The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Academic Freedom Alliance Statement Regarding Hamline University
Art history professor fired for showing class a famous Persian art work depicting the Prophet Muhammad
The Academic Freedom Alliance released a statement regarding the decision of Hamline University to fire an instructor for showing a class in global art history a picture of a medieval Persian painting depicting the Prophet Muhammad. This is an appalling violation of academic freedom.
The painting in question is widely regarded as an important work of art in the Persian and Islamic traditions, and it is regularly exhibited and taught in classrooms across the globe. A video of the class session reportedly indicates that the professor took care to give a "content warning" and provide necessary context before the image was shown to the class. The class itself was apparently virtual, and the instructor gave students an opportunity to turn off their own video feed to avoid viewing the image.
Some students in the class complained that they felt disrespected by the showing of an image of Muhammad which some devout Muslims regard as unacceptable. The associate vice president for inclusive excellence denounced the instructor's actions as "inconsiderate, disrespectful and Islamophobic" and "unacceptable" in a Hamline classroom. The president then announced to the campus community that academic freedom "should not and cannot be used to excuse away behavior that harms others." The putatively harmful behavior in this context was showing to students in a college class a famous work of Islamic art. Nonetheless, the president concluded that "respect, decency, and appreciation of religious and other differences should supersede" academic freedom.
This is an egregious affront to academic freedom, as both PEN America and FIRE have likewise recognized. The incident first came to public view as a result of an online article by University of Michigan art professor Christiane Gruber.
Hamline University has made a contractual commitment to its faculty to respect and protect their academic freedom. The Hamline University Faculty Handbook as approved by the Board of Trustees in 2021 is clear. Hamline adopted without reservation the 1940 statement on academic freedom endorsed by the American Association of University Professors and the American Association of Colleges. Section 3.1.2 of the Handbook guarantees that "all faculty members are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject." The guarantee extends to every individual at Hamline who is working in an instructional capacity regardless of whether they enjoy the protections of tenure. There is simply no question that introducing students to an important piece of Islamic art in a global art history class is covered by this principle of academic freedom. Hamline's own stated commitment to academic freedom is unqualified. There is no exception for students who feel offended or disrespected by materials they encounter in the course of their college education.
and
In your message to campus, you noted that "Hamline University is composed of people with diverse views, expectations, and interactions." Indeed it is, but the implication that you apparently have drawn from this fact is untenable. Art frequently offends. It was not long ago that Catholics were deeply offended by the exhibition of Andres Serrano's "Immersion (Piss Christ)" and Chris Ofili's "The Holy Virgin Mary," which portrayed the Virgin Mary with pornographic images and elephant dung. Prosecutors once attempted to shut down a museum exhibit of Robert Mapplethorpe's homoerotic photographs, and censors long suppressed the distribution of classic works of twentieth century literature like D.H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover and James Joyce's Ulysses. Only months ago, the celebrated novelist Salman Rushdie was nearly killed in a violent assault stemming from a religious extremist's condemnation of his depiction of Muhammad. Conservative Christian students at the University of North Carolina attempted to prohibit the assignment of passages of the Quran as disrespectful of their religious beliefs, and conservative Christian students at Duke University demanded that Alison Bechdel's graphic memoir Fun House not be assigned because "Jesus forbids his followers from exposing themselves to anything pornographic." If every student at Hamline University has the ability not only to veto offensive classroom content but to terminate professors for introducing such material into their classroom, then a vast swath of literature and art will be off-limits to the students and faculty there.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Hey, let's be fair. It's possible that Hamline would also have fired a professor who showed those works to an art history class.
The difference being, Piss Christ was designed specifically to offend, whereas showing this painting was simply instruction in art history.
Yup. This incident is exactly like Piss Christ, except for the piss.
No they wouldn't, they'd probably offer him an endowed chair if he showed those things.
As an alumnus of that institution, I assure you that such a person would not be fired. To the contrary, it would be the surest way to receive applause from students and faculty alike.
Bad news Keith, there is no 'academic freedom'.
Comply or die (academically speaking).
