More on Hamline

Over at The Dispatch, I have a new piece on Hamline University and its academic freedom struggles.

Here's a taste:

In an extremely competitive field, Hamline University is making a bold bid to be the new standard-bearer for universities willing to cast aside principles of academic freedom and freedom of speech. What really sets Hamline apart is the degree to which the university is sacrificing its core academic mission for the sake of political correctness and the willingness of the university president to be so explicit about what she is doing.

Read the whole thing here.

It is behind a paywall, but if you are not already a subscriber to The Dispatch I'd recommend becoming one. They do good work over there.

UPDATE: Looks like you can access the article by signing up for a free account without making a full commitment to pay for access. Check it out.

Comments

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

the new standard-bearer for universities willing to cast aside principles of academic freedom and freedom of speech

Clinger-colored lenses seem to be obscuring someone’s view of Wheaton, Biola, Regent, Liberty, Cedarbrook, Grove City, Bob Jones, Oral Roberts, Francisan, Ouachita Baptist, and dozens (or hundreds) of similar censorship-shackled, academic freedom-flouting, conservative-controlled nonsense factories.

Did the author try to peddle this at RedState, Gateway Pundit, Instapundit, FreeRepublic, Stormfront, and Hot Air before publishing at The Dispatch?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Whittington can ignore this point -- just as they other Volokh Conspirators ignore the hypocrisy, bigotry, and shoddy scholarship at their right-wing blog -- but I doubt his employer is ignoring this point.

The Volokh Conspirators are "pulling up the ladder" . . . disinclining legitimate, mainstream educational institutions to hire more movement conservatives. Every apology . . . every regret . . . every wince is another nail in the pine of resumes from right-wingers.

Which is great!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

if you are not already a subscriber to The Dispatch I'd recommend becoming one. They do good work over there

That is the strongest endorsement I have seen at this blog since it recommended John Eastman's candidacy for attorney general.
(That one was strong enough that it wasn't rescinded when (former) Prof. Eastman was revealed to be a disgraced, un-American insurrectionist.)

Carry on, clingers.

[DaveM]

"Read the whole thing" link is broken. Looks like a typo:

"https://thedispatch.com/article/hamline-takes-quashing-academic-freedom-to-a-whole-new-level/https://thedispatch.com/article/hamline-takes-quashing-academic-freedom-to-a-whole-new-level/"

[Gandydancer]

Works for me, now. But a free account doesn't allow me to comment.

[Reallynotbob]

I don't understand the debate.

One one hand, it appears that the professor behaved respectfully (by warning students the image would be shown) and within an existing Muslim tradition of accepting "respectful" or educational images of the Prophet. If the critiques by other professors are to be believed, the academic mission of this exercise seems unimpeachable.

On the other hand, Hamline is saying that the showing of the image at all was insensitive to Muslim students (who complained), and that the professor cast an unacceptable pall over the classroom by showing the image knowing it was forbidden to some students. Hamline argues that this insensitivity is incompatible with its values.

So there appears to be a factual disconnect -- IS the image truly forbidden to view by Muslims? It seems the nuanced historical answer is no. But it seems equally true most Muslims believe they are to avoid the images as a matter of religious obligation.

So if Hamline chooses to respect the truth of the majority practice, then showing the image was problematic. One could teach the course without showing that particular image and still educate students about Islamic art. And Hamline has the right to tell professors to avoid certain material (or get pre-clearance) in order to foster the type of learning environment Hamline sells in its community. (Minnesota has a large immigrant Somali community, many of whom are Muslim.)

"Academic freedom" is not license to offend. True, Hamline's administration should be criticized for labelling the lecture "Islamophobic" when there was a genuine nuanced alternative. But the existence of a nuanced explanation does not automatically absolve the the lecture of offense. Hamline gets to choose where it sets that balance, just as other institutions do.

Would we even be arguing if the students were Baptist and complained about the professor requiring Maplethorpe?

[David Nieporent]

“Academic freedom” is not license to offend.

Yes, it is!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Offending right-wing bigots will get you censored or banned by the conservative management at the Volokh Conspiracy, though.

