The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Hamline Faculty Vote 71-12 to Ask University President to Step Down Over Muhammad Painting Firing Controversy
[UPDATE: Full faculty statement added.]
Today's Twin Cities Pioneer Press (Josh Verges) reports:
Hamline University's full-time faculty on Tuesday asked President Fayneese Miller to resign over her administration's handling of a Muslim student's complaint about an adjunct professor who showed ancient art in class that depicted the Prophet Muhammad.
Various Hamline administrators have said that what took place in an October art history class was "undeniably inconsiderate, disrespectful and Islamophobic" and "an act of intolerance." And Hamline rescinded its offer to have the adjunct professor, Erika Lopez Prater, teach again in the spring.
But after a wave of criticism from across the country, Miller conceded last week that she mishandled the episode….
The article quotes the faculty statement (passed 71-12, with 9 abstentions) as saying, in part:
We are distressed that members of the administration have mishandled this issue and great harm has been done to the reputation of Minnesota's oldest university.… As we no longer have faith in President Miller's ability to lead the university forward, we call upon her to immediately tender her resignation to the Hamline University Board of Trustees.
The article also notes that the American Association of University Professors is investigating the matter (and indeed sending people in person to the campus to do so), and notes that the Council on American-Islamic Relations came to the professor's defense a week and a half ago, overruling its local chapter leader's contrary statement.
UPDATE: Here is the full faculty statement:
Statement from Full Time Faculty of Hamline University
January 24, 2023
In response to the current events and crisis facing the Hamline community concerning academic freedom, the faculty of Hamline University stand by these statements:
We are distressed that members of the administration have mishandled this issue and great harm has been done to the reputation of Minnesota's oldest university.
We, the faculty of Hamline University, stand for both academic freedom and the education of all students. We affirm both academic freedom and our responsibility to foster an inclusive learning community. Importantly, these values neither contradict nor supersede each other.
We respect the diverse voices, backgrounds, and experiences of the entire Hamline community (students, faculty, staff, and administrators), and support the right of all to have their voices heard.
We believe our diversity of knowledge and experience makes us a stronger, richer community. Without this diversity, we would incompletely represent the community we strive to be.
We defend the right to academic freedom for the purpose of a strong liberal arts education and to uphold the principles of democracy.
We reject unfounded accusations of Islamophobia.
We condemn the hateful speech and threats targeting students and other Hamline community members.
We stand for intellectual debate and sharing of resources and knowledge without fear of censorship or retaliation.
We stand for the right to challenge one another's views, but not to penalize each other for holding them.
We call for the fair treatment of and due process for all Hamline community members.
We thank and applaud students, faculty, and others in the Hamline community and beyond, who have taken the time and had the courage to speak out.
As we no longer have faith in President Miller's ability to lead the university forward, we call upon her to immediately tender her resignation to the Hamline University Board of Trustees.
We are united in this statement.
We are the faculty of Hamline 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
Incredible that 71 clingers were not outvoted by their betters.
Given how the usual suspects love to brag about how secular and rational they are its kind of weird how they immediately jumped to the defense of some random hardcore fundamentalist Karens.
Name one person who jumped to the defense of Miller.
It is funny how many around here really want to turn this into a broader partisan thing, but just about everyone agrees how badly this was handled.
Take Gaslighto for instance. If you go by his word you would think he was marching shoulder to shoulder with conservatives in righteous good faith condemnation of Hamline when in actuality he was busy darting in and out of threads sealioning and concern trolling and generally attempting to deflect and derail the discussion whenever it was brought up.
Yes, if you make up the things I think and say boy do I look bad!
I’m not making things up when I say your commenting pattern over the Hamline posts shows a clear preoccupation toward sniping at Hamline's critics and guiding the discussion away from Hamline’s blunders over any genuine concern about Hamline’s policies in contrast to your implication in this post.
Nope - I made fun of some folks who went into Islam is evil territory, abusing statistics to get there.
I also said this whole thing was dumb in that same thread.
So either show your work, or be more careful when you shoot your mouth off.
What exactly are you asking for? If someone wants to know what you said its right there in the search result archives.
So the special people who must be allowed to decide what everyone can say and think doesn’t include Muslims getting an instructor fired for a picture?
Can you tell us which races and groups are special enough to be favored? What’s the ranking?
You are the only special person 'round here.
FAIL. Sarcastr0 wasn't a defender of Miller. You lose.
lmao nailed him and his schtick!
“Sealioning.” Lol. Okay, that’s a great visual. Haven’t seen it used before. I may steal and use it in the future.
"sealioning"
Lmao, perfect.
