<p>I would be more comfortable if it referred to a cartoon character. Its clearly a new testament biblical reference (quick google takes one to that) and it simply doesnt belong. The religious/biblical quotes under a signature are fine for a person’s personal communication, but not for a professor/student communication. This communication was related to a summer course, so, IMO, is a school related function, probably using a school email address.</p>
<p>Anyone have easy access to an academic code of conduct for professors at a public or private U (we dont know which this is, not that it perhaps matters as long as its a secular institution)</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>
<p>Don’t be silly. Who “excuses” 9-11 and other acts of aggression? This is a very odd straw man you are trotting out here. </p>
<p>More thought experiment: Can the rabbi at the Hillel or the chaplain at the Catholic center use a religious quote in his / her sig?</p>
<p>“The expression “in Him” evidently means by him; by his originally forming us, and continually sustaining us. No words can better express our constant dependence on God.” That’s from Godvine. You can see it;s more than Aloha" and maybe not outright proselytizing. I’d call it his “testimony.”</p>
<p>I’m on the side that says, you don’t make too much of it til it affects your academic relationship. All the fuss about public/government, legal threats- and Allah- just takes this too far. It’s projecting something or other.</p>
jym, I think a public U code of conduct that prohibited this particular thing would be ruled an unconstitutional infringement of the professors free speech and free exercise rights. It would be a different story for a private institution, though.</p>
<p>These are interesting questions-
I think the comparison to the crusades and such is ridiculous, but thats just me.
Personally, I think that any professor or religious person working at a secular college communicating with students should keep it secular. Now perhaps a rabbi or chaplain is not functioning in a “faculty-student” relationship, and perhaps if its about a religious event there might be less discomfort, but what if the rabbi was sending an outreach email invitation to the non-jewish community to attend an event at Hillel, and it has some clearly jewish quote/message attached? And what about even old testament quotes being sent to Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Taoists, etc? Would they feel welcome?</p>
<p>Understood, Hunt. But faculty codes of conduct include statements about not making students feel uncomfortable , maintaining a professional relationship, and being mindful of the power differential between the two. Public or private schools would include these policies.</p>
<p>@Pizzagirl - Please re-read my post. The sentence you cite from my post was specifically addressing the Crusades. Not sure how you get 9-11 etc. from that. </p>
<p>awcntdb: You are really not getting it, nor are you actually reading what people are writing. This has nothing to do with politics or moral relativism. I would object every bit as much to someone signing a professional letter “Allahu Akbar” as I would “In Him.” No one (except you) is defending one religion over another. The simple answer is to just not use religiously imbued greetings/signoffs on professional correspondence.</p>
<p>PG, I think as long as all organizations like Hillel or a Catholic center are tolerated and welcomed on a campus, the religious leaders of such groups should be free to speak however they want.</p>
<p>I agree that a professor really shouldn’t do this. I’m just saying that he probably can do this at a public university, no matter what the school policies say about it.</p>
<p>I guess I’d go a bit farther and say that if this violates the code of conduct, the courts would say the code of conduct couldn’t be enforced–at a public university. If this became a federal case, the court would weigh the professor’s interests in his speech and religious exercise rights against the university’s general interests, and against the risk that this could be an establishment of religion. I guess I’m pretty sure of how the current Supreme Court would decide the “In Him” case if it came before them.</p>
<p>Like Consolation and PG, I am adamant about the separation of church and state; and like them, I do not find “In Him” to be offensive or threatening. Personally, I wouldn’t even eyeball-roll or find it weird. I’d think “this guy takes his religion seriously” and would see it as another example of what a big world we all live in. </p>
<p>I see a profound difference between requesting/requiring others to participate in saying grace or other religious acts, and expressing one’s own deep religious beliefs. I work with a fundamentalist Christian who listens to Christian music in her workspace and whose faith clearly informs much of what she says and does. It doesn’t interfere with her work, or mine, one bit. </p>
<p>Interesting how we feel. And agree that this isn’t likely a violation of the code of conduct, its just inappropriate. I have students that have worked for me, and I would never sign an email with “shalom”, no matter how innocuous I thought it was. It just doesn’t belong. JMO.</p>
<p>@frazzled1 - Hum… Not sure you are a moral relativist. Accepting of others, yes, but relativist, not so sure. That, however, is a discussion to be had over lots of wine. </p>
<p>I think there is a big difference between two equals corresponding (I wouldn’t like reading it in an email from a colleague personally, but I could choose to either ignore it or address it with them if I so chose) and one between a boss, or professor, and an employee, or student. Just like a hug between colleagues may be unwelcomed and unwise but not as big a deal as when your boss does it.
The professor should not be interjecting personal things that could be misunderstood, or intimidate, or make someone feel uncomfortable, with a student: whether it’s “in Him”, “Go Sox”, or “Fondly”. My husband is a professor and I ran this by him and he said he just wouldn’t go there - even with his grad students, except for those he knows well and knows are Sox fans, or share his faith (Happy Summer Solstice) or have been working with for a while as their mentor and feels comfortable signing off “warmly”. Otherwise, he sticks to the subject at hand and doesn’t put put his own life/interests/beliefs into the correspondence, especially if a short brief email.</p>
<p>Please believe me - I come from a long line of moral relativists, and am perfectly happy to be one, with or without wine. Though the wine might make me even more tolerant.</p>
<p>@jym626 - Well, words and phrases do have meanings. And language can only function and communication can only happen if meanings are understood agreed to. If one does not understand how a phrase is being used, then it is OK to question. My understanding of moral relativism does not fit with the statements in the post. Again, best done over lots of wine. And maybe I can be convinced otherwise. </p>