[bevis the lumberjack]

As you yourself pointed out the professor warned that the image was coming, which presumably gave anyone would have been offended to leave the room.

And if the complaining students are arguing that they should be allowed to decide what you and I can look at, then their complaints are not rational.

[tkamenick]

Every person chooses whether or not they are offended. Why make that choice? It just gives other people power over you.

[Leo Marvin]

That's not my experience. When I get offended it's an involuntary reflex. There's no choice involved.

[David Nieporent]

In almost any situation, we experience immediate emotions reflexively. That's true of all sorts of emotions — disgust, desire, happiness, shame, whatever — not just offense. But we are not bound to those instant reactions.

That can be something as trivial as taste — we try a new food, and our immediate reaction is 'ick' because it's not what we were expecting, but then we can step back and contemplate it and decide that actually, it's not so bad, and even grow to like it — but it can apply to emotions as well. For example, when we hear something bad has happened to someone we dislike, we may experience immediate schadenfreude. But we can then step back and say, "Hey, wait a minute. I don't want to be that person," and decide to feel sympathy for the person.

Your immediate reaction might be, "I am offended by such-and-such." But you can then decide not to be.

[Leo Marvin]

I agree with all that except the final sentence, which I'd amend to "But you can sometimes then decide not to be." After the initial reflex, I do try to reason my way to a place that's consistent with my values and principles. Sometimes I succeed, but sometimes emotions are impervious to reason. When I find myself feeling something that conflicts with my better angels, the best I can do is often just to recognize it, know it's something I don't want to send out into the world, and keep my mouth shut.

[ReaderY]

What about the biology, geology, and astronomy students who find teaching the Big Bang Theory or the Theory of Evolution highly offensive? What about the computer science and psychology students who find the idea of artificial (or animal) intelligence highly offensive?

What do you do about them? If academic freedom is not a license to offend, then it cannot be a license to teach this equally offensive material either.

If Hamline University were a religious university that had previously imposed a religious doctrinal conformance pledge on its faculty and claimed teaching this material was forbidden under its own religious doctrines, the analysis might be a different one. But as a secular university, Hamline can’t elevate the secular value of being unoffensive over academic considerations without following through, in a non-discriminatory manner, to where it leads with regard to all religions that might be offended. And that leads to axing or at least sharply curtailing what’s done in the biology, astronomy, computer science, psychology, and quite a few other departments.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If Hamline University were a religious university that had previously imposed a religious doctrinal conformance pledge on its faculty and claimed teaching this material was forbidden under its own religious doctrines, the analysis might be a different one.

With respect to the school's entitlement to engage in censorship, perhaps. But with respect to accreditation? The teaching of nonsense should disqualify a school from accreditation recognized by the reasoning, modern, accomplished, educated mainstream.

[DaveM]

“Academic freedom” is not license to offend.

In a free, pluralistic society, the ground rule for participation is “no offense can be charged where none was intended”. Without this rule, we would all be perpetually offending, and offended by, everyone.

So, yes, while it is true that academic freedom is not a license to offend, it is those who are taking offense where none was intended who are, in fact, breaking the social contract.

[Ben_]

“Academic freedom” is not license to offend.

Anyone can take offense at anything, for any reason. Your conception of “Academic freedom” includes nothing.

[Commenter_XY]

I don't understand the debate, either. Plenty of warning was given before showing the medieval artwork, and by the accounts I've read, the professor took pains to be sensitive to the situation.

But if Professor Whittington wants to actually do something about it, and not just whine write about it, why not raise funds for this fired professor? Help the man, tangibly.

[Carl_N_Brown]

Were there Muslim students who did not complain?
Were they outnumbered by complainers?

[Gandydancer]

“And Hamline has the right to tell professors to avoid certain material (or get pre-clearance) in order to foster the type of learning environment ”

There is not slight indication that Hamline did anything of the sort.

As the op-ed observes, and ignoring the professor’s attempt to accommodate Muslim fanatics, if the students were Baptist and complained about the professor “requiring” Piss-Christ we can guess with a fair degree of certainty that Hamline would celebrate the professor. None of the celebrations of “diversity” in their catalog involve Baptists.

