The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Hamline President Keeps Digging
In email to campus Hamline University president reemphasizes that academic freedom does not exist there
Hamline University is going through some things. After terminating an instructor of art history for showing a class artwork that offended some Muslim students, numerous scholars and advocacy groups have denounced the university's actions as a serious affront to academic freedom. FIRE has gone further an filed a complaint with an accreditation agency.
Part of what made the case particularly remarkable was the unusual degree of clarity about their priorities from the university leadership. Usually university presidents try not to be so explicit about what they are doing when they ride roughshod over academic freedom. But Hamline's president tells you how things are:
Our response to the classroom event does not disregard or minimize the importance of academic freedom. It does state that respect, decency, and appreciation of religious and other differences should supersede when we know that what we teach will cause harm.
Having now heard from academic freedom experts, the president of the Hamline University followed up with another email to the campus community reaffirming that student sensitivities trump academic freedom at Hamline.
"As has been reported, this past semester an adjunct instructor displayed images of the prophet Muhammad. Students do not relinquish their faith in the classroom. To look upon an image of the prophet Muhammad, for many Muslims, is against their faith," she said in a prepared statement included in the email.
"Questions about how best to discuss Islamic art have been raised by many academics and is certainly an issue worthy of debate and discussion. For those of us who have been entrusted with the responsibility of educating the next generation of leaders and engaged citizens, it was important that our Muslim students, as well as all other students, feel safe, supported, and respected both in and out of our classrooms. As we have stated, in the immediate aftermath of students' expressed concerns, the University's initial response and actions were to address our students' concerns. And, contrary to what has been reported and become the story, it is important that this aspect be reported. It is also important that we clarify that the adjunct instructor was teaching for the first time at Hamline, received an appointment letter for the fall semester, and taught the course until the end of the term," her statement continued.
The board of trustees at Hamline will have to weigh in on whether or not Hamline is a serious university.
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
If you want to be first, schedule your post for 7:59 AM Eastern Time. Eugene Volokh likes 8:01 AM for his.
I say this is progress. The publicity at least elicited some transparency and a statement by the President that can be debated. That's better than "no comment." In the language of formal debates, we have a proposition that defines the subject of the debate.
He just left out "our betters, chucking stuff into the top of my echo chamber, for me to follow without thought, changed their mind from 25 years ago, where a cross upside down in urine, paid for by government, offended Christians, but said offense to Christians was the intended goal and good thing, to shake things up, now continue their fight "not against Christianity" by swapping principles and now caring about offending the religious via government action."
It's all "tribal" us vs. them asininity writ large...and obvious.
So stop believing you're following some sacred principle. These hacks are not. Their only principle is all principles are to be sacrificed to power.
Legion are such things on both sides, of course.
"but said offense to Christians was the intended goal and good thing, to shake things up, now continue their fight “not against Christianity” by swapping principles and now caring about offending the religious via government action.”
Yes. Exactly. That's why it is better than "no comment". We can raise the hypocrisy and debate it.
And if hypocrisy and censorship are to be debated, you picked the right blog at which to debate (and encounter, somewhat regularly) viewpoint-driven censorship and hypocrisy.
This WILL get interesting because a lot of issues are going to have to be resolved, including SEIU representation of adjunct faculty (who are unionized there under SEIU) -- and how much longer can SEIU remain quiet?
Likewise, with a defiant president, I doubt the accreditor can remain silent -- not with a defiant president.
The other wild card here is that Hamline did an awful lot of building in the past couple decades and one has to wonder how their finances are?
This will get interesting....
It's only built one major building in the past twenty years (it also did an improvement of its stadium, but it's not major). Otherwise, you have go to back to the late 1990s or early 2000s, when it built a field house and apartments. I'm sure both buildings have been paid off by now.
Are you saying that Dr. Ed made up facts?
OK, in fairness, Dr. Ed puts "the late '90s" in the "last couple of decades" and it isn't -- and presumes a 30 year bond because that is what he has always seen.
