Hamline Adjunct Fired for Showing Muhammad Images Sues + Hamline Statement Seems to Backtrack

The Pioneer Press (Josh Verges) reports [UPDATE: see also the Complaint]:

The adjunct professor accused of Islamophobia for showing artwork in class that depicted the Prophet Muhammad filed a lawsuit against Hamline University on Tuesday as Hamline's president conceded the school mishandled the controversy.

Professor Erika Lopez Prater is suing the school in Ramsey County District Court for defamation, breach of contract and religious discrimination, among other claims….

David Everett, associate vice president of inclusive excellence, sent a Nov. 7 email to all employees and students saying an incident had taken place in an online class that was "undeniably inconsiderate, disrespectful and Islamophobic."

Separately, Dean of Students Patti Kersten called Lopez Prater's decision to show the artwork "an act of intolerance," according to The Oracle, the student newspaper that first reported on the controversy.

And, in a Dec. 9 email to staff, Everett and President Fayneese Miller said that "respect for the observant Muslim students in that classroom should have superseded academic freedom." …

[The complaint argued that the school discriminated against Lopez Prater] by imposing the Muslim student's "interpretation of Islam on all Hamline employees and students." …

The article also quotes a statement released today by Hamline President Fayneese Miller and Board of Trustees Chair Ellen Watters, which said:

Hamline is a multi-cultural, multi-religious community that has been a leader in creating space for civil conversations. Like all organizations, sometimes we misstep….

In the interest of hearing from and supporting our Muslim students, language was used that does not reflect our sentiments on academic freedom. Based on all that we have learned, we have determined that our usage of the term 'Islamophobic' was therefore flawed. We strongly support academic freedom for all members of the Hamline community….

We have learned much from the many scholars, religious leaders and thinkers from around the world on the complexity of displaying images of the Prophet Muhammad. We have come to more fully understand the differing opinions that exist on this matter within the Muslim community. And, we welcome the opportunity, along with our students and the broader community, to listen and learn more. We, like our higher education partners, want to do more to show that academic freedom and student support are both integral to the very fabric of who we are.

Comments

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Nipping at ankles;
lathering his right-wing rubes;
nipping betters' heels.

[Kleppe]

How can you accuse anyone of "lathering" right-wingers when every other post of yours is repeating the alt-right, white nationalist "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory? Did the third-rate bargain basement school you attended and refuse to disclose not teach you that words mean things?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The replacement I describe and embrace occurs when old conservatives die off in the normal course, taking their stale, bigoted thinking to the grave and giving way to a better, younger American in our electorate (on 18th birthdays) and population (by birth or immigration).

No great theory or conspiracy or project; just the normal flow of improvement. The American way. The glorious, righteous American culture war. The marketplace of ideas. The graveyard of Republican preferences.

[FivebySixThree]

mute user is the single best feature of this site!

the best part is just reading the responses usually clues me into who was muted; I have more than one.

if everyone who posts simply muted him he would quickly become as irrelevant here as he is in real life

[Terry]

Thank you for a great idea.

[Bob from Ohio]

“I have more than one.

He’s my only one. Pleases me every time I see that gray box.

“if everyone who posts simply muted him he would quickly become as irrelevant here as he is in real life”

Agreed but I campaigned for years and years for people not to respond and some people always do.

[Larvell Blanks]

I feel like I can guess, although I too have muted more than one. It must be exhausting commenting on practically every single post for years on end, and always saying the same thing.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It has been years since anyone has posted anything at the Volokh Conspiracy that has been novel and insightful. This blog is nothing more than incessantly recycled right-wing grievance theater, with a regular sprinkling of vile racial slurs, followed by the predictable (bigoted, delusional, disaffected, threatening, polemical, illiterate) stream of comments.

[Eric VonSalzen]

I muted the Rev some time ago. Ah, what a relief! But then, after a few weeks, I saw a response to one of his comments, which led me to think maybe (MAYBE!) the Rev had said something interesting, so I un-muted him. In a 6-month period the Rev may have said ONE thing worth reading. I guess it's easy enough to ignore un-muted comments by known clowns in the hope that once in awhile the clown will say something worth reading. (I'm still waiting Rev).