[Gasman]

"Hamline University is making a bold bid to be the new standard-bearer for universities willing to cast aside principles of academic freedom and freedom of speech."

They are way past any rational debate on academic freedoms, a concept that might have once been implicit in the university paradigm.
This is about failure of an organization nominally dedicated to the principle of providing its subscriber's (aka students) minds with challenging new propositions to consider, debate, and incorporate in some manner into a broader world view than which they arrived with.
The customer is not always right, and universities as businesses need to be prepared to tell some customers to stuff it, and grow up or leave. From the whining student's perspective, there is little downside, as there does not seem to be readily apparent loss of employment opportunity for being identified as petulant twits. Indeed, universities promote this behavior by allowing anonymous complainants to drive these witch hunts, thus ensuring no personal blow back for the students.

[ReaderY]

Welcome to capitalism and its logical consequences.

If universities are there to maximize their prestige, markets, and profits, then this is a very logical move, even a savvy one.

Plenty of universities sell the same-old same-old traditional product. Why not be the brand that sells the new product that the marketing team thinks will be popular with a high-value, high-paying market nich?

It’s just good business.

To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, you can’t keep castrating while bidding the geldings be fruitful.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What is your opinion of conservative-controlled religious schools, Gasman? Do you consider them to be legitimate educational institutions, worthy of respect?

Thank you.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Nothing but cowards and hypocrites among the right-wingers at this blog.

[ReaderY]

If Adam Smith is right, then when everyone their pursues their self-interest, creatively developing new brand niches and vigorously exploring and marketing their brands, all will be well. The magic fairy invisible hand will make sure everything comes out right for society.

What we have here is just savvy capitalists doing the capitalist thing. If you think there’s a problem here, that means you’re questioning Adam Smith. At least when it comes to matters like educating the young.

Leftist!

[Gandydancer]

“Get woke, go broke” is isn’t a capitalist success model. It’s an agency problem.

[ReaderY]

You don’t think woke people aren’t a big enough market that people can’t get goodies (not just money, but also fame, prestige, advancement, survival as an institution) marketing to them? Or that a university that doesn’t have much to distinguish its product if it marketed itself as a traditional university selling traditional university values wouldn’t find it in its self-interest to try to position itself as a leading purveyor to this niche market, and sell these new values?

Of course it can be in this university’s and its officials self-interest. Of course it can be a success model. It would be naive to suggest otherwise. It might just be what saves Hamline from the dismal future of declining enrollments and eventual bankruptcy that seems likely to be its current fate if it doesn’t do something. And rebranding and trying to become the leaders of new vibes and new values is something businesses frequently try to do when facing a dismal future on their present path. It doesn’t always work. But it’s an eminently rational business move.

And if self-interest guarantees the benefit of society by means of an invisible hand, then all is good. After all, what are “values” but just another product one sells, markets, to obtain goodies? It’s just part of ones brand. What “value” is there, other than what one sells and obtains in exchange?

[Bob from Ohio]

What do you expect from an institution named after a pig's back leg?

[Leo Marvin]

An excellent post from Ken White on Hamline and Cancel Culture.

[Gandydancer]

Meh. Read his affirmative response in his letter column that not giving a job to some Israel-hater is ALSO "cancel culture". He has no idea what he's talking about.

[Leo Marvin]

It was cancel culture. And I'm a Zionist who believes HRW is anti-Israel. But thanks for your knee-jerk mockery. It confirms my opinion that the post was a good one.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Serious question:

Has anyone ever seen any of the supposed benefits these DEI values claim ever manifest? Ever?

[Leo Marvin]

In a way that would even register in your reality? No.

[ReaderY]

Well, it’s hardly like Muslims are unique in this respect. One of the key things Protestants objected to was images of Jesus and saints in churches, and you won’t find them in a Protestant church. Jews similarly don’t tend to have much in the way of representational art in synagogues. So there’s nothing about this religious doctrine or value that ought to be unfamiliar to people in the West.