Evidence, please? /sarc
Go look at past posts and you will find some people here trying to minimize or deflect what happened.
Go show your work.
In my own review of prior posts about Hamline, you never seem to speak to the Hamline issue at all. You do, indeed, just snipe at Hamline's critics. So though you say, "just about everyone agrees how badly this was handled," you were silent to the badness.
No? Show your work.
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/01/09/muslim-public-affairs-council-statement-of-support-for-hamline-professor-who-showed-muhammad-paintings/?comments=true#comment-9869519
Unless I'm missing something, it looks like your research came up as dry as mine. Am I to understand, in that first link of yours, that when you posted, in full...
^
...that was an example of you speaking up against Hamline's actions? Or were you referring to all the other posts where you were just sniping at others (as I do here)?
^ means I endorse the comment above. To wit: =============== Savagely Average 2 weeks ago Flag Comment Mute User Great, cogent and thoughtful response. [i.e. the OP "Muslim Public Affairs Council Statement of Support for Hamline Professor Who Showed Muhammad Paintings"]
California Dreamer 2 weeks ago Flag Comment Mute User I completely agree. And despite many of the comments above, I suspect most people on the left side of the political spectrum, as I am, would feel the same way. ====================
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/01/15/jacob-mchangama-privileging-blasphemy-norms-over-open-inquiry-plays-into-the-hands-of-religious-fundamentalists/?comments=true#comment-9879378
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/01/15/jacob-mchangama-privileging-blasphemy-norms-over-open-inquiry-plays-into-the-hands-of-religious-fundamentalists/?comments=true#comment-9881055
Do you count people like the department head Allison Baker or vice president for inclusive excellence David Everett, who tried to keep one of the other faculty from defending López Prater? I'd say they were definitely defending the decision and the groupthink and the ostracism (all hardcore fundamentalist Karen behaviors).
https://news.yahoo.com/lecturer-showed-painting-prophet-muhammad-152743633.html
Sure, we can count them. The ax is coming for them too I bet.
I agree the VP should lose his job, as his position shouldn't exist at all and he was very public in calling the class lesson "undeniably inconsiderate, disrespectful and Islamophobic". What did the department head do that merits dismissal rather than counseling?
The dept head bears responsibility for the actual firing.
Not so weird:
Sorry, accidenta-flagged. Someone should invent an unflag button.
From stories of other alumni she didn't seem to be the brightest bulb even before this incident.
Realistically how smart do you think you have to be to be a university president?
The more you got going on the less you want or need the job.
You have to be able to manage a multimillion dollar business with lots of stakeholders; it's not a job for stupid people. But of course its primary role is fundraising, not scholarly work.
Yes, intelligence *should* be a prerequisite for the job.
University President is a charisma based class.
It's a rookie mistake to min-max and dump wisdom and intelligence but there's always some munchkins out there pushing the envelope.
Apt
nerd analogy for the win!
Nice! Yeah she's gotta go.
YEET!
"undeniably inconsiderate, disrespectful and Islamophobic" and "an act of intolerance."
I really cannot understand that when the art in question was literally created by a Persian Muslim.
Oh go away with your facts and other nonsense!
I know, it's those damned self hating Muslims.
Can you understand Catholic gay-haters after the Pope said their bigotry is wrong?
I am fully behind what Francis has said.
Even though I am an atheist, I was raised and educated Catholic so I understand the culture and thought processes.
There is no room for hate in religion for people who are harming no one.
Please allow me to introduce you to centuries of history.
People change. Religions change. Exhibit A: all the various versions of Christianity that do and don't accept homosexuality, do and don't allow women pastors, do and don't allow pastors to marry, do and don't celebrate Xmas in December, etc.
It's not that hard to understand that one Muslim believer can do a pious thing that another Muslim believer would declare heresy. Sunni and Shia are good examples of Islamic belief systems that are in tension with each other.
It could very well be as bad as the university president made it out to be if the professor hadn't gone through extraordinary lengths to accommodate anyone who might be offended.
Wow. It’s the rare double boomerang cancel. Extremely rare. The circle isn’t complete until the DEI person gets theirs.
Vengeance is mine, sayeth supporters of free speech.
It's a victory for well-reasoned speech, pointing out the importance of not using power to crush opposition because of their speech, itself driven, whatever its origins, currently by quasi-religious our way or the highway attitudes.
As the other side ruled with an iron fist for thousands of years, I can hardly blame them.
Or I can, as the kleptocrats at the top shifted religions, no matter to them, just the cost of keeping the gravy train going, from their investment-savant spouses.