[Jerry B.]

Geeze. Go end yourself, and you won’t have to suffer forcing people to allow freedom of speech, or any of the other freedoms you hate.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Instead, I — with those on the winning side of the culture war— will piss on the grave of your right-wing political aspirations.

You should try to be nicer, lest the culture war’s winners decide to stop being so gracious with the losers.

[Jerry B.]

"You should try to be nicer"

You should take your own advice. Unfortunately, you continue to be the biggest asshole in the state.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Reading bad haiku
Really annoys me but it's
Hard to avoid them.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"language was used"

"dumb stuff was said"

[Lee Moore]

yup "mistakes were made"

That dang passive voice has got a record as long as your arm.

[Kleppe]

Don't forget "the gun went off," "the bomb exploded," etc. Passive voice is a killer.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Eh …. bombs DO explode; their timer counts down, a fuse burns through, and the bomb explodes.

Now the bomb didn’t get there by itself, and someone started the fuse going, even if dropped from an airplane and hit the ground … but the bomb did explode.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ummm -- sometimes bombs DO explode on their own -- cases of WW-II era dynamite had to be turned upside-down occasionally or they would explode on their own.

[Michael P]

Those verbs are not in the passive voice. They were in the past tense.

[Darwinnie]

Also intransitive verbs.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

Writing tip of the day: The passive voice should be used as little as possible, and not without good reason.

[Lee Moore]

When the writer is striving for obscurity rather than clarity, that's the good reason.

[Voize]

Whoosh!

[Life of Brian]

The passive voice should be used

What you did there was seen.

[SRG]

LOL, good one!

[bevis the lumberjack]

It’s like the old Chuck Norris joke about the letters arranging themselves.

[ReaderY]

The lecturer remains fired, right?

Words can be pretty cheap in situations like this.

Saying maybe should have used slightly different language to describe why they fired her doesn’t suggest any intention to actually change future behavior, just to be better at PR and damage control while doing it.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If anyone at Hamline is paying attention to this incessant, hypocritical sniping from a right-wing blog, Hamline should ask Prof. Volokh to try to explain how censorship at Hamline differs from or is worse than the many instances of censorship imposed by the Volokh Conspiracy.

Ignoring conservatives nipping at mainstream ankles might be the better course.

[gormadoc]

If I were you I would stop drawing attention to Volokh's censorship of your blatantly homophobic comments. Thank God I am not you and don't have to worry about any such comments from me being an issue.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

So far he hasn't censored my anti-Second-Amendment posts, even the ones which point out that he has clearly sold out for endowments, grants, and gifts from the gun-freak lobby and the gun-industry.

(What would we all be saying if Abby Zwerner had been killed??)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

(What would we all be saying if Abby Zwerner had been killed??)

The Volokh Conspiracy's gun nuts would be saying nothing about it.

[dwb68]

“We have learned much from the many scholars, religious leaders and thinkers from around the world…”

Imagine actually doing that before knee jerk censorship and bullying.

At some point are these institutions going to think before they act?

smh.

[Ben_]

If you imagine wanting to do that, you have many differences with the kind of people who wrote that statement.

[cmcc_aus]

"We have learned much"...
"We have come to more fully understand the differing opinions that exist on this matter within the Muslim community..."
And they have had an opportunity to practice namby-pambyism, and this latest statement shows they are striving to be experts in the sub-domain. But there is much more to learn in the great beyond.

[BadLib]

Any member of the Hamiline administration or faculty who "learned much" from this experience should turn in their resignation immediately and seek a job where judgement and knowledge is not any part of the job requirements as clearly they lack both. Probably a good match would be a factory job that anyone could learn to do safely and correctly with five or less minutes of training.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I wouldn't insult factory workers.

[Longtobefree]

The shortest training manual on the world is for sod layers: "brown side down".

[Social Justice is neither]

Racist!!!