The question is whether you take the position that your religious doctrine requires you to suppress art and its teaching in art history. Should Protestants suppress paintings of Jesus on grounds representing Jesus is offensive to them? During the Reformation and the wars of religion that followed for more than a century, which perhaps resembles our own time more than we’d like, there was plenty of banning going on, not to mention outright looting of churches.

[ReaderY]

The New York Times has done an article on the Hamline controversy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/08/us/hamline-university-islam-prophet-muhammad.html

[ReaderY]

But Hamline is not in any way suggesting that God requires them to ban the painting. Nor could they; they were founded by Methodolists, not Muslims, and they allow plenty of other representational paintings. It is merely saying that this painting goes against their values. It is making a purely secular claim, not a religious one.

[Dr. Ed 2]

To the extent Hamline even is a religious institution -- and you have to do more than merely claim you are -- it is a METHODIST institution and while they've started leaning left too, the Methodisits are still a fairly sane main-line Protestant denomination.

I can't see Methodisits supporting this...

[AmosArch]

breaking news, freaking out and getting a guy fired over respectfully showing a normal respectable medieval painting is a reasonable understandable thing according to progs who suddenly respect capricious religious demands.

Somehow I doubt you'd show such empathy for similar actions by fundamentalist christians, Even if the institution they harangued had a mission statement about upholding christian values.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, the EU is an evil cabal, not so sure what the yada yada consists of.

Yeah, we're an outlier here, in that our government is modestly less evil than your average Western government, in a world where even those governments are outliers in a sea of tyranny. An apparently rising sea of tyranny, I note.

[Savagely Average]

Regardless of whether it makes sense to ‘balance’ DEI values versus free speech, in this instance I don’t see the DEI values as stated by the University conflicting with the speech. The DEI statement talks about making sure students are “prepared to engage and succeed in increasingly diverse environments” which seems fully consistent with the Professor’s actions.

The real problem seems to be the professor’s conduct bumping up against an unwritten set of practices and assumptions the university employs.

[Gandydancer]

From the op-ed: “There are three core principles of academic freedom and free speech that most American universities have embraced. Professors should, without fear of reprisal from their university employer, be able to research and publish controversial scholarship, be able to discuss germane but controversial ideas and materials in the classroom, and be able to speak freely and write in public “as a citizen.” Hamline University has adopted those standard policies without reservation in its own faculty handbook.”

That “Hamline… has a statement about academic freedom but also a statement about their DEI values” doesn’t make the first statement any less of a lie.

Not sure what the EU’s “leanings” have to do with this, but the EU is a pack of liars as well.

[David Nieporent]

Everything in the Federalist article is untrue. Fact checking is not censorship.

[David Nieporent]

1) Who on earth told you that the Hunter Biden laptop was true?
2) Who on earth told you that the FBI "knew it was true"?
3) The Twitter files don't reveal anything of the kind.

More to the point, what does that have to do with this discussion, which is whether that Federalist story is true? The Federalist story is a generalized list of grievances about Big Tech and claiming 'censorship,' but by 'censorship' they literally mean nothing more than that someone criticized conservatives and fact checked them — not that anyone was actually censored.

[Ben_]

"Why am I not surprised Whittington is advocating for The Dispatch?"

Yeah, it's not surprising. Whittington is very interested in freedom for people like Whittington, in settings where people like Whittington desire it. If your freedom is sacrificed, what does Whittington care? You're not like him.

[Ben_]

You never get tired of being dishonest.

[Sarcastr0]

2 tantrumming children who don't wanna

[Ben_]

"...progs who suddenly respect capricious religious demands..."

The special people must always be catered to and have a right to never experience any unwelcome emotion or event.

If that means someone like you gets fired from your job and ends up destitute and homeless, then so what? The special people matter and second class people like you don't.

[Purple Martin]

I think a desire for authoritarian theocracy has existed to some degree in all human societies (one example: Putin’s cynical leverage of the autocephalous Moscow Patriarchate of Eastern Orthodox Christianity). And I share what I assume is your concern about our traditions of liberty being subverted by the tools and processes of theocracy.

