The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
San Francisco State Univ. Investigating Professor For Showing Image of Muhammad in Class
From the Chronicle of Higher Education (Emma Pettit):
Maziar Behrooz, an associate professor of history at San Francisco State University, does not yet know what a teaching decision he made might cost him.
In the fall of 2022, Behrooz was teaching the history of the Islamic world between 500 and 1700 and showed a drawing of the Prophet Muhammad. He's taught the course, and the image, for years. One student, a devout Muslim, strongly objected, outside of class. His main point, Behrooz told The Chronicle, was that it's not permissible for an image of the Prophet Muhammad to be shown in any shape or form.
"This is the first time that this has happened," Behrooz said. "I was not prepared for somebody to be offended, in a secular university, talking about history rather than religion."
Behrooz said he told the student that, as the professor, he is the one who decides what's shown in class. The student then complained to Behrooz's department chair, who broached the issue with the professor, according to Behrooz. He said he explained to his chair that the student's view is not uniform among all Muslims. The type of drawing he shows in class can be bought at markets in Tehran near holy shrines. Many Shiite Muslims have such drawings on walls in their homes, said Behrooz, who was born in Tehran and has written books on Iran's political history.
The student also apparently complained to "authorities higher up" at the university, according to Behrooz. The professor said the institution's office of Equity Programs & Compliance informed him in March that it would investigate the incident and asked him to attend a Zoom meeting.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression wrote today to SFSU arguing that even the investigation itself tends to chill academic freedom; it also has a blog post about the case.
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
Now maybe it's just me, but I think the "State" in "San Francisco State" overrules this student's butthurt, and the idea of investigating a free speech issue (especially one tied to religion) is, on its face, an illegal act of censorship on the part of the university.
Do you similarly disparage claims rooted in other religions (pharmacists who don't want to do their jobs or comply with employers' direction; employees who don't want to work on particular days; people who claim superstition-related privilege from generally applicable vaccination requirements, etc.)?
Poor analogies. What you're going for (or should be at least) is, whether the poster would disparage a devout Christian pharmacology student's complaint that a course taught about abortion drugs. In that case, the complaint would, indeed, be equally groundless.
Those who don't want to do their jobs (poorly serving customers and employers) or claim special superstition-based privilege to be antisocial, virus-flouting misfits are less (or more) butthurt than those who don't want to see an image in class?
What about colleges that impose statements of faith or collect loyalty oaths? Are they butthurt if people object?
Are some superstition-based claims of snowflake status more butthurty than others? If so, how so?
"What about colleges that impose statements of faith or collect loyalty oaths?"
Public or private? If public, that is completely unacceptable. Private can, of course, set any standard they like.
Not according to FIRE, Eugene Volokh, and plenty of other partisan clingers.
"employees who don’t want to work on particular days"
William Brennan was such a clinger. Good thing he was replaced, eh?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/374/398
I do!
Does that mean I have your permission to offer criticism here?
Yes on all counts, with the "reasonable accommodation" requirement of the law taken into account of course.
When followers of a dogma claim the right to muzzle speech, their devotion becomes untenable. There is legitimate cause to question the foundation of their beliefs, and valid reason to prevent the practice of their customs in a free land. As an undergraduate, I doubted and questioned the revisionist history being taught at my university, and even questioned an engineering professor about his dismissal of the importance of a factor in a structural calculation. But I never appealed to the university administration to have the "offenders" cancelled. Students shouldn't have the power to run the school.
Jerry Sandusky, experienced in administering Butthurt
The so-called "vaccine" to which you refer is of course not a vaccine at all, but an experimental drug distributed under a legal shield exempting its manufacturers and distributors from any liability for the harms it causes. No one should be forced to take it.
https://reason.com/podcast/2023/03/08/dr-vinay-prasad-youre-right-not-to-trust-public-health/
The so-called vaccine is of course a vaccine, is not experimental, and does not in fact operate under a legal shield.