[ReaderY]

It almost seems the business of a university administration is the development and deployment of incantations amd sympathetic magic rituals to propitiate powerful and potentially malevolent spirits. The Hamline administration sacrificed a dispensable faculty member to propitiate a powerful genie. But they discovered that in doing so. their incantation formula disturbed other spirits who they now realize also have power to harm them. They are now seeking to propitiate the spirits they disturbed.

It must be a very superstitious sort of life, and an anxious one, living among powerful and potentially malevolent beings that one can only hope to propitiate.

[DaveM]

I like this take on the situation the best. Magic and paganism. Sounds about right. /sarc

[AtR]

I think that the main thing we all learned is that we cannot rely on the Hamline administration to support academic freedom.

[Number 2]

I noticed that as well. The only “mistake” they admit is not completely understanding Islam. They’re utter rejection of academic freedom and common sense remains.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The only conservatives who mention academic freedom -- especially academic freedom at reason-based, liberal-libertarian maisntream schools -- are right-wingers completely devoid of self-awareness.

I doubt the modern American mainstream, which operates our strongest research and teaching institutions, is in the market for tips from conservatives, who routinely turn campuses into dogma-driven, academic freedom-flouting, censorship-saturated hayseed factories every chance they get.

[santamonica811]

"...David Everett, associate vice president of inclusive excellence..."

Now, THAT is a kick-ass job title.

At my old job, I was the Executive vice president of Doing Awesome Stuff. And I thought that was fancy. But, based on the job title here, I have to assume that this university is so massively large that it has this associate VP position, a slightly more more impressive "Senior VP of inclusive excellence." And, I assume, at the top, a president of inclusive excellence. I pity the university's lowly Secretary of Inclusive Excellence, who must get most of the grunt work. (or maybe she delegates that sort of work to the Undersecretary of inclusive excellence)

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

"Hamline" is that shooting pork-extract intravenously?

[Kenneth Almquist]

This case seemed stronger before I looked at the complaint.

Count 1 (religious discrimination in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act): This seems doubtful because the MHRA requires employers to make minimal (as opposed to reasonable) efforts to accommodate religious beliefs. Showing the pictures created enough difficulty for Hamline that I think allowing the professor to show the pictures would be more than a minimal accommodation. Furthermore, this would be an accommodation for the professor's lack of religious belief that showing the pictures was blasphemous, rather than an accommodation for a religious belief. We have a very unsympathetic defendant here because Hamline, rather that simply refusing to allow the plaintiff to show the pictures, allowed her to show the pictures and then fired her for it, but I don't think that affects the legal analysis.

Count 2 (reprisal in violation of the MHRA): The argument is that Hamline retailated against the Prater for reporting discrimination. As far as I can tell the complaint never alleges that Prater reported discrimination, so this count seems frivolous.

Count 3a (breach of contract): There was a verbal agreement to hire plaintiff for the next semester. This is promising, but it may be difficult to establish the terms of an unwritten contract. (Presumably the reason for not reducing the contract to writing is that parties wanted a greater ability to unilaterally terminate the contract than they would have if they signed a standard University employment contract.)

Count 3b (breach of contract): Hamline violated its contract for the current semester based on the promise of academic freedom in the Hamline Faculty Handbook. This is also promising, but Prater remained employed until her contract expired, and it's not clear that anything more is required.

Count 4 (promissory estoppel): As far as I can tell, the complaint never alleges that Prater acted in reliance of a promise of future employment, so this seems like a nonstarter.

Count 5 (defamation): Four of the six statements identified as defamatory were made by an individual whose only connection to University is that he made the statements at a forum sponsored by the University. The idea appears to be that the University implicitly endorsed these statements by failing to disavow them. That leaves us with two statements characterizing Prater's actions as inconsiderate, disrespectful, Islamophobic, and intolerant. These characterizations are opinions, but I think there is a good case to be made that they imply factual claims that are false.

Count 6 (intentional infliction of emotional distress): I'm not sure what the legal standard is for establishing this so I can't intelligently comment.

Count 7 (violation of the Minnesota Whistleblower Act): As far as I can tell, the complaint never alleges that Prater did anything that could be considered whistle blowing, so this is suffers from the same defect as count 2.

