Presidential Dishonor

No, not that president. I’m talking about Fayneese Miller, the president of Hamline University, a small liberal arts college in Minnesota. There has been an ongoing controversy and she has finally written a statement in response and I have words.

It began back in October when Erika López Prater, an art-history professor, showed her class an image of the Prophet Muhammad found in a famous 14th-century Persian manuscript. Because many (but far from all) Muslims believe that showing Muhammad’s image is sacrilegious, the professor took precautions. In her syllabus, she warned that she would be showing this picture. On the day of the class in question, she gave the students a few minutes heads-up, describing the image she was about to show. Because class that day was being held on Zoom, it would be easy for any student who wanted to avoid the image to turn their screen off or simply walk away. Then she showed the image. After which everything blew up.

A student was offended, went to the Hamline administration, and the school went into overdrive. They fired the professor. They sent an email to students and staff stating that showing the image was Islamophobic. A school town hall was organized to reassure students and faculty that no such act was welcome at Hamline. Hamline’s president said that respect for Muslim students “should have superseded academic freedom.” Some faculty backed the professor but they had no institutional support. A letter supporting her was published in the school newspaper but was then removed because student editors said that reading it might harm students.

This trampling of academic freedom and a culture of free speech led to a sizable backlash from outsiders. PEN America called it “one of the most egregious violations of academic freedom in recent memory.” The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) created a “Faculty Letter in Support of Hamline University Instructor” signed by over 300 current and retired faculty. Perhaps most impressive, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) issued a statement of support.

We issue this statement of support for the professor and urge the university to reverse its decision and to take compensatory action to ameliorate the situation…

…As a Muslim organization, we recognize the validity and ubiquity of an Islamic viewpoint that discourages or forbids any depictions of the Prophet, especially if done in a distasteful or disrespectful manner. However, we also recognize the historical reality that other viewpoints have existed and that there have been some Muslims, including and especially Shīʿī Muslims,  who have felt no qualms in pictorially representing the Prophet

These statements were accompanied by a flurry of media attention, including…

A Dec 22 New Lines Magazine article: “An Academic Is Fired Over a Medieval Painting of the Prophet Muhammad.”

A Dec 26 Reason Magazine article: “Hamline University Lecturer "Is Fired Over a Medieval Painting of the Prophet Muhammad.”

A long and well-balanced Jan 8 New York Times article: “A Lecturer Showed a Painting of the Prophet Muhammad. She Lost Her Job.”

A shorter but very interesting Jan 8 Guardian article: “An art treasure long cherished by Muslims is deemed offensive. But to whom?”

A Jan 11 Bulwark article that adds a few details missed by the Times: “Perils to Free Speech from Woke and Anti-Woke.”

——JAN 15 EDIT Adding another article, a piece by the Chronicle of Higher Education, that gives some chilling details on a December 8 Hamline school “community conversation”: “The Hamline Scandal Is an Onion With Many Layers.”——

Now Hamline University President Fayneese Miller has issued a statement (dated January 11) that brings further dishonor to Hamline and more words from me. I’ve annotated the letter with my comments (the full text was acquired by a local TV news site):

My institution, Hamline University, a small liberal arts college located in St Paul, Minnesota, has been in the news lately. The New York Times ran an article leading with the headline, “Prophet Image Shown in Class, Fraying the Campus.”

The article reports on an incident that occurred on our campus in October, where an adjunct instructor, teaching a class in art history, showed an image of the prophet Muhammad to a class attended by a number of Muslim students. And when a Muslim student objected to its showing, to quote the Times, the adjunct “lost her job.”

Various so-called stakeholders interpreted the incident, as reported in various media, as one of “academic freedom.” The Times went so far as to cite PEN America’s claim that what was happening on our campus was one of the “most egregious violations of academic freedom” it had ever encountered.

It begs the question, “How?” Because Hamline University is now under attack from forces outside our campus, I am taking this opportunity to comment upon, and in several important instances, correct the record regarding critical aspects of this incident -- both as reported in the press, and as shared by those who have been enjoined in the conversation about academic freedom.

So far, meh. To say her university is “under attack” because it’s being criticized is hyperbolic. She adds that some of the media reports are wrong and she wants to correct the record. That would be reasonable if it were true. (Spoiler alert: It’s not.)

First, I must state that the adjunct instructor hired to teach the course in art history did not “lose her job,” as has been reported by some outlets. Neither was she “let go” nor “dismissed,” as has also been reported. And most emphatically, she has not been “fired,” as has also been claimed.