Either spout the socialist line or say goodbye to publishing, teaching, and speaking.
Learn to code.
I'd say: the Cultural-Marxist line.
In this case, the Cultural-Marxist line is: We must never ever do or say anything that might in any way offend . . . anyone? Well, no: it's perfectly fine to offend Christians, for instance. But definitely not Muslims!
Aren't Christians socialists if they really follow Christ?
No. Next question?
Just to clarify, by "Christian" do we mean "followers of Jesus" or "followers of churches set up in his name"?
https://i.imgur.com/39qQr5v.jpeg
Jesus doesn't really lay out the means of charity.
Of course, you're free to interpret Jesus as you want - all faiths are in some way mediated.
But don't be surprised if some folks have a bit of judgement for your choices of interpretation.
I suppose at least you didn't go prosperity gospel.
Well, the link between Christian belief and socialism goes back a long way. Acts 2:44-45 states of the early church "And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need." (RSV)
Volunteer communism takes some of the sting out of communism.
And a lot of Christian religious communities in succeeding centuries have also involved holding property in common. There's a big difference between that and having the government own the means of production (usually regarded as an essential feature of socialism).
If conservatives considered that bad news, they wouldn't turn every campus they get their hands on into a censorship-shackled, academic freedom-rejecting, nonsense-teaching, dogma-enforcing, science-suppressing, speech and conduct code-imposing, fourth-tier (or unranked) hayseed production facility.
Do you guys really expect the liberal-libertarian mainstream to be in the market for pointers on academic freedom and school quality from conservatives? This right-wing nipping at the heels and ankles of your betters is tiresome.
Pathetic.
Why? The marketplace of ideas sifts this. People who prefer shitty, nonsense-ridden, low-quality schools have rights, too. It is a shame when young children are afflicted by lousy, conservative-controlled education because their parents are losers, though.
This is such a great list! Let's examine them shall we?
- "censorship-shackled". Well, actually, the very topic of this post is but the latest example of how the liberal-libertarian mainstream not only shackles its employees, it summarily fires them for making the mistake of actually practicing the teaching of historically important works of art in a class on Art History. Grade: F
- "academic freedom-rejecting". Hard to get more rejecting than being fired for teaching. Grade: F
- "nonsense-teaching". Such a target-rich environment on this one. "Men can be women"? Check. But "woman" cannot be defined? Also, check. Nonsense. Grade: F
- "dogma-enforcing". The liberal-libertarian mainstream is so infected with dogma, it really approaches a religion at this point. Here's your test: try teaching about something that goes against their dogma. Hoot, just try going on campus and speaking about it. You will get a mob shouting you down. Grade: F
- "science-suppressing". Actually, we just had a fantastic experiment on the suppression of The Science. It turns out that every single thing we were told about COVID 19 mitigations was wrong. Masks? Wrong. Separation? Wrong. Vaccine efficacy? Wrong. No harmful side effects? Wrong. School lockdowns? Wrong. I could go on, but if we have learned absolutely nothing in the past three years, it is that the liberal-libertarian mainstream has politicized science. Grade: F
- "code-imposing". Happily, we also have right at hand a perfect example of code-imposing, courtesy of Stanford's List of Bad Words Thou Shalt Never Utter Not Ever. Unbelievable. Grade: F
- "fourth-tier (or unranked) hayseed production facility". Ah, now we're getting to the Rev's foundational bias. He's just bigoted against any institution that doesn't sport a Blue Check. Can't give a grade on this one, because it's just an uninformed opinion.
Anyways, thanks as always, Rev, for seeding the conversation with things to think about.
You stick with Ouachita Baptist, Wheaton, Liberty, Regent, Ave Maria, Hillsdale, and the other conservative-operated schools, Dave M, while your betters settle for Yale, Harvard, Berkeley, Columbia, NYU, and other strong, mainstream, reason-based, liberal-libertarian institutions.
Tired of winning yet, clinger?
I suspect the Hamline administration probably would fire an art professor who showed Piss Christ, and feel justified and right in doing so. So if the intention is to try to influence Hamline by comparing to something the administration might have a problem firing a professor over, to talk to them rather than at them, analogies like this are simply not going to work. One has to be careful about who ones audience is here.
