College that fired prof for showing image of Muhammad could lose accreditation
reason.com
reason.com
At that, the press release said they submitted it through the accreditor's website, which I have looked up[1], and which very explicitly says that "HLC does not: Accept complaints from third parties". Which suggests that this is very much a PR move by FIRE, and HLC's default reaction to it is going to be ignoring it unless FIRE is now actually representing someone involved.
(None of this is meant to imply that I think the college has done anything approaching the right thing in this case, from everything I've heard about the story...)
[1]: https://www.hlcommission.org/Students-Communities/complaints...
HLC, *aware of the value of information from the public*, shall review complaints regarding a member institution’s ability to meet the Criteria for Accreditation or other HLC requirements in a timely, fair, and equitable manner. The complaint process is intended to address only those matters that suggest substantive non-compliance.
[0] https://www.hlcommission.org/Policies/complaints-and-other-i...
> However, one student in class that day—the president of Hamline's Muslim Student Association—took offense, complaining first to the professor, and then to school administrators.
Then the paradox of tolerance [1] kicks in, and one offended guy forces everyone to comply (likely with silent support from other like-minded guys).
In clearer terms, if society has progressed from state A to state B while X was allowed, how can the paradox of tolerance then claim that, unless X is banned, society will inevitably go back from state B to state A? If X was such a strong driver towards state A, state B never would have been reached in the first place.
Unless of course this is cover for those that get to define what is intolerant [2] to act as censors and push the Overton window in whatever direction they please.
[1] 'Tolerant' or 'intolerant' on whatever axis you want.
[2] Is it intolerant to be inconsiderate of other religions? Or are those religions intolerant for insisting their taboos be upheld by others? What about describing other religions in terms that may lead to 'hate'? What if those descriptions are factual? When are you drawing attention to legitimate intersectional privilege that enables abuse and oppression, and when are you unfairly targeting a group based on protected characteristics?
People who take significant action to have a certain point of view suppressed are intolerant towards it. People who dislike that point of view but restrain themselves and allow others have their despicable ways are tolerant. (And those who don't care are neither, but are considered tolerant by some.)
The problem is that universities strive, at least notionally, to look for what's been found objectively true. For instance, portraits and other figurative paintings exist in earlier Islamic art. This is an undeniable fact, supported by multiple evidence. But this is also considered offensive by some modern people who profess Islam. They don't want these images to be shown, talked about, taught in a university, or otherwise made known. These people are citizens enjoying all the same rights and protections as other students, who might want to learn these facts.
So a university is in a double-bind. If they assert their right to teach objective facts in a course dedicated to such facts, they will make many enemies within the Islamic community, and suffer the uproar from the "pro-tolerance" crowd, on campus and in media. If they step back and remove these offensive facts form the curriculum, they will suffer an uproar from the "pro-objectivity" crowd (which may have a large intersection with the "pro-tolerance" crowd, by the way). But they choose the latter, because this way they will make fewer enemies. and risk a smaller dip in popularity and grant money.
The very same mechanism of civil pressure which was successfully used for various things me and you (hopefully) consider good, like women suffrage and racial desegregation, can be used for purposed me and you (hopefully) find problematic. Most people value social peace over some tolerable concessions to those who feel strong about a particular issue. I don't see any way around it: the mechanism is value-agnostic, much like strong encryption or firearms.
While natural sciences (even biology) are currently enjoying an environment where the scientific truth is considered the most important concern, social sciences, to my mind, are in a situation closer to that from the times of Galileo or Socrates.
[1] https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
You are trying to allude to free market systems to determine how a course evolves. Except there arent various forms of the same Islamic art class being offered at the school where a student can choose with money and choice which variation should be supported.
At some point, free market does not effeciently allow for the evolution of systems when choices are simply binary, like voting. In binary systems, participation and communication is key. And that is exactly what occurred here.
Which version of Islam and which Islamic laws though?
I assume the point of showing the specific image in question, sourced from the Jami' al-tawarikh, was to point out that here was an historic and significant Islamic history text commissioned by an Islamic state that contained .. ( <gasp>, <shock>, <horror> ) an image of Muhammad.
This is what happens in history classes, I hope somewhere a similar class is being taught that sainted Catholic nuns once prepared and admistered abortifacients (substances used to terminate pregnancy) as an example of the changing nature of religuous views and morals.
It obviously wasn’t islamophobic enough. What an inversion of meaning.
They should have just said “offensive and hurtful to Muslims” and left it at that. They can complain, but they don’t get to change the meaning of language.
(To be clear, I still think an art history professor should be able to show whatever artwork they want.)