Your ignorance is monumental albeit, in YOU, unsurprising. I’ve already linked to a Reason podcast on the subject which happened to appear at the bottom of this page which mentions that (a) the “vaccine” neither protects you from getting COVID nor does it prevent transmission to others (also see https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254111268.html ); (b) was issued under an EUA (and, unmentioned, is still only actually available in the EUA-shielded form, because the manufacturers like the status quo), i.e. IS experimental; and (c) the EUA does in fact shield Pfizer etc. in exactly the fashion I specified.
Like virtually all vaccines, the COVID vaccines protect you from getting COVID and limit transmission to others. Like virtually all vaccines, the COVID vaccines do not 100% prevent you from getting the disease and do not 100% prevent transmission to others.
Of course they were issued under EUAs; that's not in dispute. But Pfizer's vaccine was approved for 16+ year olds almost two years ago; it is not approved via EUA any more for that age group.
And water is not wet, nor fire hot.
These dumbasses are your fan base, Conspirators.
And the reason your employers are going to stop hiring strident movement conservatives.
Kirkland, the point you are missing is not that *he* had to view the image, but that he wanted EVERYONE ELSE to be prevented from doing so. Big difference between saying you won't work today because it is Good Friday and preventing anyone else from working today because it is Good Friday.
It literally is forcing Jews & Atheists to observe Good Friday.
Isn't this the same argument being made against the "Don't Say Gay" laws that result in school book banning?
K-12 are minors -- college ain't.
Establishment Clause, now it's your time to shine!
"The professor said the institution's office of Equity Programs & Compliance . . . "
If it has one of these, you shouldn't teach there.
Funny that an organization of the state is investigating a charge of heresy.
If the same professor was accused of advocating homosexuality in violation of Islamic law by the same student, would there still be an investigation?
"would there still be an investigation?'
Who is higher on the privilege list these days?
1. Winning election so your spouse can demonstrate still more latent investment savant ability
2. Suing Lawyers
3. ADA
4. Sexual harrassment
5. Racial discrimination
6. Sex discrimination (old school)
7. Unions (government employees)
8. Importing immigrants hand over fist (not because you are kind, the purported reason, but in aid of #1, and in opposition to #37.)
...
35. Don’t Kick Puppies
36. Vegetarians
37 and falling fast. Unions (private corporations)
I think that’s the correct order, where, in conflict between any two, the higher order one wins.
The "investigation" should consist of nothing more than politely telling the student that his or her complaint is groundless.
To give them the benefit of the doubt, it’s possible they put up the picture to be deliberately offensive.
But that’s why I pray for an asteroid to smear the surface of the Earth, because 25 years ago under Clinton, a government paid-for cross upside down in urine was justified by these same people, where the offending of Christian sensibilities was a valued communicative thing, and that shoving this in their face was a good thing to make 'em change! Grrr-face
Please join me. Pray for an asteroid large enough to not only destroy the surface, but molten all the way to the mantle, to kill life deep in underground cave rivers and around the deep vocanic ocean vents.
Just to be sure.
"He's taught the course, and the image, for years."
So not deliberately offensive.
In my misbegotten youth, I read about this approach:
22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord.[d] 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
26 The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.” 27 Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?” “If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”
[and so forth, until]
32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?” He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”
33 When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.
[And they lived happily ever after]
From the quoted article:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/power-shift?cid=gen_sign_in
So there's a real question about whether this investigation should have taken place since the conduct could not possibly, I am nearly certain, "violate the California State University nondiscrimination. policy". Somebody's judgment is very much in question.
That said, I'm not much impressed with the snowflakes complaining about the investigation. It does, after all, give SFSU the opportunity to clarify that it actually supports academic freedom in instances like this, or expose it to correction if it doesn't.
The students need to have faith in the complaint process. And this is a serious complaint. If the university wishes to maintain trust in its commitments to students, it should at least review the complaint and provide a professional response to the student (one that takes advantage of this as a learning opportunity.)