There are still plenty of people in this country deeply offended by the presentation of doctrines such as that the universe is more than a few thousand years old, or that current flora and faunae including human beings evolved over time rather than being created in their current state. That strikes me as the better analogy for a case like this.
Any organization that has an 'associate vice president for inclusive excellence' has already drunk deeply from the Kool-Aid. They are going to keep on destroying any credibility they ever had.
Stick with Hillsdale, Grove City, Regent, Liberty, Ouachita Baptist, Franciscan, and the hundreds of other downscale conservative schools . . . it suits you.
And you are going to lose the culture war anyway, so you might as well spend the time you have remaining before replacement among friends.
A goal to get along and include others is well and good. The silly name and bureaucratic meaningless labeling demonstrate virtue signaling alone.
And you can stick with Wellesley, Berkeley, and other schools where they teach that a man who ejaculates into another man's colon is a hero.
"I suspect the Hamline administration probably would fire an art professor who showed Piss Christ"
I don't -- but there is also a bigger issue here -- what if the professor was showing it in a context of art HISTORY? That's pretty much what happened here.
And while I don't know Jewish theology very well, aren't there some Jews who can't/won't/don't use the word "God" for some theological reason? (I mean no disrespect here, but am I not right?)
OK, imagine they demanding a professor be fired for using the word "God." That's what really happened here.
I fully agree that the professor here was intending to present historical facts rather than making a thological statement (as Piss Christ might be interpreted to make). But that’s a further argument why e.g. the theory of evolution, which also attempts to explain historical facts rather than make a theologiclal statement, is the better analogy here.
Could not but help laughing at remembering Monty Python doing a bit about stoning someone for saying the secret name of God.
associate vice president for inclusive excellence
Well, I think I found the problem.
What a joke this University is. Laughable.
Let's say a professor offering a course on the history of rap played "Cave Bitch" by Ice Cube. Firing offense?
Rap in a rap class? "They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash."
Cave bitch is a racist slur against white women.
For that fact to matter, you have to propose a more thorough hypothetical.
It's hard to teach about rap without teaching some of the more...problematic stuff. If you take a class like this thinking it will all be MC Hammer, you're probably not the intended audience.
Right, which is why I don't think playing "Cave Bitch" would be a firing offense (or even controversial). DMX's "Where the Hood At?" has some hard-core lyrics. Dire Strait's Money for Nothing is a great song, but most radio station's delete the anti-gay slur.
Rap is a music phenomenon in America--to study it is to look at it, warts and all.
Much as this white, male, right-wing blog deletes certain words when they are used to describe or make fun of conservatives.
" Dire Strait’s Money for Nothing is a great song, but most radio station’s delete the anti-gay slur. "
Which, in the 1980s, wasn't even intended to be anti-gay.
Remember that "little" modifies the offensive word.
It was in the lyric to criticize and/or make fun of bigots. Ask someone with an education to explain it to you.
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.
Actually, the Caliph of Damascus commissioned the Quran to underpin the already won conquest of the Mediterranean region by Arab armies in the seventh century, and his author invented the prophet of Allah to convey the "unifying" message about a deity that resembles a medieval Arab chieftain in a cobbled together mixture of Samarian Judaism, Gnostic Christianity, and Babylonian Baal worship. Centuries of conflicting hadiths encrusted this myth with all manner of interpretations and exceptions for the warring sects of the Arabs who occupied former Christendom. Mohammed embodies all that you say, but the essential fact is that he is a myth.
This some Jack Chick Moon God shit.
I'm always amazed when people declare historical people to be myths. You may argue about the details of what they did, but we're discussing people who really lived, just as much as Joseph Smith or L. Ron. Hubbard.
"even though no one else ever saw them"
Yeah, are there really well-informed people who think Muhammad didn’t exist? I’m ignorant of the history but I know he comes from time and place where there are lots of records so there should be no more reason to doubt his existence than any other historical figure from that period. Records from the time of Christ are spottier, but I’ve never found arguments that Jesus of Nazareth didn’t exist persuasive because even critics of Christianity who lived shortly after the time of Christ didn’t argue that.
