Perhaps you remember the tragic murders of a dozen members of the staff of the French satiric magazine “Charlie Hebdo.” Knowing that Muslims oppose any visual detection of their Prophet Mohammed, the magazine printed an issue with several cartoons about Mohammed, all making fun of the taboo. Two brothers, who were Muslims and terrorists, burst into their offices and gunned down 23 people, murdering 12.
The story was widely reported but very few newspapers or magazines dared to reprint the offending images for fear of inspiring more terrorism.
Recently an adjunct professor at Hamline University in Minnesota, showed two respectful historical images of Mohammed. She warned her students in advance. One Muslim student complained, who happened to be president of the Muslim Students Association, and the professor was fired.
The story by Sarah Cascone in Artnet shows the two images, which are respectful, even devotional.
In a controversial move, an adjunct professor at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minnesota, has lost her job after showing her class Medieval paintings depicting the Prophet Muhammad, founder of the Islamic religion.
The school’s decision not to renew the professor’s contract for the current semester has sparked debates over free speech, including a Change.org petition in support of the teacher, signed by at least 2,500 scholars and students of Islamic studies and art history, and a condemnation from PEN America of the “egregious violation” of academic freedom.
But there is also a tradition of painting Muhammad, often in miniature, especially in Persia, Turkey, and India. Examples can be found in the collections of museums such as the Louvre, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco. It was a selection of two of those artworks shown to the class that cost the professor her job.
Though it is not mentioned in the Koran, many Muslims believe it is idolatrous to show Muhammad’s face. Most mosques instead are decorated with geometric designs and calligraphy featuring passages from the Koran, and Islamic figurative art is now rare.
The teacher, identified by the Art Newspaper as Erika Lopez Prater, is said to have displayed the images during on online lecture on October 6, 2022. There was a two-minute content warning prior to the artworks’ appearance, to allow students to opt out of viewing the potentially offensive imagery should they feel it was against their faith.
A day later, Vimeo Patel of The New York Times reported the controversy in greater detail. The story included the offending images, as well as one that belongs to Omar Safi, a Duke University Professor of Asians and Middle Eastern Studies, who said he regularly shows images of the Prophet in his classes.
Erika López Prater, an adjunct professor at Hamline University, said she knew many Muslims have deeply held religious beliefs that prohibit depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. So last semester for a global art history class, she took many precautions before showing a 14th-century painting of Islam’s founder.
In the syllabus, she warned that images of holy figures, including the Prophet Muhammad and the Buddha, would be shown in the course. She asked students to contact her with any concerns, and she said no one did.
In class, she prepped students, telling them that in a few minutes, the painting would be displayed, in case anyone wanted to leave.
Then Dr. López Prater showed the image — and lost her teaching gig.
Officials at Hamline, a small, private university in St. Paul, Minn., with about 1,800 undergraduates, had tried to douse what they feared would become a runaway fire. Instead they ended up with what they had tried to avoid: a national controversy, which pitted advocates of academic liberty and free speech against Muslims who believe that showing the image of Prophet Muhammad is always sacrilegious.
After Dr. López Prater showed the image, a senior in the class complained to the administration. Other Muslim students, not in the course, supported the student, saying the class was an attack on their religion. They demanded that officials take action.
Officials told Dr. López Prater that her services next semester were no longer needed. In emails to students and faculty, they said that the incident was clearly Islamophobic. Hamline’s president, Fayneese S. Miller, co-signed an email that said respect for the Muslim students “should have superseded academic freedom.” At a town hall, an invited Muslim speaker compared showing the images to teaching that Hitler was good.
Free speech supporters started their own campaign. An Islamic art historian wrote an essay defending Dr. López Prater and started a petition demanding the university’s board investigate the matter. It had more than 2,800 signatures. Free speech groups and publications issued blistering critiques; PEN America called it“one of the most egregious violations of academic freedom in recent memory.” And Muslims themselves debated whether the action was Islamophobic….
University officials and administrators all declined interviews. But Dr. Miller, the school’s president, defended the decision in a statement.
“To look upon an image of the Prophet Muhammad, for many Muslims, is against their faith,” Dr. Miller’s statement said, adding, “It was important that our Muslim students, as well as all other students, feel safe, supported and respected both in and out of our classrooms…”
The painting shown in Dr. López Prater’s class is in one of the earliest Islamic illustrated histories of the world, “A Compendium of Chronicles,” written during the 14th century by Rashid-al-Din (1247-1318).