The bottom line is that I feel that Prater deserves to win a defamation award for the two statements made by University officials, but that's not going to be a slam dunk. I'm not sure she deserves to win on any of the other counts.

[John F. Carr]

Congratulations for typing faster than me or getting up 14 minutes earlier.

On count 1, there is no claim that showing the picture had any religious motivation, even in a broad sense if you count atheism as a religion. Her religion or lack of religion did not require her to show the Prophet (or get an abortion, or use pronouns, or anything else).

On count 4, I assumed it was too late to get a job for next semester, but she probably needs to say so.

On count 5, I would say that the underlying facts have been disclosed. Was it not clear to the public that all the name-calling was based on the classroom incident? She's Islamophobic because she showed a picture of the Prophet.

[Kenneth Almquist]

On count 5, it seemed like defamation to me because I think that the statements by school officials would lead people to get an impression of what happened that was quite different from the actual facts. But the statements mislead by omitting what I consider to be relevant facts, rather than making false claims. So I think you are right: no defamation.

[Michael P]

Several of your summaries are dubious. The core of Count I is that Hamline took adverse action because López Prater did not follow the school's preferred religious practice. Count 3b is that the university breached the promise of academic freedom, not merely of employment. Your ignorance of the law on IIED does not cast serious doubt on the claim.

[David Nieporent]

The core of Count I is that Hamline took adverse action because López Prater did not follow the school’s preferred religious practice.

Even if that's a valid description, it doesn’t constitute religious discrimination. There's no indication that the school treated her this way because of her religious views or practices.

Count 3b is that the university breached the promise of academic freedom, not merely of employment.

That's not an independent claim. The breach was the termination (or nonrenewal). (Assume for the sake of argument that they had done everything the same except that they did renew her contract for the Spring. What exactly would her contractual claim/remedy be?)

Your ignorance of the law on IIED does not cast serious doubt on the claim.

The fact that firing and insulting someone doesn't come close to the level of IIED does cast serious doubt on the claim, though. (I'm not a Minnesota lawyer, so maybe Minnesota interprets IIED very snowflaky, but under the standard version of IIED, there's nothing here remotely outrageous enough.)

[Heedless]

Doesn’t religious freedom extend to the right not to observe other religions’ customs and taboos?

I’m an atheist, so I have no specific Sunday obligations, but if my university employer forbids me from grading on the Sabbath, that is still a violation of my religious freedom. Likewise if I am forbidden from having my head uncovered, from teaching the theory of evolution, or from teaching lessons in population genetics that contradict LDS scripture.

[Michael P]

According to the complaint: "The MHRA’s prohibition against religious discrimination extends to situations where an employee suffers an adverse employment action because the employee does not conform to the employer’s religious expectations or preferences."

Apparently, we should just ignore your assertions of law.

[David Nieporent]

I'm not sure why you'd read the complaint rather than the statute.

[Kenneth Almquist]

The sentence you quote is not the clearest. “Religious preferences” are presumably preferences that the employee belong to one religion rather than another. If Prater has suffered adverse employment action because of her religion, that would indeed be a violation of the MHRA. “Religious expectations” are presumably expectations that the employee will engage in or refrain from engaging in particular religious activities. Again, if Prater had suffered adverse employment action because she participated in or refused to participate in particular religious activities, that would be a violation of the MHRA. So the statement you quote seems to be correct statement of the law, but it doesn’t contradict anything that David Nieporent wrote.

And if I had seen David Nieporent's response before writing this I wouldn't have bothered because, as he says, the complaint is not the place to look for a statement of the law.

[Jonathan Affleck]

Shouldn't the complaint have added Aram Wedatalla and the Muslim Students Association in the role of co-defendants. Hamline may be responsible to some degree for the actions of the Muslim Students Association. I can understand the desire to litigate against the deeper pocket party, but this sort of crap will continue until every student and his parents understand they might pay a penalty for defamatory actions against a lecturer.