“An investigator meets with the complainant to gather information and discuss options, she said. If it’s decided the conduct could violate the California State University nondiscrimination policy, an investigation begins, and both parties are notified.”
So the investigator comes in before any investigation begins. Then the investigator investigates to see if there should be an investigation. A meta-investigation, if you will.
Going by the article's description of the procedure, since the faculty member was notified and a hearing was scheduled, I gather that, as the result of a meta-investigation, the investigator concluded that there should be an investigation.
Based on the account of how the process works, I deduce that the meta-investigation by the investigator found that “the conduct could violate the California State University nondiscrimination policy” – and now there is currently an investigation.
Does that sound about right?
That sounds like a reasonable approach as a general rule. But if so, I'd have some qualms about this particular case going that far.
Shite-Sunni fight! Nostalgic.
Prediction: nothing will come of this. Maybe a suggestion that the professor mention in advance that the image will be portrayed, if he doesn't do it already.
According to press reports, the Prof. did tell students in advance that he was going to show such a picture.
What press reports?
The Hamline professor who was fired did that, but I've seen no mention of the SFSU one doing it. Nor should he have had to.
If Jeebus & friends say you can't show a picture of Mohamed, how do we know that what this professor showed was, in fact, a picture of Mohamed? If I display a picture of a banana, claim it is Mohamed, does it then become a picture of Mohamed? It's so hard to follow all these religious rules, all the crazy conflicts and stuff . . . at least all the major religions agree on their hearty support for raping all the children!
In your example, it would be an apple - - - - - -
"Ceci n'est pas Muhammad."
This discussion has become a bit rough. Let's lighten things a bit.
Since Mohammed is a fictional character, objecting to a depiction of him is fatuous, at best.
Well we know pretty much for sure that he was a real person, it was his claims of being in direct contact with some god that is fallacious.
There's a lot more evidence for the existence of Mohammed than Jesus.
Plentiful evidence in either case, Mohammed is just more recent, so more of it survives.
Are you appealing to supposed past evidence that didn't survive till today in order to call evidence of Jesus 'plentiful?'
The evidence for the actual existence of Yeshua Ben Yusuf is far from "plentiful," but more than one would expect for a first-century itinerant prophet in a backwater of the Roman Empire, and sufficient to make the hypothesis of existence at least as plausible as the opposite, if not more so.
There's some evidence he existed (though not, of course, that any of the unauthorized-sequel-to-the-bible stories about him are true). My point was simply that there's a lot more evidence for Muhammad's existence.
True. I believe both of them existed, but the evidence for Muhammad is substantially greater.
Isn't your use of 'first-century' proof enough?
(joking!)
Um, excuse me but Jesus IS real.
He talked to Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Warren Jeffs, and many others just yesterday.
Trump even asked about the Crucifixion thing and how did Jesus manage to escape.
The only investigation should be into how hard to kick the student out of the college.
If we kick students out of college for making mistakes, there'd be no students.
How would the student know if it were indeed an image of mohammad, unless he cast his gaze upon the forbidden image. And this implies that the student somehow knows the image is indeed of mohammad, based upon prior viewings.
Seems like the student is the infidel.
Hmm, sort of how the parents protesting Dirty books in their children's School get kicked out of School Board meetings for reading from the Dirty books in their children's School.
Don't be obtuse, there are lots of ways to know. The professor could say it was a depiction of Mohammed. The other images in the picture could make it clear in context that the image was of Mohammed -- for example, by indicating that it was a scene from the life of Mohammed.
And you seem to be under the impression that muslims regard an image of Mohammed as a pollutant that defiles the one who sees it, rather than as a sacrilege that damns the one who shows it. The sight of an image of Mohammed may offend an orthodox muslim, but merely seeing it doesn't make the viewer an infidel.
Exodus 22:18 says "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" so I can go murder her with impunity?
