<p>I find it uncomfortable and inappropriate. There is an overt and covert power differential between faculty and student, and faculty are commonly advised to be mindful of it when interacting with their students. The communications should remain professional at all times. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>@awcntdb you are the one taking offense at a statement that is uttered billions of times without ill intent, just because a VERY FEW radical Islamists might also use it. You think it’s fine for a Christian professor to sign off “In Him” but a Muslim professor be banned from saying “Allahu Akbar”?</p>
<p>I think apprenticeprof said best what I was trying to communicate. Bringing religious speak into communication (rather than just personal identity, as in the wearing of a cross necklace) shows lack of concern for the recipient of the message.</p>
<p>Maybe the professor, in a moment of absent-mindedness, just forgot to code-switch. If he’s religious and participates in church business, he may be used to signing emails “In Him” in certain contexts and just forgot and substituted the phrase. I can see it happening, esp. if you’re dashing off a quick response to a student inquiry from home at 10 p.m. I don’t think the sign-off “in Him” is appropriate for faculty student communications. I also don’t’ like “Namaste” on email signatures, or quotes from the Dalai Lama at the bottom of the email, but see faculty use them. Oh well.</p>
<p>I once said “God bless people for serving on that committee” or some such in casual conversation with a colleague at work because I felt sorry for the task they had been given and appreciated the work they were doing. The moment it came out of my mouth I realized, “wrong crowd.” My secular atheist academic colleagues and my church-going neighbors and relatives are totally different groups, and I have to code-switch a lot. That’s just how it is.</p>
<p>^ Well, in our region where there are 911 orphans who may be in a local college class, yes it would be far worse.</p>
<p>I don’ t think this was a cowardly attempt at evangelism. I don’t think it was an attempt at all to evangelize because the professor knows that bold evangelism is not appropriate in his workplace and would jeopardize his job. If the OP’s son was surprised by this sign off at the end of the semester, then the professor probably taught an entire class without reference to his personal beliefs. If so, then he is acting professionally. </p>
<p>Some expressions are simply a reflection of personal beliefs. To read more intent into into them would make it hard for us all to co-exist. Obviously that sign off would not appeal to everyone, but consider the cost of reacting to it. For the sake of peace, I’d let it go. </p>
<p>"Last time I checked, “In Him” is not the predominant cry-out just before someone blows up people or kills others in a multitude of ways. Therefore, I agree that “Allahu Akbar” should be taken a lot more seriously, as it is synonymous now with much death, and its utterance precedes murder as a regular occurrence.</p>
<p>When “In Him” gets to such an inhumane threshold, let me know."</p>
<hr>
<p>Ever heard of the Crusades? </p>
<p>Yeah. Me, too. 
</p>
<p>As to the OP- I would find it weird as well. I would respect it as their choice, but I would find it an odd choice, considering the setting. </p>
<p>I heard of the Crusades, but never heard that “In Him!” was the battle cry of choice of your typical Crusader.</p>
<p>It would make me uncomfortable and I say this as someone who sent her kid to a Catholic prep school even though we are not Christian. </p>
<p>I agree that it is not the place of individuals to promote their beliefs in places that re not theirs to promote, if I am making sense. Every now and then we’d find someone left religious stuff in our waiting room- sometimes tucked into a magazine (one was made to look like a $5 bill). And we had to counsel a staff person not to end her phonecalls with “have a blessed day” or something similar. Its simply not appropriate in some situations. </p>
<p>as someone mentioned, the person may have been writing some other non-school emails, and accidentally did a similar sign-off. I once got a “Love, XXXX” sign-off from someone where it was likely a mistake. I just laughed and moved on. The person probably died of embarrassment if later realized. </p>
<p>This person may have another responsibility (maybe a church-leader) and had been doing some other communications.</p>
<p>or he could just be clueless. lol</p>
<p>At a catholic prep school its totally understandable that they’d say this, and I appreciate that even though you might be desensitized to it, it still makes you uncomfortable. I keep my religious beliefs to myself and appreciate the same. I understand that some religions believe in proselytizing too, but ours does not. I live near a church that has a sign “entering the mission field” by the exit of their lot. Its their parking lot, so IMO thats ok. But IMO its not ok to leave fake $5 bills with some religious message in someone else’s professional waiting room. </p>
<p>“If a professor signed his correspondence with “Allahu Akbar!” I guarantee a contingent of students/parents would be outraged. And we would be hearing about it on Fox News.”</p>
<p>Yes. And perhaps such outrage would be misplaced. But just because the Fox News contingent would raise a stink about such a signature doesn’t mean that normal people should also raise a stink about this signature. One wrong doesn’t justify the other wrong. </p>
<p>“It’s that most of us know from experience that people who are that up front about their religious beliefs generally bring them into other situations as well. What about a dinner with the professor at which he asks everyone to hold hands and say grace? How about when he asks a student during office hours if she has found Jesus? When there is a power imbalance, and the student perceives there might be a right or wrong answer, it’s manipulative to bring religion into secular situations.”</p>
