FIRE Files Academic Freedom Complaint With Hamline University's Accrediting Agency

From FIRE's letter sent yesterday to the Higher Learning Commission (which is Hamline's accrediting agency, "a regional accreditation agency that accredits degree granting institutions of higher education that are based in the 19-state North Central region of the United States"):

To the Higher Learning Commission:

As a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to defending freedom of speech and academic freedom, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) respectfully submits this complaint regarding Hamline University, which is not in compliance with HLC's Criteria for Accreditation section 2.D., requiring the institution to be "committed to academic freedom and freedom of expression in the pursuit of truth in teaching and learning." Criteria for Accreditation; Criterion 2. Integrity: Ethical and Responsible Conduct; 2.D., Higher Learning Comm'n.

Hamline admits that it non-renewed an art history instructor last semester after a Muslim student complained that, during a discussion about Islamic art, the instructor facilitated an optional, in-class viewing of a renowned 14th century painting depicting the Prophet Muhammad, which the student said offended her religious beliefs. See, e.g., Scott Jaschik, Academic Freedom vs. Rights of Muslim Students, Inside Higher Ed (Jan. 3, 2023).

Such nonrenewal violates both HLC and Hamline policies clearly committing the university to free expression and its corollary, academic freedom for all faculty, with Hamline claiming it "is committed to academic freedom and celebrates free expression for everyone. The University embraces the examination of all ideas, some of which will potentially be unpopular and unsettling, as an integral and robust component of intellectual inquiry." Hamline University's statement of civility, Office of Inclusive Excellence, Hamline Univ.

As HLC knows, academic freedom entitles faculty to full freedom in the classroom to teach any material pedagogically relevant to the subject of the course. 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, Am. Ass'n of Univ. Professors.

FIRE has attempted to resolve this matter before seeking HLC's intervention. We wrote Hamline detailing our objections on December 27, 2022. FIRE Letter to Hamline University, December 27, 2022, Found. for Indiv. Rights and Expression.

Hamline President Fayneese Miller has since doubled down on the university's initial statement that "respect for the observant Muslim students in that classroom should have superseded academic freedom…. Academic freedom is very important, but it does not have to come at the expense of care and decency toward others." On December 31, she wrote: "Students do not relinquish their faith in the classroom," suggesting any teaching that might offend a student's religion could be censored. Anthony Gockowski, Hamline stands by removal of art instructor, Alpha News (Jan. 3, 2023).

This conception of academic freedom is inconsistent with all widely established standards and HLC requirements.

Accrediting agencies like HLC are often the last line of defense for faculty members' expressive freedoms, particularly adjuncts who lack tenure protection and the resources to challenge such decisions. HLC's Standard 2.D. is one of the strongest protections for student and faculty expression at private institutions in the United States, and FIRE urges HLC to hold Hamline accountable for violating this laudable standard….

For more on the underlying controversy, see here. Disclosure: FIRE has engaged me to consult on various matters, but not on anything having to do with this case. FIRE is also representing me in Volokh v. James, an unrelated matter.

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes....

And for those not familiar with higher ed, loss of accreditation instantly results in the institution closing because it's the end of federal funding.

It will be interesting to see what the HLC does...

[Gandydancer]

Firing the professor was ridiculous but I’m not in favor of denying accreditation for any other reason than bad teaching and grading and the like. And I’m not convinced that Hamline’s art history instruction is or will necessarily become below par if it continues on its present course. The Higher Learning Commission is anyway far more likely to misuse this power for outrageously bad purposes than for arguably good ones and appealing to it to do so for the latter is far more likely to encourage and facially legitimize the former than to have a net good effect.

[John F. Carr]

Put them on double secret probation. This time.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As long as Hamline admits they ought have done it, HLC will put them on probation for a year or two. Now if Hamline doesn't, HLC will have a real problem because they are in a lot of Red states whose legislatures are going to be upset.

Of course, if Hamline does -- will they have rioting Muslims?

[David Nieporent]

Of course, if Hamline does — will they have rioting Muslims?

No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[Krayt]

I'm not big on the enforcer end of cancellation (money, always the money, be it funding or a job) but in this case, it's like the left jamming a long rifle into Jerry's mouse hole, and he bends it back around and out through another, so when Tom fires, he shoots himself in the ass.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do right-wingers genuinely wish to begin accreditation inquiries with respect to the hundreds of conservative-controlled, low-quality schools that

1) teach nonsense;
2) engage in viewpoint-driven discrimination (hiring, admissions, discipline, etc.);
3) reject -- make that flout -- academic freedom;
4) suppress science to flatter silly superstition;
5) warp history to benefit childish dogma; and
6) impose old-timey conduct and speech codes?