Aram Wedatalla and the Muslim Students Association acted just as a depraved Zionist anti-Jew acts in attempting to drive an pro-Palestine academic out of academia by accusing the academic of antisemitism even though the animosity is directed toward the Zionist state and a Zionist colonial settler anti-Jew.

I loathe the Zionist state, a Zionist colonial settler anti-Jew, and a US Zionist anti-Jew, who materially supports the Zionist state (a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 2339A - Providing material support to terrorists). Every human being should loathe Zionism as I do. The Zionist state and every Zionist anti-Jew is antisemitic toward a proud Diaspora Jew.

When the Charge of Antisemitism is Justified

Two types of racism define Zionism.

The first racism consists of genocidal hatred of Palestinians simply for existing. Zionists hate Palestinian natives because Palestinians are — as Ben-Gurion and Ben-Tzvi realized — true descendants of ancient Judeans and pose an insurmountable existential dilemma for the white racist colonial-settler invaders, who have stolen Palestine on the basis of a ridiculous fairy tale of their own descent from ancient Judeans.

The second Zionist racism consists of Zionist racism directed against Diaspora Jews and probably deserves a unique name. Antisemitism among non-Jews of the late 19th century and of the first half of the 20th century results from the advantages European Jews had during European modernization.

If gentile or traditional antisemitism is a thesis, which asserts that the rise of the Jews is wrong. Zionism is a counter-thesis, which asserts that there is nothing wrong with the rise of the Jews and that the real problem results

• from the manner of this rise and
• from the defects created in the course of this flawed rise.

---
Jews were becoming wealthier faster than the non-Jews among whom they lived, but Jewish status and power did not increase concomitantly. Non-Jews were accusing Jews of materialism, avarice, parasitical occupation, physical weakness, and lasciviousness for non-Jewish women. The nascent Zionist movement internalized this critique and concluded that the gentile critique could be overcome and Jewish defectiveness healed only by committing genocide on the natives of Palestine and by stealing the country of these natives.

While Zionist racism against Palestinians results in genocide and expulsion, Zionist racism against Diaspora Jews, who like me are proud of their heritage and who reject the depravity of Zionist ideology and actions, is the hatred of true believer for the benighted old believer. The scorn and contempt of the murderous and genocidal Zionist for the Diaspora Jewish witness to Zionist depravity knows no bounds. Even if nowadays the Diaspora Jewish witness is less likely to be assassinated, Zionists work tirelessly to defame and to exclude such a witness as well as to create discrimination against him.

Zionists suffer deserved hatred. A decent person hates Zionism, the Zionist state, and every Zionist because of the boundless criminality.

Here is the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

The above definition describes the hatred that the Zionist feels for the Diaspora Jew that rejects Zionism and the linked image (click here) fleshes out Zionist bigotry and prejudice (today’s antisemitism) against the proud ethical Diaspora Jew that like me rejects Zionism without qualification and without reservation. Zionists often express rhetorical (at least) manifestations of antisemitism against non-Zionist or anti-Zionist Jewish community institutions like the Jewish Voice for Peace and Boston Workers Circle Center for Jewish Culture and Social Justice.

Zionism is not in any way part of Judaism. Zionism, Zionists, and the Zionist try to transform Judaism, Jewishness, and Jewish identity into a program of genocide. From the standpoint of Judaism, Zionism represents the utmost depravity.

[Leo Marvin]

Oh ffs.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"...acted just as a depraved Zionist anti-Jew..."

The exact point where everyone here who even started reading the comment stopped.

[John F. Carr]

I skimmed the complaint. There are seven counts.

I: Religious discrimination under state law. I don't buy it. The school has a right to declare the one true religion to be that preached by the Boston Church of Christ, Shia Islam, or anything else, and to expect that classes teach that one true religion. The school did not have a policy that infidels could not attend or teach, or could not burn Bibles, Korans, or graven images off campus.

II: Retalition for complaining about religious discrimination. It is legally possible to be guilty of retaliation but not of the substantive offense. I doubt that she can prove retaliation as the cause of any adverse action. The press coverage implies it was teaching rather than complaining that got her in trouble.

