I don’t think a single poster here has suggested that the professor should have been fired or the image banned. So 
In my opinion, this and several other controversies in academia (including the one about the hard organic chemistry class) show how important tenure is.
As for this specific case, I believe the professor was fully in the right. The students who complained are wrong but the real villain is the administration. Also, I have a feeling that there are deeper issues of inclusivity at Hamline that have resulted in this blowing up like it has.
1 Like
The tenure-stream faculty of the Department of Art History at the University of Minnesota writes to address the recent non-renewal of adjunct instructor, Dr. Erika López Prater, from her term appointment at Hamline University in Saint Paul, Minnesota. (They unanimously support the adjunct.)
2 Likes
But she really wasn’t fired. She wasn’t renewed.
Such is the life of an adjunct instructor (or any at will employee).
I don’t think she did anything wrong, and was probably doing a good job to include all type of artwork, but adjunct instructors are always at risk of not being renewed.
From what I understand, there were plans to offer her course again that were changed. So fired/not renewed is really splitting hairs. It was the incident that caused her to lose her gig.
One can ask why someone who was only an adjunct wouldn’t have known better than to court controversy by teaching the history of art in an art history class. The goal of an adjunct should be to give the students a warm and cozy vibe and make them feel smart.
Also, there is a lack of concern for the Muslim student. That student failed to heed the warnings that Muhammad’s image was about to be displayed, gazed upon his face, and therefore committed a sin worthy of hellfire. The student’s punishment in the hereafter will far exceed that of the teacher, if I understand the situation.
Or, rather than censoring the professor, the college should provide personal assistants who can trail students around, ready to clap their hands over their eyes if anything problematic were to appear. They could also cover their ears if necessary, or their mouths if the students were about to say something inappropriate. That’s what an enlightened school could do.
2 Likes
Well, the prohibition is on creating and displaying an image, not on gazing upon an existing image.
1 Like
If the only thing that happened was that she wasn’t renewed, this probably wouldn’t have gotten national attention. The problem is that she was publicly disparaged by the university as being Islamophobic, despite clearing her actions with the department chair.
In a way, this reminds me of the Oberlin fiasco. In both cases, the administration managed to take a minor issue and blow it up into a national one.
2 Likes
I don’t think that she was called Islamophobic at all. The U of Minnesota faculty support her (although I bet they won’t hire her). Her own department supported her.
I’d be interested in whether she was using a standard text book or designing her own curriculum.
From The NY Times article:
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.
1 Like
Two professors have spoken to a journalist on condition of anonymity and said that the lesson was called Islamophobic in campus communicaitons from the administration, and they believe that was a mistake that should be aknowledged. They also object to how the president characterized this as an either/or choice between feelings and academic freedom. The professors said that it is wrong to portray the Hamline Muslim students as religious zealots. They definitely put all the blame for how this was handled on the administration. https://twitter.com/Lollardfish/status/1614641702584696833?s=20&t=AXUAlqRGVjHVk19vap53oQ
2 Likes
The point of education is to teach critical thinking skills, which includes talking about different theories and points of view openly. At least it was when I went to college. It’s a tough nut to crack, when the powers that be all have the same viewpoints. All I can say is that some colleges are more welcoming than others. Shop around.
I feel that you are trying to shoehorn this into a different argument entirely.
The conflict was not because the student disagreed with the viewpoint that the professor was presenting. The students isn’t claiming that she was made uncomfortable because of any opinion that the professor presented. If that had happened, and that had led to the professor being fired, that would have matched your argument.
What happened was that the professor did something that, according to the student, violated her specific set of beliefs. What happened is that the student demanded that the professor should behave according to the student’s beliefs.
There are arguments to be made that some opinions have no place in a college setting. In fact, most people espouse these. After all, firing a geology professor for teaching that the Earth is flat would not be contested by any but the Flat Earth Society. Outside of these obvious cases, every other group simply sets different boundaries within which the opinions are welcomed, and outside of which, they are not. There are few colleges which are welcoming to anybody whose opinions strays too far from the relatively narrow range of what is considered “acceptable” to the powers be and to the loudest and most influential of students.
5 Likes
There’s an update on the situation at Hamline (gifted link).
The adjunct is suing Hamline for defamation and religious discrimination. A quote from Hamline, from the article:
“Like all organizations, sometimes we misstep,” said a statement from Ellen Watters, the chair of the university’s board of trustees, and Fayneese S. Miller, the president. “In the interest of hearing from and supporting our Muslim students, language was used that does not reflect our sentiments on academic freedom. Based on all that we have learned, we have determined that our usage of the term ‘Islamophobic’ was therefore flawed.”
The statement added, “It was never our intent to suggest that academic freedom is of lower concern or value than our students — care does not ‘supersede’ academic freedom, the two coexist.”
4 Likes
I was wondering what the adjunct was going to do. Would she just quietly resurface elsewhere, given the near-universal support for her? Or would she instead sue, as is her right for defamation, but with the risk of not getting hired elsewhere as employers often avoid hiring litigious employees.
Now that she’s chosen her path, she needs to take it to a healthy settlement.
2 Likes
It wouldn’t surprise me if the school settled with her to avoid further bad publicity, but what exactly is the legally actionable defamation here?
Even FIRE, which has stood up for the professor, has indicated that it is not defamation . . .
But on Tuesday, Alex Morey, FIRE’s director of campus rights advocacy, said Mr. Everett’s comments were legally protected speech, because he was stating his opinion.
1 Like
Legally, they maybe right. But the court of public opinion disagrees, and a real court jury may as well.
There’s a link to the adjunct’s complaint on the FIRE website: Erika López Prater v. Trustees of the Hamline University of Minnesota – Complaint | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
So a jury in a “real court” could nullify the Constitution based on public opinion?
This thing exists: What is jury nullification?
So who exactly is being charged with a crime in the current scenario? 