Granted, I am unsympathetic to fundamentalist religion…but that’s not through a lack empathy. No, being raised in such an environment, I fully understand the emotional attachment to religious precepts and motivations stemming from a literalist belief in the Qu’ran or Bible, and to membership in what is perceived as a persecuted community of like-minded absolutist believers.

Ii seems far less likely, however, that that the US would adopt Iran’s or Saudi Arabian’s Islamic fundamentalism, than a similarly extremist Christian variety. One reason I believe that is we have a tool not available to the rest of the world—the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

Something like Shar’iah would have a chance to gain a foothold in America only if current efforts to scare us into removing major liberties guaranteed by the Constitution (including the Establishment Clause) are successful. For examples, search on “Adrian Vermeule Common Good Constitutionalism” or “National Conservatism: A Statement of Principles.” (Cato published a decent Libertarian critique on the latter, titled “About That ‘National Conservatism’ Statement.")

I try to avoid calling people names but I’m afraid the only difference I’m able to detect between American Christian fundamentalist extremism and Afghanistan’s extremist Islamic Taliban, is not of intent, but of opportunity.

[Krayt]

25 years ago, a cross upside down in urine, paid for by government, whose stated purpose was to piss off and offend Christians and shake up their worldview, was held as a great and important value.

An asteroid cannot smear the surface of Earth soon enough, preferrably to a depth of 30 miles, mantle lava. This will ensure even life in deep caves or by volcanic vents 6 miles down in the ocean croak. Just to be sure.

Aliens, blam us away, we add nothing to any galactic civilization extant.

[Ben_]

Or we could just fight back against the people who want so desperately to make our lives worse.

[Sarcastr0]

You keep reaching this conclusion over and over, based on nothing at all.

You've never evinced actually caring about freedom for anyone. You just care passionately about being angry forever.

[Krayt]

Soulless, power hungry bastards who make shit up to get followers and get elected, or get well-paid for someone else to get elected are a known, if tired and parasitic and plaguelike quantity.

What really irritates me are people who buy into this stuff, chucked into the top of their echo chamber for them to lap up. Supposedly highly intelligent people who fancy themselves independent thinkers, just see smoke and mirrors and go, hehe, slack-jawed and eat it up because the same soullese bastards also fill the echo chamber with “you self feeling of being a good person is synonymous with regurgitating what I say."

Some philosopher wit once observed “god” was an imaginary thing to keep you behaving when no one is looking.

This “you are a good person for believing this” echo chamber meme is the modern secular equivalent. Keep behaving in ways that benefit the corruption…even when nobody is looking.

[Sarcastr0]

Being black pilled and enraged some people are dumb is no way to go through life.

[Ben_]

It’s not about me. So you just said something entirely irrelevant. True or false? It doesn’t matter.

[Gandydancer]

On the contrary, it's based on the evidence of what Whittingon chooses to write about and who he chooses to associate with.

You, on the other hand, recently made moronic mind-reading claims about Jonathan Mitchell. and those WERE only based on your bile and imagination.

[Gandydancer]

The Federalist story says that The Dispatch was paid by Facebook to "fact check" supposed "misinformation", which identification by a purportedly "conservative" outlet* was used by Facebook to justify censorship. So when Nieporent says "Fact checking is not censorship", he's lying.

'Course, that clown is still claiming that "the Hunter laptop is not true", so he's brain damaged.

Yes, you two are quite the pair.

* French's mask has slipped further now that he's become the NYT's equivalent of the WaPo's useful idiot Jennifer Rubin. One can only hope he'll go the way of The Atlantic's would-be useful idiot, J. Goldberg.

[David Nieporent]

‘Course, that clown is still claiming that “the Hunter laptop is not true”, so he’s brain damaged.

Actually, you're lying; you put something in quotes that I supposedly said even though I never said that.

Oh, and have you seen the so-called "Hunter Biden laptop?"

[David Nieporent]

which identification by a purportedly “conservative” outlet* was used by Facebook to justify censorship.

Nope. Putting fact checks on stories is not censoring them.

[David Nieporent]

Your massive display of an overwhelming grasp of the facts is very convincing.