Shown regularly in art history classes, the painting shows a winged and crowned Angel Gabriel pointing at the Prophet Muhammad and delivering to him the first Quranic revelation. Muslims believe that the Quran comprises the words of Allah dictated to the Prophet Muhammad through the Angel Gabriel.
The image is “a masterpiece of Persian manuscript painting,” said Christiane Gruber, a professor of Islamic art at the University of Michigan. It is housed at the University of Edinburgh; similar paintings have been on display at places like the Metropolitan Museum of Art. And a sculpture of the prophet is at the Supreme Court.
Dr. Gruber said that showing Islamic art and depictions of the Prophet Muhammad have become more common in academia, because of a push to “decolonize the canon” — that is, expand curriculum beyond a Western model.
Dr. Gruber, who wrote the essay in New Lines Magazine defending Dr. López Prater, said that studying Islamic art without the Compendium of Chronicles image “would be like not teaching Michaelangelo’s David.”
What a shame that Dr. Prater does not have tenure. This unfortunate case demonstrates the value of tenure. Most professors in higher education work foe low wages as adjunct faculty. It saves their university money, but it deprives them of protection from marauding politicians like Ron DeSantis and over-zealous students, as is the situation at Hamline, a good small private university that has unnecessarily damaged its reputation by not protecting academic freedom.
“What a shame that Dr. Prater does not have tenure.”
This is the exact point to this controversy. Universities are now staffed with teachers who do not have academic freedom due to their status as adjuncts. They are paid less than a living wage. I know people who have, despite stellar education, found it impossible to make a living on par with a skilled craftsman due not to the lack of need for their knowledge and skills, but due entirely to colleges and universities using adjunct status to cut down their bottom line. Meanwhile their bottom line seems to cause the cost of education to accelerate at such a rate that the kids who go to college today take advantage of programs like dual credit in high school to bypass what used to be the defining classes in a general curriculum.
Aside from all of this, it is obvious that this university through its administrators (adminimials, I believe some here have called them) has decided to try to quell controversy only to have it come to them as a rain ruins a field of hay.
Agreed.
Where have I heard this before?. The assault on tenure was not merely an economic decision. It has been a 50 year political project. De-funding State University systems and transferring costs to Students / Parents . Not surprisingly David Coleman, common core (anyone remember that topic ) is son of Elizabeth Coleman infamous Union Busting President of Bennington College. Who broke the Faculty Union and eliminated most tenure in 1994.
Does anyone think these things happen by accident .
Exactly
Joel,
I had hoped to have a response to my post about the ever shrinking teaching load of tenure stream faculty. I teach 700 students a year as an adjunct faculty member. My tenure stream colleagues will teach less than 100 students a year and earn more than three times my salary. Adjunct faculty like me are the only hope for low cost higher education.
The administration …has decided to try to quell controversy only to have it come to them as a rain ruins a field of hay.””
There you go again with your Chauncey Gardiner talk.
What the hail are you talking about?
SDP: Once a farmer, always a farmer
I had copied that line to comment. Beat me to the punch.
But the shame is that religious faith beliefs are accorded any credulity whatsoever. What is shows is the absurdities of religious faith beliefs.
The word “believe” is a tell.
People don’t use it of things that they KNOW to be true. They won’t say, for example, “I believe that there is a floor beneath my feet.” They reserve the verb believe for stuff that they are not sure about.
“There is a beer in the fridge” means that the person thinks it true that there is a beer in the fridge.
“I believe there is a beer in the fridge” means, “I think that there might be a beer in the fridge, but there might not be as well.”
So, the very use of the terms belief or believe belies an uncertainty about their claims that religious people typically do not want to admit.
Which I don’t find funny but, rather, depressing. And dishonest. Lying to others and/or to one’s self.
Bob: For many, the doubt in religion is the thing that draws them to it. This group of religionists generally views fundamentalism with a greater degree of hostility than any other group. They look to preserve the mystery of life in the face of modern rationalism pushing back this frontier. The Fundamentalist tendency to base its reasoning on textual interpretation is too legalistic for this group.
But “I believe that there is beer on the floor beneath my feet” means you are certain that you are in a frat house the morning after a party
How many times must Muslims plead with Western medias NOT to make fun of their prophet??? Why can’t the West respect this instead of provoking time and again? The West is getting back that which it asked for.
Showing medieval art depicting the Prophet is NOT making fun of the religion or its founder.
True…but knowing how touchy Muslims are…
Vera: Reading above, I learned that some Islamic traditions are not offended by artistic depictions of their prophet. As an academic institution, to ignore the point of view of those people is like being sensitive only to Roman Catholic dogma.