Are you saying Christians haven't done this in the past? The Bible says similar things about homosexual men. There's still plenty of overt Christian hate against homosexuals in this country. (See: just about any Red state but especially Florida.) Witches/Wiccans had to fight hard just to get their religious symbol approved for Arlington cemetery.
All this anger aimed at a Muslim student for speaking out on behalf of his faith without any introspection regarding how Christians get special treatment for theirs.
I think the anger is aimed at the school a lot more than at the student.
I think the anger is aimed at a strawman "woke" institution that most public institutions in liberal/liberal-leaning cities can all substitute each other for. Generally, SF State seems to handle these sorts of controversies well enough.
This is a Christian nation.
The school's response to FIRE:
The office thinks the teacher may have discriminated (harassed, etc.), otherwise the complaint would have been rejected before an investigation.
The California Faculty Union doesn't appear to be making any statements about this that I can find. Eugene is probably a member, actually. Maybe he can comment. I would expect the union to be loudly protecting its member if there was any belief the investigation was political rather than routine and/or non-threatening.
Here's the full statement: “SF State stands by its long commitment to academic freedom and freedom of expression. We are also committed to being a university where all students and employees have the right to learn and work in an environment that is free of discrimination, harassment, sexual misconduct and retaliation. While we cannot comment on specific reports or investigations, we can supply some information about our nondiscrimination policy. The university has a duty to respond to all reports of discrimination, harassment, sexual misconduct, sexual exploitation, dating violence, domestic violence, stalking and retaliation. When a complaint is reported to the university, our Equity Programs and Compliance Office is obligated to assess the report and provide outreach to the complainant named in the report. An investigation is opened if, accepting the reported conduct as true, it may constitute a violation of the nondiscrimination policy. It is important to note that in making this determination, the Title IX Coordinator/DHR Administrator does not make a qualitative assessment of the reported conduct and the opening of an investigation does not mean that any decision has been made that the respondent is in any way responsible.”
"The office thinks the teacher may have discriminated (harassed, etc.),"
Of COURSE it does!
A state university has more issues to deal with than a private one. If they investigate professors for violating Islamic norms but for violating Christian norms by teaching, say, the theory of evolution or the Big Bang Theory, they may be establishing religion.
The university may have, or regard itself as having, a duty to investigate all complaints no matter how rediculous. And that policy may be reasonable the first time an issue comes up. However, a difficulty with such a policy is that it can easily become a harassment tool.
Perhaps this should be allowed to blow over once. Assuming it gets dismissed quickly, if it happens repeatedly, the policy should be revisited. Or professors might need to start making hostile environment complaints about students.
The ongoing investigation at San Francisco State University surrounding a professor's decision to show an image of Muhammad in class raises important questions about academic freedom and cultural sensitivity. While it's crucial to respect religious beliefs, it's also necessary to foster an environment of open dialogue and intellectual exploration. We must delve into the roots images of this incident to find a balanced approach that respects both freedom of expression and cultural sensitivity in educational settings.
Greetings everyone, I wanted to share with you my experience with Lilfox Ambrosia Immortalis The Eye Complex. This product has truly transformed the appearance of the skin around my eyes. The formula is rich in antioxidants and nourishing oils that have helped to reduce fine lines and puffiness. I highly recommend this product to anyone who wants to achieve a more youthful and radiant look. If you're interested, you can find it here: https://www.alyaka.com/products/lilfox-ambrosia-immortalis-15ml Thank you for reading and I hope this recommendation helps!
The Pin-Up Casino https://pinup-casino.in/mobile-app/ mobile app ensures smooth and convenient gameplay on your smartphone or tablet. You’ll enjoy high-quality graphics and sound in all casino games, as well as prompt payouts. While the mobile app may have some limitations compared to playing on the website, such as screen size, it still provides the pleasure of gaming anytime, anywhere. Additionally, you’ll have access to all account management features and promotions, making the gameplay even more convenient. Don’t miss the chance to experience the joy of gaming through the Pin-Up Casino mobile app today!