I must admit that I was surprised by the U-MI 100 year bonds -- here is Forbes on that: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2022/03/12/university-of-michigan-issues-record-2-billion-in-bonds/?sh=109133ca533c
Hamline is outside the scope of the "local" IHEs whose finances I am aware of -- I'm not sure that Hamline is even in the same time zone.
I'm not "making stuff up" -- I'm merely speculating...
"I’m sure both buildings have been paid off by now."
I'm not -- if you go with the standard 30 year bond, that means that they are still paying on anything built after 1992. With the recent low interest rates, some institutions were going for 35 year bonds -- the University of Michigan actually went with some 100 year bonds.
And then you can refinance your bonds to use your equity towards a new bond issue -- which can even be used to address deferred maintenance. UMass played so many games with bonds over the years that I've literally lost track of which bonds are guaranteed by what -- although I know of at least three guaranteed by the ability of UMass to charge a specified minimum number of students a mandatory fee.
Now if Hamline only went with 20 year bonds -- and didn't refinance anything (or only refinanced within the original due date), then you would be correct.
It's hard to get worked up over an institution that won't exist in about 10 years. Declining demographics and the perception that the value proposition offered by these small lefty colleges is not worth it, is going to lead to a couple of hundred of them closing or consolidating in the next decade.
Chris -- "At the Innovation & Disruption Symposium in Higher Education in 2017, [Harvard Business School professor Clayton] Christensen specifically predicted that “50 percent of the 4,000 colleges and universities in the U.S. will be bankrupt in 10 to 15 years.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/30/hbs-prof-says-half-of-us-colleges-will-be-bankrupt-in-10-to-15-years.html
Remember that this was before COVID as well....
As clingers and their stale, ugly thinking die off, demand for backwater religious education seems likely to decline.
"Questions about how best to discuss Islamic art have been raised by many academics and is certainly an issue worthy of debate and discussion."
It's apparently really easy to say the words, but it seems to be much harder for the president to perform them.
I am not on the board of trustees, but I am an alumnus (which, given the size of the school, there aren't many of us).
I will tell you that it's an unserious university, run by unserious people more interested in pushing woke politics and churning out liberal activists than producing quality graduates. This entire fiasco is directly on point for Hamline, and no amount of protesting from the outside world will change the outcome. Because the school, administrators, vocal students, and everyone else are more interested in showing just how left they can be than quality outcomes.
Hamline tries to be Oberlin, Berkley, or any other extremely liberal college, but lacks any of the money, name recognition, or quality.
Yeah, this is not lost on their potential student pool. Enrollment has declined by 34% in the last 10 years. They and others like them are not going to survive the shakeout in higher ed that is in the process of taking place.
So, in your judgment, colleges resemble conservatives (doomed to decline in modern America)?
I forgot to mention the 34% decline in the reasons (above) why I suspect they may be in financial distress.
That reduction (evidence of which I can't find), if true, is almost certainly attributable to the closure of their law school (okay, they call it a merger with William Mitchell). The undergraduate enrollment has hovered right around 2,000 since well before I went there 20+ years ago.
Law schools usually are cash cows...
Yeah, you’re hitting on something there. In addition to the usual sensitivity claptrap (to offend someone is to harm them; we must not cause harm - call it the Hippocratic oath theory of speech) there’s a whiff of desperation, like they can’t afford to go against their students. Reading between the lines, the thrust of the President’s email seems to be “people are criticizing us. But students were complaining! What were we supposed to do, tell them they were wrong?”
Imagine if there were a very small but vocal minority of Christians who didn't think we could depict Jesus. How, then, would you teach a class on "Christian art"? Christian art is almost nothing but depictions of Jesus.
I'm not a Islamic-art scholar, but I do know that it was once very common and not at all controversial for Muslims to depict their prophet in their art, and it's nigh impossible to teach a class on the subject without viewing those depictions. In fact, without such depictions, the subject probably wouldn't be worth discussing at all.
The issue is that Islam has not had a Reformation yet -- it's 500 years younger than Christianity, and look at where Christianity was in the 1500s...
Islam had a reformation starting in the middle of the last century. The result is revolutionary Iran, Al Qaeda, ISIS, the deadly shootings in Paris, random people getting their heads chopped off, Salman Rushdie currently "enjoying" one eye, multiple runnings of large vehicles through parades/Xmas markets.