People have the right to believe what they want. In a free society, however, they should be ready to accept that not everyone believes as they do. If they cannot accept pluralism, they cannot accept the idea of a collective search for truth. Collective search for truth lies at the base of a free society and forms the most difficult of problems associated with freedom of conscience.
I agree, Roy. With the threat of Christian Nationalism in this country we must stick to the sacredness of pluralism. Thank youl
Thank you, Roy!
“Collective search for truth lies at the base of a free society and forms the most difficult of problems associated with freedom of conscience.”
I agree with the addition that the only credible “collective search for truth” is the skeptical rationo-logical thinking that is scientific thinking which assures the questioning of said “truths” Religious faith beliefs do not allow for that questioning and therefore are not a proper thought mechanism in a pluralistic society.
Even people of Jewish faith go after those who offend their beliefs. Freedom has its limits too or society descends into chaos…already on the horizon.
Vera,
Could you give examples of Jews slaughtering those who displayed offensive images? I consider swastikas offensive when they are used as celebratory items but I can’t imagine shooting anyone who offended me. I would be disgusted and let it go. Wouldn’t you?
The way Palestinians and Gazans are treated by israel, to me, is utterly shameless and abhorrent. It might not be the same as a massacre, but little by little…one corpse at a time…
Vera,
This is not analogous to a professor showing significant medieval paintings in an art history class.
No, but somehow it ties in with all the hatred towards different religions.
Roy: hear, hear! “Collective search for truth” is a good description of the mission of higher education.
It is a known fact that Muslims (many of them) are rather touchy when it comes to anything pertaining to their prophet Mohammad and, up to a point I agree with them and – though it seems ludicrous, their feelings should be respected. When the Charley Hebdo incidence occurred – prior to the happening, a Muslim Association had held a meeting with officials, requesting that their feelings be respected – obviously not the first time that Islam was being mocked. But Hebdo thought they could just go and continue their offensive provocations. And with their ‘in your face attitude’ they paid the price.
K-12: Individual search for the college.
College: Collective search for the truth
After College: individual search for the dollars
Allowing freedom of conscience allows for science and rational thought. This means allowing for religion even as it means allowing for the rejection thereof. This is why the treatment of this adjunct is so problematic. Their behavior was academically impeccable, allowing for a broad group of religious and non-religious points of view, and the fundamentalists produced a disruptive reaction on the part of the admin. Fie on them.
K through 12 is search for college
College years are search for truth
Rest of life is search for dollars
For which the truth is little use
Title
The Value of College
The Truth about Truth
Truth won’t pay
In life’s repast
If truth’s your way
You’ll finish last
But lies will pay
If well rehearsed
If lie’s your way
You’ll finish first
— Donald Trump (from the Art of the Deal)
Nice troll.
I believe what you are suggesting is too much to ask. Extreme religious beliefs are not a good rule of thumb for Colleges, Momma Mia,
what are you thinking. Look what happened with abortion and the Supreme Court.
This should be a massive embarrassment to this university.
I am certain the Right Wing book burners will hop right on the band wagon calling this WOKE. But I agree with you it is repugnant .
The more the merrier.
While I agree that this is an embarrassment, I thnk it is notable that no one seems to find the low pay of adjunct professors or their powerless position itself to be an embarrassment.
I think a lot of people find it terrible, but it’s not an embarrassment in the same way because it’s universal throughout higher education.
It boggles the mind how an American university education can be so crushingly expensive while the teachers who teach the overwhelming majority of classes make next to nothing.
Perhaps people who are relatively new to the blog do not know that our host, Dr. Ravitch, was not allowed to return to her position at Colombia University after serving in the Bush administration. Pressure in the academy does not typically come from the conservative side.
At a cost of attendance of $20,424 annually after financial aid, Hamline does not seem crushingly expensive. Cost of attendance includes tuition, fees, room, board, books, supplies, transportation, etc.
It is important to remember that full time adjuncts are paid reasonably well. At my institution it is at least $60,000 for an eight month contract.
But, TE, at some institutions, adjuncts are paid by the course and paid very
little.
Botjunkt
When bots replace
The human race
The teaching bot
Will work for nought
By the way, what does a botjunkt teach?
Botjunk,naturally
Junk the Botjunkt
A botjunkt
Teaches botjunk
As science
Teacher science
And botjunkt
Should be be got junked
Before a bot reliance
Roy– I was glad to see the NYT article made a point of it. It’s just a brief para, but links to a lengthy April exposé of this issue.
