Hamline University in Minnesota’s Twin Cities has sadly provided a clarifying situation that pits academic freedom against a zeal to protect a minority. These often unfold as a professor said or showed something that offended minority students, and the professor was released for failing to respect minorities.
The religious nature of the offense has provided a fresh opportunity for insight.
The facts are almost undisputed. An adjunct professor in an art course had warned that an image of the Prophet Muhammad, commissioned by a 14th-century Sunni leader, would be shown. At least one Muslim student saw the picture, complained to the administration, and later gave a tearful interview stating the depth of her offense. The Hamline administration, within a few weeks of the October 6 event, investigated, agreed with the student, and decided that the professor should not be renewed for the Spring 2023 term.
The university’s concern for the student drove their decision, but it was the firing of the adjunct professor that drove the subsequent criticism. The first criticism is that Hamline prioritized diversity concerns over academic freedom. Hearing the complaint, the university decided that the event was clearly Islamophobic, taking priority over academic freedom. The second stage of the criticism notes that a local Muslim chapter found the display of the prophet to be offensive and assumed the offense was intentional, while at the national level, that chapter’s parent organization recognized the academic use of such art and did not find Islamophobic intent.
The fact that the accusation is blasphemy makes this situation complex. Amna Khalid has written that there is no monolithic Islamic culture. Some Muslims are offended by these images for theological reasons while others are not. “This case offends me on many levels. As a professor, I’m appalled by the senior administration’s decision to dismiss the instructor and to pander to the students who claim to have been harmed.”
Khalid also wrote, “As an historian, I am shocked that Hamline’s administration cannot appreciate that the image is a primary source. But most of all, I’m offended as a Muslim. In choosing to label this image of Muhammad as Islamophobic, Hamline has privileged the most extreme and conservative Muslim point of view.” She concluded with a sense of irony, “The push to silence and exclude alternative Muslim views at Hamline is driven by the Office of Inclusive Excellence.” How can that be?
This is one of the most difficult aspects of respecting diversity. There is not just one minority, nor is there just one view of what is believed in various communities. For an art class to be diverse, must it include Aboriginal and Latin art? Of course. Then, where is the art of the Thais? Where is the art of Indonesia? Of the islanders?
Joan W. Scott of the Institute for Advanced Study (NJ) noted these concerns about Hamline’s decision: 1) The administration acted precipitously. 2) No student took up the invitation to opt out of the session. 3) Having not opted out, why did the complaining student insist that no other students could see this art? 4) In the name of diversity, Hamline yielded to unacceptable religious censorship. 5) Hamline’s president has allowed one religious orthodoxy to prevail in the classroom. Why not others? 6) Did the fact that Muslims are a minority in America mean that the religious views of some of them should be privileged over other religious views and over academic freedom?
Scott quotes Slate commentator Jill Filipovic, “Stand up against illiberal acts even when those are carried out in the name of a minority religion.” Filipovic rejects giving orthodox members of a community the right to censor what it’s taught in a college classroom. “Diversity does not mean leaving all your other values at the door and allowing the most vocal and conservative members of a minority to demand censorship or compliance with their views.” (Chronicle of Higher Education: Khalid: Dec 29, 2022; Diep: Jan 13, Scott: Jan 17, 2023)
This case concerns the diversity of religious variations. Soon, the spillover implications of variations in political ideology may come into sharper focus. The next question will be, “Who should make decisions about various diversities?” In late January, Hamline walked back some of its early decisions. There are many important issues to be addressed in our culture, but the specific Hamline confusion may shed light on a path forward.
How diverse is diversity if there is only one way to be diverse?