Yay DeSantis for censoring academic about the Blacks, sayeth the self-described "supporters of free speech" who operate and adore the Volokh Conspiracy.
Carry on, clingers. In all your hypocritical, bigoted, faux libertarian finery.
Until replacement.
Heartening that wokeness or whatever you call it hasn’t fully captured every single institution.
Of course, this doesn’t establish a right to show a “disrespectful” picture of Mohammad, but at least the Protestants of Islam are on the defensive with their “no pictures of Mohammad ever” stance.
I would like to join the criticism of Hamline, on grounds of fairness. If a professor is to be limited in her university teaching, those expectations should be spelled out in advance, so she won’t have to guess at her peril what’s going to get her in trouble.
The demoralizing effect of leading a prof to think they have broad discretion, then blindsiding them with this sort of thing, is horrible employee relations, before we even get to the issue of academic freedom.
It would be like encouraging a clerk to wear pieces of flair, then firing them for doing so.
If the goal is to chill free speech, being clear in one's limitations in what can and cannot be taught works against that goal. See, for example, Florida's vague bans on topics related to African Americans and LGBT persons. (and, gasp, black LGBT persons especially.)
Good statement except I would have left off the, "We reject unfounded accusations of Islamophobia," line.
It's like they're saying, "We support free speech. . . except when we don't."
Who are they to determine which accusations are founded or unfounded?
They probably think they're reasonably objective on that question. I think there has to be room for pubic discussion and analysis of just about any -phobia claim: our culture should be broadly accepting of people who aren't just like "us", and we should have norms against mistreating people on the basis of innate identity or some other identity categories (I would include religion, except to the extent that a religion directs intolerance in violation of these norms).
Not everyone will agree on what makes a convincing argument that such-and-such incident was whatever-phobic, or even whether we should have a norm against whatever-phobia, but I do not think we should leave that debate to the people who are most invested in one answer or another. Those who are, in some sense, "off to one side" can provide a more dispassionate view.
Accordingly, I think these faculty members should have said they reject poorly founded claims of Islamophobia, because "unfounded" is ambiguous: it can mean either no basis at all, or no sound basis. We should reject both of those sets.
We're talking about peoples' beliefs and no one can - authoritatively - determine how well founded the claims are.
Some (stupid) people think there is a God.
My claim is equally poorly/validly founded as any Tennessippian mouthbreather's belief.
As Randal said, that kind of perspective is what gives rise to woke overreach, and it's why I think we should not leave the debate to the people most invested in one answer. "Mah feels" should not convince anybody else that some act is beyond the pale.
Then who gets to decide what's 'beyond the pale?'
Especially when it comes to religious beliefs and non-beliefs and alternate beliefs and wacko beliefs, e.g., God created Adam and Eve and Noah built an Ark.
(Hey you oldies, remember Bill Cosby's Noah/Ark sketch?!?)
"unfounded accusations of Islamophobia"
Accusations can be well-founded or not, without regard for the beliefs of the people making the accusation, many of which aren't even people who are Islamic or Muslim.
The accusation was unfounded, because the professor evidently attempted to give those students that might be offended by the viewing of the painting an opportunity to not view said offending image. The professor, quite obviously, was not displaying Islamophobia. Therefore, the accusation was unfounded, and the question of whether some Muslim was, or may have been offended, isn't necessary to address.
Simple linguistics.
What’s a cubit?
We’re talking about peoples’ beliefs and no one can – authoritatively – determine how well founded the claims are.
Thankfully, it's easy to spot those people whose opinions can be easily dismissed. Like keyboard warrior apedad who proceeds to disparage others for their beliefs, and misuse terms like "mouthbreather" which almost certainly describes apedad better than those he despises.
Hey everybody, please submit your comments to V-U before posting to ensure they’re correct.
Mucho beaucoup. . . .
And I'm not surprised V-U is an expert on mouthbreathers.
apedad, before worrying about correctness, you should work on critical thinking skills. Correctness will likely follow.
You're welcome.
It's not going to learn why bias and bigotry is wrong, it enjoys them. It has a long history of smug rak-level shitty behavior like this across the internet.
Some (stupid) people think there is a God.
Some very intelligent people think there is a god as well. I’m an agnostic myself, but I do recognize that the need to believe in a higher power…for multiple reasons…is something that is indulged by even those of great intellectual capacity (a group you clearly do not belong in, as indicated by your not even understanding what "unfounded" means).
there has to be room for pubic discussion and analysis
No thanks.
I feel like if you can say "we reject Islamophobia" -- which you can -- then you can also say "we reject unfounded accusations of Islamophobia."