To teach a 3 hour survey course at the local community college, I would earn $1300. This is the same amount of money I earned in 1994 doing the same job.
Teach five adjunct courses at that pay and it’s not enough to live on
I’m curious, Roy. What would you guesstimate your after tax hourly take home pay of that $1300 is? With the time you have to put in, I’m guessing it would be hard to hire someone at McDonalds for the same time and pay. Truly pathetic what we do to educators.
Greg: Let’s just say that I quit doing that in the 90s because I could not justify the expenditure on time and gas. And the pay has not appreciated. Yet they still fill positions.
Dr. Ravitch,
I certainly agree that at some adjunct faculty are paid poorly. My concern was that FLERP!’s comment suggested that all adjunct faculty are paid poorly, and that is far from the truth. I also think that there is a misunderstanding in the blog that adjunct faculty are all part time instructors who depend on multiple positions to earn a living. My department has seven full time permanent adjunct faculty that teach the majority of the undergraduate program. The law school has adjunct faculty who are partners in large law firms and sitting judges.
Not sure your experience is typical, TE. A report in 2020 said that many adjuncts live below the poverty line.
Nearly 25 percent of adjunct faculty members rely on public assistance, and 40 percent struggle to cover basic household expenses, according to a new report from the American Federation of Teachers.
Nearly a third of the 3,000 adjuncts surveyed for the report earn less than $25,000 a year. That puts them below the federal poverty guideline for a family of four. Another third of respondents make less than $50,000.
Per-course pay varies from less than $2,000 to more than $7,000. About 53 percent of respondents make less than $3,500 per course. Asked about equitable compensation, more than half said they should be paid at least $5,000 per course
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/04/20/new-report-says-many-adjuncts-make-less-3500-course-and-25000-year
Adjuncts are just the college teachers version of the gig economy.
Eventually all teaching — like all taxis and there — will be done by bots.
And teachers will be completely out if a job.
And insidiously doubt it will even reduce the cost of college to students, since the University presidents and other administrators will just keep jacking up their salaries.
Dr. Ravitch,
I have the same doubts that the AFT report is typical.
First, while the report refers to adjuncts, in a footnote it reveals that graduate students respondents along with other categories of employees are included in the reported numbers. Graduate students should only be employed part time, so for that subgroup of the respondents part time employment is better than full time employment.
The major problem, however, is that about 3,000 people chose to respond to an unknown number of email and social media requests to answer the 52 question questionnaire. We know nothing about who was contacted and have no notion if the respondents are representative of non-tenure stream faculty and graduate students population as a whole.
I think we can both agree that if a college or university can not afford to hire a full time employee to teach the courses, the university should not offer the courses, though there should be exceptions for adjuncts who are primarily employed elsewhere.
In my high school Global Studies classes I used to have students read and discuss “sura” from the Koran – today I advise teachers to ask Muslim students to explain the principles of Islam, perhaps the college could have offered an apology.. too late, “wokeness” rules
It sounds like you have some good ideas for your classroom. Good for you.
The commment about wokeness ruling however is misguided on your part. The students were told in advance to bring up concerns. The student was given a false sense of power. Extreme religious beliefs are a poor rule of thumb for COLLEGEs, Momma Mia. The officials that fired the professor show weakness not wokeness.
Weakness not slowness”
Ha ha ha
I’ll have to remember that one😀
Weakness not wokeness”
Autocorrectness not intelligence
J
You call the religious beliefs “extreme,” the complaining students call the “lesson” insulting and insentitive and the complainents weren’t in the class …. the gulf between freedom of speech and insenttivity to deeply held religiois beliefs is wide and growing ….
I used to work in a Science Museum for children. One of the exhibits was about the dangers of smoking cigerettes. The exhibit had to plastinated human lungs, one healthy, the other blackened by years of smoking. a Hasidic Jewish person called the museum expressing concern, It is against the Hasidic Jewish faith to view human body parts. The museum provided a guide to ensure that the group would not see the smoking exhibit. Do you find it rude that the museum did not get rid of the exhibit? I do not.
This appalling violation of academic freedom is 100% on the Left, which has made any criticism of Islam into “Islamophobia”, and which cowtows to Islamist students. Imagine if ultra-conservative Christian students demanded that a professor be fired for disparaging any aspect of their faith. There would be saturation media coverage about how theocracy was being imposed, Christian fascism, etc. Wokeness forbids doing or saying anything that extreme Muslims oppose. There is no way to spin this matter otherwise.