The guys at "The Rest Is History" podcast just recently covered this subject. There is apparently some indirect evidence that Jesus was an actual historical figure, but nothing conclusive. Too minor a figure (at the time) in too minor a region (at the time).
Before the War on Terror, no one cared about this at all. South Park had a pre-WOT episode with the "Super Best Friends," where different religious figures were on a Justice League-type team. Muhammad was among them, and no one--not one person--cared that they depicted him. Now, you can't get that episode on streaming because of the depiction. Another episode depicting Muhammad was censored by Comedy Central, even though the entire point of that episode was to critique not being allowed to depict Muhammad. (If I were the South Park guys, I would have told the studio execs to go fuck themselves and walked out--but I know that's easier to say when it's not your job and creation you're walking away from.)
This is a long way of saying that no Muslim is really offended by this because this was never a prohibition. There's a reason why ancient Islamic art makes these depictions, namely, it wasn't a problem until this century (except by maybe a handful of extremists).
The Protestants of Islam - eg, the Wahhabis (sp?) - frown on images. Their opinions are important for a reason which rhymes with "boil."
Mohel?
Red states are going to have to solve this. Coursework at Hamline completed after 2025 should no longer be accredited to count for professional licensing requirements in red states. Nor should transfers of credits from those Hamline courses be counted in red state government-operated universities.
Same for other universities where hecklers get a veto. That would solve these issues.
You figure Republicans and conservatives — and the shit-rate, nonsense-saturated schools they control and operate — would be winners in an accreditation war?
Some of you dumbasses are just too stupid to live.
Which, from the perspective of the triumphant liberal-libertarian mainstream, is not all bad.
And just think, you learned how to be a purveyor of shit-rate, nonsense-saturated posts without having gone to one of these schools . . . . bravo.
So much for full faith and credit. I thought you liked the Constitution.
What does the Constitution have to do with this?
Hamline is a private university.
Suppose some religious zealot opens a private university, GodU, that issues Doctorates of Medicine and teaches that "only God heals and science is the work of the devil" and has no scientific based curriculum.
Surely you don't think that the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires that licensing boards in every state are required to accept GodU degrees in medicine as satisfying education requirements for doctors - do do you?
Nor should transfers of credits from those Hamline courses be counted in red state government-operated universities.
Read moar.
"some religious zealot opens a private university, GodU, that issues Doctorates of Medicine'
That actually happened -- look up the history of Osteopathic Medicine. They are still DOs and not MDs....
So all accreditation schemes are unconstitutional? Why didn’t anyone say it before?
It’s amazing how people like you make up fake constitutional "requirements" to try to tie the hands of anyone who would ever try to solve any problem.
All you ever do is complain. When there’s a problem you complain. When someone wants to do something to address a problem, you complain about the remedy.
A phobia is a fear. To call someone islamophobic is to accuse that person of fearing Islam. But people who use that word are accusing others of hating Islam. That would be islamomisic.
Evidently, arbiters of behavior delight in using inappropriate coinage as if doing so demonstrated their moral superiority over those with whom they disagree.
Congratulations! You are the 1,000,000th person to use this idiot argument on the Internet this year! (5783, I mean, not 2023.) You win an all-expense paid trip to Sophistryland!
Rep. Chip Roy of Texas just stated on national television that he represents "disaffected" Americans.
Carry on, clingers.
"If every student at Hamline University has the ability not only to veto offensive classroom content but to terminate professors for introducing such material into their classroom, then a vast swath of literature and art will be off-limits to the students and faculty there."
Not a swath but all of it, nor just literature and art but all subjects if anything upsets anyone about anything.
Well, maybe maths... well, maybe not because it has those pesky arabic numerals.
Conservatives love off-limits facts, science, and reason . . . just look at conservative-controlled schools.
I must say that, though I support the AFA's mission and efforts, I am getting a little bored at their "tilting at windmills".
The public spotlight on academia is simply not working. You cannot shame those who have no moral compass (be they Trump, US academia, the legacy press, ...).