I kind of understand society can’t ban images of say owls because say the bla people find it offensive But we do find it distasteful to refer to certain groups of people with names that THEY find offensive even when the majority of the globe don’t really get the offensive association
This wasn't some sort of general education seminar that went out of its way to bring up a controversial issue. It was an Art History class. To suggest that an art history professor should be somehow constrained in showing historical art , to adults, in a college class because some people might find it offensive is frankly absurd. The fact that the college would choose to expel the art historian who showed this historical art in an art class rather than those who were offended because of their primitive religious beliefs is a perfect encapsulation of the intellectual rot that has infected "Western society".
At best an average art lecturer wants to make statements about censorship they can do it on their dime in their own medium. the worst is, let’s leave that.
We're not talking about mathematics. we're talking about language something that's extremely Malleable. has always changed will always change and will always have people like you upset about it .
And by the way we just decided as a group that 1 = a single unit and doesn't mean 2.5 units
And the privileged position of religion comes from a time where the punishment for not following the local approved worldview was anything up to a long torturous death, which didn’t tend to happen for other kinds of beliefs.
The first amendment of the constitution is written so that each part is dependent on the previous parts.
Religion is protected because religion is what you think and believe.
Next speech is protected. It’s listed after religion because what you say is determined by what you think.
Freedom of the press protects what you say widely.
Next the right to assemble is protected because what you write in the press may inspire groups to form to petition the government for change which is the final item.
When people in Northern Ireland burn flags, they’re burning the flag of the Irish Republic, but the people they say they hate are Catholics.
Religious belief on the other hand does have external effects. Your belief / disbelief is directly perceived by God, and God takes actions based on your belief.
In other words, normal belief is a state, religious belief is an action. So, whereas challenging someones normal belief is an act of knowledge sharing, challenging a persons religious belief could get them struck by lightening.
It seems we should see large numbers of lightning strikes then. And as societies become more secular, the number of such strikes should be increasing; but I’m unaware of any such trend.
>“Hamline teaches us it doesn’t matter the intent, the impact is what matters,” Huddleston said.[1]
You reap what you sow.
However, the consequences of being insensitive should be more rational than simply firing. Here is an Islamic Art class and I can assume that this is not the first time a photo of the Prophet was displayed. If no one complained before as loudly as a student did now, the professor cannot be faulted. Second, what goes into an academic curriculum is not to be determined by the student. So if a student does complain, it needs to be reviewed by someone other than the professor and be directed from an administrative level.
Lastly, this article is click bait. Prof fired, and complaint against the school was filed. Now there is speculation that the school can lose accreditation.
No, it absolutely shouldn't. Those aspiring to higher education should be the ones who consider the fact that a central part of higher education is being exposed to ideas, images, arguments and other material that they will very likely find offensive. If they decide that they lack the emotional and/or mental capacity to be exposed to things that may offend them, then college isn't for them, and they are free not to attend. No college should cater to the mentally and/or emotionally disabled by altering their curriculum out of fear that someone may be offended.
It was. The professor, knowing these sensitivities, warned the class in advance. Despite the warning, the offended student chose to attend the lecture anyway. The professor, sensing trouble, contacted her department chair who acknowledged she did everything right. It was only once the Muslim Student Association became involved that the dean and DEI leadership decided to throw the professor under the bus in the name of academic virtue signalling.
There are many unfortunate parts of this sad affair. But certainly one is the alienation of allies who would otherwise be inclined toward cultural sensitivity had the university not taken such an extreme position. Although it may only be aspirational, the idea of proportional justice should undergird Western liberalism. This case shows the opposite is alive and well.
That’s the problem with all religions that have (strict/ancient/silly/unsubstantiated) orthodox rules: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy
Your position could be summarised as "the New Testament came first and then Catholicism/Orthodoxy added all these other traditions on top of it". From the Catholic/Orthodox viewpoint, that's got things back to front: the Church and her Traditions came first, and then the Church decided to write some of those Traditions down, which became the books of the New Testament, and then the Church collectively decided which books to canonise as Scripture, and which to leave out. Then, well over 1000 years later, along comes Protestantism, claiming it is dropping the Traditions "added to" Scripture, and “going back” to "Scripture alone" (sola scriptura).
However, from the Catholic/Orthodox viewpoint, this whole idea of sola scriptura, or Scripture and Tradition as a clash rather than a harmony, was a historical novelty; and what the Protestant Reformers were actually doing, was just reading their own ideas into Scripture. Indeed, over the last few decades, some Protestant scholars have come around to acknowledge there is some truth in that allegation – witness the "New Perspective on Paul", supported by Protestant scholars such as N. T. Wright, which argues that Luther fundamentally misread Paul, by interpreting his ideas through the lens of late mediaeval controversies over indulgences/etc, rather than appreciating their (very different) original Jewish context – which is basically what Catholic and Orthodox scholars had been saying all along.
Absurd woke-ism strikes again!
On the contrary, it seems to be the opposite of woke-ism.
This is in the article.
Good job on Hamline for doing the right thing.