In fact, I wish that was the norm, instead of the idea that the accuser gets to decide whether it's Islamophobia. That's how this affair got started, and it's the defining characteristic of woke overreach. Words like "racist" and "antisemite" lose all meaning when any accusation of racism must be taken just as seriously as any other.
Rejecting something isn't the same as rejecting someone's right to say it. Is this too hard for you to understand?
Yet another Hamline report. (Is it 10?)
Still nothing on race-targeting censorship in Florida, however.
Could this right-wing blog explain the distinction -- without using a vile racial slur?
Clingers gonna cling.
Partisans gonna hack.
The Rev's gotta hate.
Oh, "Clingers"
Drink!
(even though it is a bit early)
The Rev has won the culture war.
The faux libertarians who disregard DeSantis’ censorship in Florida while incessantly nipping at Hamline’s ankles turn out to be cowards, bigots, and hypocrites as well as losers in modern America.
The marketplace of ideas will continue to sift this. Conservatives hardest hit.
You had one victory -- convincing them to pay attention to purely private universities that are not bound by the 1st Amendment, and force them to adhere to their own boilerplate valuing speech and investigation.
Maybe you'll instigate another.
My victory has been victory in the culture war, enabling better Americans to continue to shape our national progress against the wishes of conservatives.
Not much, if anything on DeSantis continuing attack on the First Amendment and academic freedom.
Outrage around here is pretty selective.
No one denies it's a right wing blog. Doesn't some selection bias go without saying?
This blog calls itself "often libertarian."
No mention of right-wing.
Or conservative.
Or Republican.
Or movement conservative.
Accuracy seems inconvenient in the rube-lathering business.
If you think they're hiding the ball on being right of center, I don't know what to tell you.
They lie about their ostensible libertarianism.
You have a point, Leo.
But the problem is that EV, and some commenters, liker to pose as champions of free expression, academic freedom, etc.
Th selection of topics suggests that this is bogus, and that these concerns are limited to using certain episodes as weapons in the culture wars.
I think the analysis varies from one blogger to the next. Josh’s principles, for example, are nearly always contingent and partisan. Eugene, on the other hand, while biased in his selection of topics, does a pretty good job of applying his principles neutrally when he does opine.
I’d be surprised and disappointed if, forced to express an opinion, Eugene had nothing critical to say about DeSantis’ assault on free expression. He just chooses not to bring it up. IMO that makes him partisan, but not hypocritical. Josh, being an unprincipled hack, I would fully expect to concoct a half-assed defense.
The same goes for commenters. A few are principled. Most not.
Would the faculty have been upset if the incident had not gathered worldwide attention? If it didn’t and they were, we wouldn’t be reading about it here, most likely. I wonder if the call for her head is for failure to protect academic freedom or failure to protect the school’s reputation.
As someone who interacts with faculty often, I can say without hesitation--- yes. Yes they would.
Yawn.
A supermajority of employees who don't want to be fired for any reason whatsoever and especially not for classroom behavior voted to ask their boss to resign after the boss fired an employee for classroom behavior.
In other news, the moon continues to generate tides.
I think Hamline's handling of this issue was unwise. I also think a private University can choose to implement its tolerance principles in whatever way it chooses, as long as the employees have fair warning what is expected of them. The free market can decide whether Hamline was too accommodating of students' oversensitivity (I think it was). What I don't think is at all remarkable is this show vote.
It may also be worth examining the 12 faculty members who voted in support of the president, and their reasons for doing so.
Investigate for what?
That's as bad an idea as firing the instructor was.
He said "examine," not "investigate." I don't think they ought to be investigated, but I would be mightily curious about who they were and why they would oppose this.
Even "examine" is a bit much, as it does imply concrete and possibly coercive steps to find out their thinking, and suggests that there is something nefarious about not signing the letter. I thought we were all about freedom of thought here.
OTOH, I suppose it would be interesting to know their reasons, though let's face it, they might be as mundane as thinking Miler has done a good job overall and shouldn't be fired over this incident, or maybe just a feeling that this is a mob reaction.
I agree it shouldn’t be coercive, so I suppose I’d rather they were asked by a journalist than by their bosses. But either way, I admit I’d love to know what they were thinking. It’s hard to imagine how anyone’s confidence in Miller could survive this.
That statement is remarkably ambiguous.
Are they mad that the adjunct was fired or are they mad she was reinstated?
Probably mad that both happened in that it shows a lack of mature leadership on the part of the President. If she'd done her job correctly, neither of these actions would have happened.
? She wasn't reinstated, unless I missed a news story.
She was.
And it looks from here like a contradiction when the petition demands academic freedom, yet demands the president who upheld it resign.