<p>Agreed - but that’s when you take the “what about this? what about that?” situations as they occur. A prof wearing a cross around her neck *isn’t a prof who is asking a student if she has found Jesus or asking the class to say grace. Likewise, this signature (unaccompanied by anything else to suggest the prof is discriminatory or evangelizing) *isn’t a prof who is asking a student if she has found Jesus or asking the class to say grace. So the “what if it were” is irrelevant here. </p>
<p>Look, I hate public displays of religion as much as any good liberal, but this one really strikes me as akin to wearing the cross / yarmulke / star of David necklace, etc.</p>
<p>Let’s suppose the OP had said - I noted that the professor wore a cross. I don’t like that. What would we all have said? Likely some version of “get over it.” </p>
<p>I agree, PG. And I don’t think the OP should do anything about this professor’s email. My comments were aimed at the “get over it” posters who don’t seem to understand why this might bother someone.</p>
<p>As apprenticeprof said above, wearing a cross is self expression; signing an email is a correspondence. So maybe it was a mistake, using the wrong signatory. If it happens again, or other classmates have seen the same signatory, its inappropriate. </p>
<p>If it is a letter or e-mail without any religious intent in it, I don’t see why this is a case at all. What if the professor’s name is Emanuel? He could not even sign it? “In Him” itself does not promote any religion to anyone other than self-identification. It is probably not appropriate in this situation, but it is not something worth a discussion on it.</p>
<p>Well, that’s sort of silly. Plenty of names have religious origins. People can’t help what their parents named them. They can choose their words carefully in professional environments.</p>
<p>Thats just silly. Ones name is ones name, albeit perhaps a religious overtone given by a parent. Its really best to be professional when interacting with a subordinate. Whats next- the professor will ask the students to support his/her cancer run? Or buy his/her kids girl scout cookies?</p>
<p>** Cross posted, almost ver batim, with Sally.</p>
<p>Suppose instead of the signature being “In Him”, the prof had a religious quote underneath his signature like so …</p>
<p>Dear Student,</p>
<p>(Discussion of topic) Thanks for your email, and look forward to discussing this topic more in class.</p>
<p>Sincerely,
Prof. PG
“To everything, there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.”
-Ecclesiastes 3</p>
<hr>
<p>Does it make a difference if the signature line were thus …</p>
<p>Sincerely,
Prof. PG
“To everything, there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.”
-The Byrds </p>
<p>I agree that this is a bit odd, and perhaps insensitive in a secular communication at a public university. But I think it is highly unlikely that the courts would find this to be prohibited (or even prohibitable). It’s still a personalized communication, and isn’t really an official communication of the university. It might be a different story if (for example) the director of admissions was putting this on all the acceptance and rejection letters from a public university. Then it might be viewed as an endorsement by the university itself of this point of view. In this case, no reasonable person would think that this individual professor’s sign-off represented the official view of the university. Most likely, his own right of free speech and free exercise would outweigh any interest of the university in prohibiting this particular speech.</p>
<p>By the way, I think “In Him” is pretty vague, although presumably it refers to Jesus, or perhaps the Judeo-Christian deity. It could, however, refer to the devil-like bad guy from the Powerpuff Girls, who was known only as “Him.”</p>
<p>@sally305 stated, “…you are the one taking offense at a statement that is uttered billions of times without ill intent…”</p>
<p>I do find it quite intriguing how moral relativists and liberals in general think everyone is doing what they are doing. Well, I guess that is part of being a relativist.</p>
<p>Notice, you are the one taking offense to the term “In Him.” Yet, no where did I ever say I take offense to “Allahu Akbar.” </p>
<p>What I said was I am not dumb enough to think the term is now just a harmless utterance. If you like, I can send you thousands upon thousands of videos where that phrase is the actual battle cry prior to some serious explosions and murder.</p>
<p>Being aware in the middle of a state fair or in the middle of an airport that a certain phrase may not be as harmless as it sounds is not taking offense; it is called being smart and vigilant when looking out for one’s family. </p>
<p>However, when in Turkey, I do find “Allahu Akbar,” as commonplace and harmless, as “Hello.” </p>
<p>@DeaconBlues stated, “Ever heard of the Crusades?”</p>
<p>As for this Crusades moral relativism angle, I do see history is also now viewed in the lens of all out diversity. </p>
<p>It seems schools now teach the Crusades as unprovoked imperialist aggression, but seem to forget to teach that the Crusades were the response to the Muslim invasion of Eastern and Southern Europe and parts of the Christian Middle East - this Muslim invasion was going on for centuries before Europeans said enough is enough. The Crusades were taking back of Christian lands, which were invaded first. </p>
<p>Let’s see - the invasion by Muslims is diversity and should be understood, but the response to take back one’s homeland is imperialist and untoward aggression. Oh, I get it now. </p>