkward questions.

[Mr. Bumble]

"“We are a student publication that is here to provide a space to elevate the voices of students.”"....to the exclusion of everyone else.

[Bored Lawyer]

Except the editor did not give that excuse. Did the paper ever publish anything by a professor? You don't know, and one would expect the editor to say that does not happen if that is the case.

[Mr. Bumble]

He quoted nothing! Just gave his idea of what is in Christian scripture.

[End PC]

Much more compatible anyway, esp in view of the fact that Christian sects allow for separation of religion & state based on Jesus's "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" . Islam has no such separation and want's the entire world under a single caliphate. Also Christianity's Jesus had a love your neighbor teaching, as opposed to the extremely intolerant teachings of Muhammad, and then there's all the Sharia rules oppressing women.

[Sarcastr0]

He made a point about reading other people's religious text looking for stuff to call out.

A religion is not it's text.

[Lee Moore]

This might be a more potent "gotcha !" if this very point - about making allowances Jewish religious practices - were not a long running sore in Israeli politics. Secular and not very strictly orthodox Jews, and their political representatives, tend to be rather resentful of what they regard as excessive pandering to the ultra orthordox, whereby the seculars etc are loaded up with extra burdens, because the ultra orthodox are given exemptions, not to mention lotsa welfare.

This has been given added spice recently by someone dredging up years-old quotes from Netanyahu complaining in like vein, while the 2022 Bibi depends on the ultra orthodox for his majority.

In short, a lack of enthusiasm for entertaining special privileges for religiously observant Jews does not, of itself, betoken anti-semitism. For plenty of semites also feel the same lack of enthusiasm.

[Ed Grinberg]

Why such vitriol? Is it because he said something against abortion? Or because he's an Orthodox Rabbi?
Either way, you need help...