You have chosen a strange forum at which to whine about Hamline, Prof. Whittington.
Do you consider the Volokh Conspiracy a serious blog?
Do you have the courage to say anything about the Volokh Conspiracy's record of partisan, viewpoint-driven censorship?
My prediction: Clingers gonna cling.
Until replacement.
it was a clinger to their religion that got an academic fired.
hence I am to suppose to you support dictating educational freedom based on religious beliefs?
The Rev. has nothing to say about Muslims. He concentrates his ire on Christians (and, occasionally, Jews).
And yet you keep coming back. Again and again and again.
It's funny that there are no comments from Arthur Kirkland about religious believers believing in a sky fairy. You know, I always thought that Christians aren't the only people who believe in God. Surely he could spare a few words for other believers in God than his chosen targets.
In general, no flavor of superstition seems superior (or inferior) to others, although Scientology and a few others might merit special attention in that context.
Artie Poo is only serious about being a troll, a poor one to boot. So his usual babbling is, as usual, unserious.
It must be humbling, maybe even puzzling, for right-wingers like you to keep getting your asses kicked by liberal-libertarian mainstreamers like me in modern America.
May the better ideas continue to prevail at the modern American marketplace of ideas.
Clingers hardest hit, as usual.
Someone has not learned or has forgotten The First Rule of Holes.
Are there any serious universities left?
Here's a story from five years ago:
'Reading the Riot Act' to Truth-Tellers at UT San Antonio
"When [the student]...expressed surprise that he could be kicked out for stating objective facts about Islam, [the professor] affirmed that this was indeed the case"
Defunding these places is the only way they will back off their con game.
You get more of what you subsidize and less of what you tax. Student loans and government science funding are endless in practical terms, and when you subsidize "higher education" that much, you get marginal students learning marginal subjects from marginal professors. Thus climate warming, gender fluidentity, CRT, and all the rest of wokism. The one thing they all have in common is dependency on government funding.
The thing that is somewhat odd to me is the cruelty. Why would you ruin the career of someone merely because they showed art that is actually in existence. I am sure that the professor meant no offense whatsoever. This is immoral.
Should we remember (or be able to find) your similar comment concerning Wheaton College and (former) professor Larycia Hawkins, or is this just the usual Volokh Conspiracy partisanship masquerading as principle and devotion to free expression?
Not all Muslims agree that it's wrong to depict Muhammad in artworks. What this idiot SJW school administration is doing is inflicting Wahabbi orthodoxy on all of their students and staff.
-jcr
"Our response to the classroom event does not disregard or minimize the importance of academic freedom. It does state that respect, decency, and appreciation of religious and other differences should supersede when we know that what we teach will cause harm."
It causes harm to me that the whining of some students about their "feelings" trumps the ability to show images of Mohamed.
So, since Hamlin teachers are not allowed to "cause harm", he MUST show those images.
Or is Hamlin a religiously discriminating Institution, that is happy to harm Catholics, but not Muslims?
Seems like there need to be some lawsuits from Christian students about the harm being done to them.
This is a game that anyone can play, and that everyone SHOULD play.
It is not possibly to have an honest policy requiring people to care abotu other's feelings, because it will pretty much always be the case that people have diametrically opposed feelings. It's time to prove that point, with a massive number of lawsuits
"Students do not relinquish their faith in the classroom"
Does that include Christian students?
Are there any at Hamline?
Professor Whittington,
I have a suggestion, one you and FIRE may not want to pursue openly but nonetheless might want to pursue. This is not tongue in cheek. You should consider it.
Inquire or advertise at Hamline University, either openly or anonymously, to try and identify students (or faculty of they exist) who find the theory of evolution religiously offensive, and who have some basis for showing they didn’t come up with this view yesterday. Have a lawyer help them sue. I understand they would likely need to file a grievance with the university first. Have the lawyer help them file a grievance and take it through the university process.
If students tried to do that at any other university, such a suit would be quickly dismissed on grounds the university administrators were simply applying neutral academic criteria and weren’t intending to offend.