As the "ethics of the fathers" noted long ago, "אין בור ירא חטא" - the ignoramus does not fear sin.
Actually these are people who have a moral compass. And a really strong magnet in their pockets, so it points whichever way they face at the moment.
Hamline should lose its accreditation.
Ha ... having gone through accreditation several times in my career, I can confidently say that the process is completely worthless and useless.
The bureaucrats involved typically spend huge amounts of time on utterly irrelevant minutiae and ignore or miss huge gaping problems in the program.
Agreed.
I said "should" -- and the other side of accreditation: https://fee.org/articles/the-ugly-truth-about-college-accreditation/
HOWEVER extreme things like this, when done by conservatives, HAVE lead to threats from accreditors, which show how biased they are.
The only reason people are claiming that speech is “harmful” is because we let them get away with it. They know that our words don’t really hurt them. We know they don’t really hurt. We’re all just acting like they do.
My solution is to stop being an enabler. I do not control you, I only control me. I will never be intentionally offensive, so if you take offense anyway, that’s on you, not me. I don’t owe you anything other than a good faith effort. And you, likewise, to me.
If they've committed to academic freedom and they acted like this, then yes. For BYU's rules about pre-marital sex, I think them silly, but it's clear that they are disclosed upfront.
Complaints from evil leftists like yourself.
It's called "research", Queen almathea:
https://www.startribune.com/hamline-adjunct-faculty-votes-for-union/264051231/#mCZ9t1r8Fvzmp8QJ.97
Yep, adjuncts there are represented by SEIU....
Yes.
I believe in pluralism. If BYU wants to set up rules about pre-marital sex, so be it.
Not fair advertising as much as honoring contracts -- if they say that they honor X, Y, & Z then they gotta do it.
Thanks for posting. Not much to argue with there - would be good if they practiced it.
Clearly it would not pass through Hamline's collective head that restricting what a lecturer can teach like this is disrespectful, and that this does not promote " the rights, safety, dignity, and value of every individual" but only those of certain individuals, the most sensitive in the university.
I don't see how simply showing controversial material would be *personal* vilification toward anyone unless it was *intended* as vilification.
Many years ago, while attending Hamline (and more conservative than I am today), I was invited to be part of a panel in which we spoke on whether right-leaning students were welcomed at Hamline. The entire session quickly spiraled into the crowd (including administrators) basically just wanting to argue with me and the other right-leaning student asked to participate. It was so bad that the organizer personally apologized and admitted that, after the event, she understood why I said that the liberals were the closed-minded ones.
My point is - Hamline has been (for decades) openly hostile to conservative opinions, and, having stayed involved with one of the organizations there, I assure you that it's not gotten any better. You can write all the pablums about open dialogue and respect for different opinions you like. But its meaningless drivel. Because its real activity is providing liberal indoctrination and churning out navel-gazing liberal activists and busybody government bureaucrats.
If your pluralism is so great it allows academic institutions with restrictions on speech and thought, that's absolutely legit.
But then you can't complain about academic freedom.
It's actually breach of contract.
SRG, I don't think we have the full set of facts. I'd want to know the precise sequence of events leading to the displaying of the historical artwork (a depiction of Mohammed). For example, did the professor warn students in advance that a depiction would be shown, and give any student (not just Muslim) time to exit if their conscience/beliefs required them to leave for that period of time the artwork was shown?
Sure they can complain. Right-wing culture war casualties get to complain about it as much as they like, so long as they continue to toe the lines established by their betters. Whining and whimpering is about all these losers have left, but they are and should be entitled to that.
That's really good insight.
One issue, though - there's lots of middle ground between:
-openly hostile to conservative opinions
and
-real activity is providing liberal indoctrination and churning out navel-gazing liberal activists and busybody government bureaucrats
Both are bad, but one does not require the other.
No, we at Hamline are NOT hostile to conservative students! How dare you suggest such a thing! I don't know why we even tolerate your lying kind around here!
Yes. (Although it was a Zoom class, so they didn't even have to exit; just temporarily turn off the video.)