Bring it on, clingers. The modern American mainstream erred when it accepted accreditation of nonsense-teaching, censorship-shackled goober factories; this might be a good time to address that mistake by refusing to acknowledge anything from a Liberty or Regent as an undergraduate or graduate degree.

[rloquitur]

Are you for real or a troll bot?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I am someone who wouldn't mind seeing for-profit and superstition-addled "schools" held to account by legitimate, modern, reason-based accreditation standards.

People are entitled to believe, teach, and study as they wish. Mainstream America is not required to indulge nonsense or respect low-quality performance.

[Bored Lawyer]

Third option: deluded lunatic off his meds.

[Frank Drackman]

He's Gerald Arthur Sandusky (born January 26, 1944) is an American retired college football coach and convicted serial child molester. Sandusky served as an assistant coach for his entire career, mostly at Pennsylvania State University under Joe Paterno, from 1969 to 1999, the last 22 years as defensive coordinator. He received "Assistant Coach of the Year" awards in 1986 and 1999.[3] Sandusky authored several books related to his football coaching experiences.

[Savage Truth]

The article is about Hamline and academic freedom, and not about FIRE (the leading NONPARTISAN free speech advocate). FIRE or several other organizations could have brought the complaint.

Does the complaint have merit? If so, what is the remedy?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Has FIRE ever asked Prof. Eugene Volokh to explain why he banished Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland from the Volokh Conspiracy (for the crime of parodying the Volokh Conspiracy's bigoted right-wing fans a bit too deftly for the Volokh Conspiracy's taste)?

Has FIRE ever asked Prof. Volokh why the Volokh Conspiracy has forbidden -- in some cases, removed -- comments that use terms such as "sl_ck-j_wed," "c_p succ_r" and "p_ssy" to describe conservatives and Republicans? (This at a blog that rarely lets a month go by without using a vile racial slur.)

Has FIRE ever asked Prof. Volokh to explain the ostensible "civility standard" that Prof. Volokh uses to censor liberals while permitting conservatives to call for liberals to be shot in the face, placed face-down in landfills, gassed, raped, sent to Zyklon showers, shoved into woodchippers, etc.?

If the self-described "nonpartisan" free speech champions at FIRE conclude an accreditation agency should be notified concerning the Hamline matter, do they believe relevant law school deans should be notified concerning the repeated viewpoint-controlled censorship imposed by the Volokh Conspiracy?

Cowardly, right-wing, faux libertarian hypocrites are among my favorite culture war casualties.

(This would get better for the Volokh Conspiracy if it would simply acknowledge the mistakes and apologize.)

[rloquitur]

Wow. Astonishing.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The hypocrisy (and lack of self-awareness) is stunning.

How long do you expect mainstream academia to tolerate this?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Kirkland -- how long do you expect mainstream AMERICA to tolerate it?

That's why I don't think HLC can ignore this. It will be interesting if Hamline refuses to admit that it was wrong.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If clingers think that Hamline might be in danger while "schools" such as Ave Maria, Franciscan, Liberty, Hillsdale, Bob Jones, Oral Roberts, Biola, Wheaton, Franciscan, Ouachita Baptist, Any Directional Baptist, Every Bible, Every Faith, Cedarbrook, Regent, and dozens of other nonsense-teaching, censorship-shackled, low-grade conservative schools possess accreditation, well, they're probably gullible enough to believe in fairy tales, too.

This accreditation agency should record its leader farting on FIRE's letter, then post the video on YouTube and send the link to FIRE.

[Frank Drackman]

the "Rev" stands for "Revolting"

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is the Volock Conspiracy an accredited institution of higher education?

[Krayt]

Have you tried using slack-jawed recently?

I assume it’s a flowery description of someone so weak-minded, their mouth falls open in amazement at the littlest of things.

It turns out you’re just a second-rate Behar, and yesterday’s news, as far as offending Conspirators Prime goes.

ETA: Fire and/or VC now tackle private, religious schools whose actions do not match up to their boilerplate about academic freedom. This is due to your prompting. You should feel good about that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I was instructed not to use that term by this blog's management.

This blog is entitled to establish its rules. Cowardly hypocrites have rights, too.

I try to comply with that rule, and with the other directions concerning words and names I have been expressly forbidden to use when describing conservatives at this blog. I have asked more than once (in comments) whether those censorship rules had been rescinded or modified, with no reply.