This is a perfect example of a member of one religion trying to impose their religious views/edicts on the rest of us — and (supposedly in the name of “religious tolerance”!
The individual who complained was given fair warning and no one forced
them to view anything
Imposing ones religious views on others runs completely counter to the principles upon which the US was founded.(specifically , the First Amendment)
It’s not right no matter who does it and no matter what their religion.
That’s precisely why the recent Supreme Court rulings (on school
prayer and abortion) are also very bad. They are quite clearly trying to impose Christian (specifically Catholic) views on thd rest of us.
Well Said, Ya Dam Poet.
Many readers probably know, but some might not that DAM stands for Devalue Added Method, a crack at VAM and the fools who wanted to use an algorithm (designed for birthing cattle) with test scores to evaluate teachers. It’s not a reference to hydroelectricity.
Its DAM poetsphemy , but that’s OK
I don’t mind if people use my DAM name in vain.
Just trying to supporit a comment made by Teaching Economist in the previous thread that this issue ” will be ignored. An inconvenient truth.””
Anything I can do to support his claims.
😀
Agreed
Another perspective:
https://dianeravitch.net/2023/01/08/heather-cox-richardson-on-the-republican-debacle/comment-page-1/#comment-3444921
I had to fact-check the Quran to see if it explicitly bans images of Muhammad and learned:
“In Islam, although nothing in the Quran explicitly bans images, some supplemental hadith explicitly ban the drawing of images of any living creature; other hadith tolerate images, but never encourage them. Hence, most Muslims avoid visual depictions of Muhammad or any other prophet such as Moses or Abraham.”
What I learned tells me that Islam has its MAGA RINOs too, by other names like ISIS, Taliban, Al-Qaida, et al, making stuff up and spreading it far and wide until an dangerously, ignorant, violent mob has been created and never goes away.
Ms prater obviously knew she could be opening a hornet’s nest. She made all kinds of warnings of what she intended. Administration should have foreseen this result, or do they not pay attention to what is happening in their classrooms. That is my first comment, for what it is worth.
My second comment is that knowing how deep this attitude runs for Islamic students, she should have collected permissions from every student, not just Islamic students, that if they stayed to see these paintings they were giving permission to have them shown. Anyone who did not sign a permission should have been blocked. This could have been done in the first class of the year, or the week before theat lesson was taught, probably both.
Thirdly, the complaining student obviously stayed to watch for the specific intention to make a fuss. He or she had heard the warnings, and had chosen to be there. This was intentional. How can they say they were insulted when it was their choice to be insulted. That is like willingly going to a religious ceremony and then bitching because they found the ceremony offensive.
In my eyes everyone here is at fault. And if the teacher is to remain fired, then the student should be expelled, and the entire Administration should also be fired! Everyone is guilty, in one way or another. But as usual, the repercussions land on the weakest person in the docket, the one who is paid the least to do a job to the best of her ability.
This whole incident is a tempest in a teapot that escaped and became a hurricane. It should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. If those particular paintings had to be taught, they should have been taught at a higher level, third or fourth year, or graduate. Was it really necessary to teach them to a class of undergraduates?
I know it is easy to see things in hindsight, but someone in charge has to have the foresight to see what can happen when a controversial event is planned. What if this had been a live class, and the student, already offended, had brought an auyomatic weapon to class? How many people coukd have died because no one stood up and said something?
he complaining student obviously stayed to watch for the specific intention to make a fuss. He or she had heard the warnings, and had chosen to be there. This was intentional. ”
That’s exactly right.
I would disagree that the prof should have required permissions slips, however.
This is a college class, not elementary school.
As far as I can see, the professor did what was necessary to inform the people in the class to give them fair warning.
From there on, it’s up to the adults in the class to act like adults, Not little children.
I prefer protecting my ass on something so controversial, and knowing what happened in France.
But the university administrators played a role here, and no one is complaining about them. I think someone has to expise them.
Nearly all of the outrage over the teacher’s firing is being directed at the administration that fired her. So I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
I think Professor Prater taught her course with care and dignity. No Professor should be expected to self-censor so as to avoid offending all religious beliefs. Had she ridiculed Islam, that would have been wrong. She did not. She was respectful, and she showed important medieval Art. Censorship should never be condoned.
I am not advocating censorship, I am talking common sense. We are no longer l8ving in a polite world. In fact, we are living in a dangerous and violent world. Prof. Praker was poking the bear, Islam, and the bear poked back. The zoo keepers acted in favour of the bear, which normally I would applaud. She knew trouble could happen, and she did it anyway. Why?