III: Breach of contract based on "a guarantee of academic freedom in her teaching so long as the material was related to her subject." The count simultaneously alleges that the contract to teach in 2023 was breached and that the contract was not renewed for 2023 (meaning there was no contract to breach).

IV: Promissory estoppel: she relied on "clear and definite" promises that her contract would be renewed.

V: Defamation, based on non-actionable opinion or inflammatory language.

VI: Intentional infliction of emotional distress.

VII: Illegal retalition ("whistleblower act"). The school violated her rights by breaching its contract in retalition for her complaint that the school had already breached its contract. I think. This count is not clear.

[Michael P]

The school has a right to declare the one true religion to be that preached by the Boston Church of Christ, Shia Islam, or anything else, and to expect that classes teach that one true religion. The school did not have a policy that infidels could not attend or teach, or could not burn Bibles, Korans, or graven images off campus.

The school probably could have done the first set of things you list (subject to state laws and the state and US constitutions), but did not. Given the absence of a clear policy against showing pictures of Mohammad, the reasonable expectation of academic freedom, and the content warnings provided before and in the class, the school's adverse actions against López Prater are most fairly seen as reprisal for not complying with a particular religious orthodoxy.

[ReaderY]

I think a Shiite Muslim would have standing to raise something like a harassment claim, because the university administration really put down Shiite beliefs and culture, and indicated they would side with Sunnis in intra-Muslim disputes, in a way that might well chill Shiite Muslims and make them feel very unwelcome. But it’s by no means clear a non-Muslim faculty member has standing to raise this sort of claim.

As I wrote in a comment on an earlier post, people offended by material the administration allows (e.g. Protestants offended by images of Jesus, young-Earth creationists offended by the theory of evolution) might also have standing to claim their sensibilities are being unfairly run roughshod over. But again, the art professor here doesn’t represent them either.

I think a religious university has a right to promote its religion including not being welcoming to other religions, so I think its actions would have to be handled differently from a secular university. It would have to be up-front about this, for example clearly stating its religious mission, requiring a religious conformance pledge by faculty and/or students, etc. However, Hamline is not purporting to be acting in a religious capacity when making its decisions.

[Longtobefree]

"David Everett, associate vice president of inclusive excellence"

Sounds like he was less than excellent by denying inclusiveness to the professor.

(as an aside, any college with a job title like that is a college to avoid)

[Ed Grinberg]

But in fact, the common understanding of "inclusive excellence" in the university context is that concern for inclusivity is limited to designated minority groups, with the goal of making them feel comfortable; a white male Christian professor who devotes classroom times to making sure viewpoints on all sides are represented and debated not only doesn't fit that ideal, to a significant extent he contradicts it. This is especially true if one believes, as many do, that disagreement with woke orthodoxy makes people feel "unsafe" and may even constitute "violence." And "excellence" in the common understanding, when prefaced by inclusive, does not mean a commitment to academic excellence, it means "we are excellent in our inclusivity." This in turn precludes conservative voices who dissent from the progressive version of inclusivity described above.

source: https://reason.com/volokh/2021/04/29/university-of-toledo-backtracks-on-inclusive-excellence-award-to-conservative-professor-lee-strang/
In this case, the "precluded voice" wasn't even conservative, just unwilling to conform to the (pretty unreasonable) preferences of the "designated minority group."

[Bob from Ohio]

So long as she doesn't get greedy, Hamline is likely to give her a decent settlement to stop the bleeding.

[Larvell Blanks]

"associate vice president of inclusive excellence"

[David Nieporent]

Every time I see that title, it brings this to mind for me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nxgkb_lYJJE

[SRG]

Is the opposite of “inclusive excellence” “exclusive insolence”?

[Ben_]

If you’re truly excellent at inclusiveness, you can apply it exclusively.

Always remember that the special people matter and everyone else must be measured based on how well they cater to the special people.

[Randal]

I bet you think your comment constitutes a policy position.

[Jerry B.]

The Washington Post finally has an article about this, in which they completely leave out the fact that students were told before the class that images of Muhammad would be shown, and that they could choose to not attend.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/01/18/images-prophet-muhammad-university-lecture/