Maybe Elon Musk should conduct a poll: Should Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland be freed from banishment, and should liberal commenters be permitted to use the terms "sl_ck-jaw_ed," "p_ssy," etc. to describe conservatives at the Volokh Conspiracy?

[sleepy cheeks]

As someone who has previously worked for an HLC accredited college I don't expect this letter to have any effect. A lot of the DEI nonsense in higher ed is a result of accreditation agencies like HLC adding it to their requirements.

Secondly even if they took the complaint seriously Hamline wouldn't have its accreditation pulled. At most there would be a notice attached to their accreditation that they're at risk of not meeting one of the requirements but even that step seems unlikely.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The wild card is what Hamline does -- and what FIRE does.

I agree that loss of accreditation is unlikely -- I've only seen it happen when insolvency was imminent -- but I don't think HLC can ignore this, particularly with Red State legislatures becoming more active in governing their state universities that are accredited by HLC.

This is the first time (I know of) that FIRE has actually called for an IHE to be de-accredited. That's significant.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Should institutions that teach that evolution is a demonic hoax launched from hell be accredited?

Should institutions that teach that fairy tales -- pure nonsense -- are true be accredited?

Should strong, legitimate schools respect or accept degrees from institutions that suppress science to flatter silly superstition?

Let the accreditation wars begin! Who knows? Maybe Yale and Penn graduates won't qualify for government positions or professional licensure in Alabama, West Virginia, Idaho, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Mississippi, rural Texas, and other can't-keep-up jurisdictions.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Maybe Yale and Penn graduates won’t qualify for government positions or professional licensure in Alabama, West Virginia, Idaho, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Mississippi, rural Texas, "

You know, that might not be a bad idea.......

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Their wrists are going to get *so* slapped.

[ReaderY]

I think this is an area where the Religion clauses diverge somewhat from the Free Speech clauses. I think that (for example) a Catholic University would have the right, on institutional religious freedom grounds, not to show Piss Christ without jeapardizing all government funding, degree recognition, etc., and the accrditation pretequisite to government funding. And I would think an Islamic university established as an Islamic university would similarly have a right to not cover paintings of Mohammed. And in this respect, I might differentiate between e.g. limiting an art class, or not covering certain books in a literature class, which involve a certain element of pure-opinion aesthetic taste and judgment, and (say) teaching that the world is flat to prospective airplane pilots or engineers, factual issues directly related to the purpose of the degree. Perhaps such a university couldn’t have an accredited art program. However, I suspect it could structure its program to avoid problems as long as things were labeled correctly. It could cover non-representational art, for example, and I suspect a whole lot more. In any event, I think the Religion Clauses ought to prevent government from wholly shutting out traditional religious universities over issues like this.

I see a university making harassment or other purely ideological claims in a different light, however. In this respect, I think the Religion Clauses cover territory that Free Speech alone doesn’t.

I think the basic reason is this. The Free Speech Clause doesn’t in general prevent government from funding only speech it finds agreeable. But the Establishment Clause is different. It prevents government from funding only religious speech it finds agreeable. This makes religious speech different from ordinary speech, at least where government funding is concerned.

I think the differences flow from there. And I think this is one of those differences. If Hamline University, acting as a religious university, found something like this offensive to its own religious doctrines, I think appealing to accredition agencies to put a stop to it or the university loses all government funding would be problematic from a Religion Clause point of view. But since it isn’t doing that, only Free Speech is at issue, I think government, acting through the acceditation agencies, has a right to impose limits on pain of a funding cutoff threat.

I think, in all of this, one has to look at the question of a university’s institutional freedom. Under Sweeney v. New Hampshire, the “four freedoms” of academic freedom were the institutional freedoms of a university, not individual professors, to decide who may teach, what may be taught, etc.. Under Sweeney, academic freedom is precisely Hamline University’s freedom to fire the art professor, not the art professor’s freedom not to be fired.

The Supreme Court has more or less abandoned Sweeney’s institutional approach, which perhaps reached its zenith in Griswold v. Connecticut’s conception of privacy a right of a marriage as an instution (Griswold cited Sweeney as an example of institutional rights). The institutional approach was already in retreat by Eisenstadt v. Baird a few years later, which focused on individuals as individuals. I’m not sure abandoning Sweeney was correct. I’ve always thought Griswold was defensible as a maximal extension of the First Amendment but Eisenstadt requires creatijg a new right from whole cloth. But regardless, it seems to me that the Supreme Court has retained a more Sweeney-like concept of institutional rights when it comes to religous institutions, stronger than the First Amendment institutional rights of institutions generally.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Sweeney didn't involve the right to receive Federal funds.