Here, perhaps uniquely, the Hamline University administrators have made clear that they don’t apply, or override, academic criteria whenever they don’t intend to offend. Accordingly, not overriding academic criteria in the aggrieved students’ case can only mean they intend to offend, that is, that their conduct is intentional and the usual reasons a university might give pretextual.
I understand the university might accept the grievance and fire its biology, geology, and astronomy professors.
But frankly I would suggest accepting this risk. It would strengthen the appeal to the accreditors.
I understand a court will very likely find that teaching evolution, even if intended for the specific purpose of religious harassment, simply isn’t serious enough conduct to constitute harassment, and since the students aren’t being denied a benefit,they aren’t otherwise being discriminated against. But perhaps they could claim some sort of contractual right. The university promised an antireligious speech free environment, but is delivering only for favored religions.
I suspect that, given Hamlin’s conduct and positions, a judge would agree that a suit like this isn’t frivolous, even if the plaintiffs ultimately lose.
And it would be worth the publicity.
One reason I would suggest using the theory of evolution as an analogy, rather than contemporary art works like Piss Christ, was that this was a history class, not a pure art class. The professor was making a point of historical fact, not a point of pure aesthetics. That’s why analogy to contemporary statements and evidence about history that others find offensive, not analogy to contemporary works of art that others find offensive, may be the closer analogy. Or at least a reasonable analogy. And I also think in this case it will be the more persuasive analogy.
This would indeed be worthwhile. I'd donate to such a pursuit.
Inquire or advertise at Hamline University, either openly or anonymously, to try and identify students (or faculty of they exist) who find the theory of evolution religiously offensive
First, it’s “try to.”
Second, I hope Hamline doesn’t take money from or waste time on ostensible adults who are stupid, gullible, credulous, superstitious, ignorant, or delusional enough to choose fairy tales over the theory of evolution.
Which, of course, is just a theory.
Much like gravity.
Carry on, clingers.
According to Wilipedia, a 2000 survey found that 81% of Muslims surveyed said that they believe the theory of evolution conflicts with the tenets of Islam. I doubt that’s changed much in the last 2 decades. I suspect some of the same Muslim students who object to the painting also object to teaching evolution, but have simply been more quiet about it.
I suspect one reason Hamline has taken the position it has is that foreign students generally pay full freight, and students from Muslim countries in particular have become big financial lifesavers for a number of small colleges desperate for full-freight enrollments and their tuition revenue. Colleges like Hamline have most definitely been willing to take their money. Whether you think doing so is wasting time or not is a matter of your opinion.
However, my proposed grievance is a “fairness” type grievance whose basic gist is that Muslim students are getting unfair special treatment (or, the way I’ve proposed framing it, are getting the correct and fair treatment that others are unfairly being shut out of). I suspect students from other similarly conservative religions would need to be the candidates for a grievance of that sort.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution
Does Prof. Whittington have the guts to address the record of censorship at the blog at which he posts his criticisms of Hamline?
I bet not.
Cowardly hypocrites are among my favorite culture war casualties. How much longer will mainstream schools be willing to stoop low enough to hire right-wingers in the name of diversity?
I had no idea that this was an institution of higher learning devoted to open inquiry. Who'd have known?
Sure: there is no such record; you're a serial fabricator.
Prof. Volokh has publicly bragged about some of the censorship he imposed. But I am sure he appreciates nonetheless your sycophantic support, even if it is uncomfortable having your nose so far up his ass, clinger.
No guts exhibited. Just another disaffected clinger, coward, and hypocrite writing for a white, male, wingnut blog.
Hamline was only imitating Yale.
https://www.meforum.org/campus-watch/15804/yale-university-press-accused-of-cowardice-over
Hamline President, or Babylon Bee? You decide!
https://babylonbee.com/news/op-ed-your-freedom-is-not-more-important-than-my-fear-of-your-freedom
"To look upon an image of the prophet Muhammad, for many Muslims, is against their faith" -- but they didn't have to look, since the teacher gave a warning. They're saying that for _others_ to look at an image of the prophet Muhammad is against their faith.