Because the paintings she showed are historic, significant, and respectful. They were not satiric cartoons. This is America, not Saudi Arabia.
Probably for the same reason that an American history teacher does not avoid uncomfortable issues like slavery just because they might disturb some people on the class.
I don’t know much about art history, but I suspect it was not a purposeful attempt to “poke the bear”.
It was obviously mindful, since she knew there might be objections, but mindful is not the same.
There is a lot of art that offends certain people. It’s not possible to avoid and if an art history teacher tried to avoid it, she would never be able to show anything, certainly nothing that Michelangelo painted or xculpted because a lot of that is naked bodies.😀
I can’t wait to see how much people object to the “art” that AI bots like DALL-E produce.
My guess is it will be shut down quicker than you can save “pornogrsphy”
Say, not “save”
Death DALL-E Days
DALL-E knows
The human pose
And DALL-E draws
Without the clothes
DALL-E doesn’t
“Poke the bear”
Cuz DALL-E wasn’t
Built to care
“poke the bare”
Might be better
Strike that last thought
DALL-E does poke the bare, which will be its death knell.
DALL-E cousins
Poke the bare
But DALL-E wasn’t
Built to care
Well, goodbye, DALL-E
I have to laugh.
The folks at OpenAI say they restricted the training images and filter the output of DALL-E to avoid certain types of output.
But they are just kidding themselves.
All it will take is an imaginative prompt that will bring out the beast in DALL-E
Devious DALL-E
DALL-E’s devious
Hard to tame
Quite mischievous
Who’s to blame?
Not the bot
Which doesn’t think
Not a thought
Is on the brink
For what it’s worth
The Scientist’s
To blame for birth
Of DALL-E witch
Jekyll and Hide
Saint DALL-E ?
DALL-E’s a sheep
Until it ain’t
Learning was deep
So, NOT a saint
DALL-E’s a fox
And also hen
Secretive box
With both within
Jekyll or Hyde?
DALL-E’s a cross
Of Jekyll and Hyde
And albatross
Is hard to hide
Offensive Art
Put some pants
On David’s bod
Dis-enhance
His gift from God
Make the sculpture
Fit for view
Give it culture
Clean and new
Sistine Sin
Cover up the Sistine Sin
Naked bodies there within
Give them diapers or a leaf
Hide the sinful art relief
Luckily, that was done long ago — soon after Michelangelo completed his obscene work.
Michelangelo was the DALL-E of his day.
Art is Subjective
Art is Subjective
It’s different for each
It isn’t objective
Or easy to ” teach”
It isn’t like science
It isn’t like fact
So sometimes defiance
Is how we react
I can only imagine how difficult it must be to be an art history teacher — or any sort of history teacher, these days.. It’s a veritable mine field.
Art History
The history of art
Is covered by a leaf
From painting’s very start
Twas artists greatest beef
Cuz even in the caves
The critics did demand
That artists’ sculpting Daves
Would cover up the man
“Had she ridiculed Islam, that would have been wrong.”
No, not at all. Religious faith beliefs need to be ridiculed to show the total ridiculousness of said faith beliefs.
The prof explained in the course syllabus that such images would be shown and asked for any comments or concern via email—none received. And spent a few minutes airing the subject (again asking for comments– nada) during the lecture, and gave a 2-min warning. There’s your safety, support and respect. Her dept head backed her up, but academic freedom apparently cuts no mustard with admin.
Smacks of safe spaces, micro-aggressions, and placing a distorted notion of “religious freedom” above the interests of education in a pluralist society– the extreme left & right of polemics. The professor went to great lengths to protect students and respect their concerns. The admin is going out of their way to protect extremists, allowing them to bully faculty into deleting art and history from curriculum that offends them, rather than simply covering their eyes, or sitting out the class, or not taking it in the first place. What a terrible precedent.
Meanwhile, the 1st one to lodge a complaint– prez of Muslim Students’ Association– cynically manipulates the situation. She was a member of the class, so got all the caveats well in advance, choosing not to respond to solicited comment/ concern– until after the fact. Then has the nerve to tell the college newspaper she was “blindsided.”
Great discussion! Good article until the end when StrawMan DeSantis was inserted as an analogy. As a Florida professor, I can say he wouldn’t censor a display of this sort in our colleges.
Lively discussion with 96 comments (although 37 of the came from a single commenter).
And 7 from a fellow who said a while ago he was leaving the b!oh for good.
Ha ha ha
Blog