The adjunct taught the class to the end of the term, when she, like all other faculty, completed the term requirements, and posted her grades. The decision not to offer her another class was made at the unit level and in no way reflects on her ability to adequately teach the class.

This is disingenuous. The trick here is President Miller is talking about an “adjunct” instructor. Adjuncts are contract workers. They are hired by the semester or the year and thus have next to zero job security. They are the underclass of academia, doing much of the actual teaching for little prestige and less pay. So yes, Professor López Prater was not “fired” because the school was unhappy with her. Her contract was simply not renewed as she otherwise might have expected. Was it because of what she had done? That’s the obvious conclusion but it might be hard to prove. This is why hiring adjuncts is so appealing to universities. Cheap to hire, easy to fire. Or easy to not renew their contracts, but from personal experience, I can tell you that not having your contract renewed sure feels like being fired.

However, media coverage of the characterized the aftermath differently: reports were that the adjunct instructor was “dismissed” or “fired.” Fueled by commentary not well-informed on the particulars of this situation, we now find ourselves at the heart of a purported stand-off between academic freedom and equity. It has escalated to the point where I, members of my executive staff, other campus staff and, most sadly, one of our students now receive daily threats of violence.

Any threats of violence directed towards any member of the Hamline community are abhorrent. President Miller is correct to condemn such evil behavior. In fact, the student at the center of this should be left entirely alone. She was simply being young and misguided, as students often are. It’s the leaders of the school who deserve criticism (but no abuse).

To suggest that the university does not respect academic freedom is absurd on its face. Hamline is a liberal arts institution, the oldest in Minnesota, the first to admit women, and now led by a woman of color. To deny the precepts upon which academic freedom is based would be to undermine our foundational principles.

This is absurd on its face. President Miller is arguing that it’s ridiculous to say the school doesn’t protect academic freedom because it’s the job of a school to protect academic freedom. What? It’s rather like arguing that the government is never corrupt because it’s the job of the government to never be corrupt. The argument is both circular (it assumes the thing it’s trying to prove) and nonsensical. Yes, we understand your school’s foundational principles and we’re telling you that you are not living up to them!

Prioritizing the well-being of our students does not in any way negate or minimize the rights and privileges assured by academic freedom. But the concepts do intersect. Faculty have the right to teach and research subjects of importance to them, and to publish their work under the purview of their peers.

At the same time, academic freedom does not operate in a vacuum. It is subject to the dictates of society and the laws governing certain types of behavior. Imara Scott, in an April 2022 article published in Inside Higher Ed, noted that “academic freedom, like so many ideological principles, can be manipulated, misunderstood, and misrepresented…academic freedom can become a weapon to be used against vulnerable populations. Why? Because on the other end of a professor claiming academic freedom may be a student — a student who lacks tenure, who must rely on that professor for a grade and who may be emotionally, intellectually, or professionally harmed by the professor’s exercise of the power they hold.”

It’s true, academic freedom doesn’t mean a professor can say anything, but it should give them great latitude. Showing an image that other professors at other universities have shown to students, an image of great historical and artistic importance, an image even used by some Muslim scholars, is well within the bounds of what academic freedom should protect. It’s amazing that President Miller quotes from an article that contrasts the strong position of a professor with a student who “lacks tenure.” This ignores the fact that Professor López Prater herself did not have tenure! The power differential here was obvious. The student complained and the professor was fired. Sorry, I should have said did not have her contract renewed.

Also, the American Federation of Teachers correctly notes that “academic freedom and its attendant rights do not mean that ‘anything goes’”. It notes that “faculty must act professionally in their scholarly research, their teaching, and their interactions with students and…ensure this through policies and procedures that safeguard both students and the academic integrity of the institutions and disciplines”.

I ask those who presume to judge us the following questions: First, does your defense of academic freedom infringe upon the rights of students in violation of the very principles you defend? Second, does the claim that academic freedom is sacrosanct, and owes no debt to the traditions, beliefs, and views of students, comprise a privileged reaction? That is why Hamline’s Civility Statement, which guards our campus interactions, notes that any student, regardless of race, ethnic background, religion or belief, deserves equal protection from the institution.

Academic freedom is not limitless but in what way did Professor López Prater harm her student? The student was warned, both in the syllabus and in the class before the painting was shown. López Prater was actually more careful than many other professors. The New York Times reports that “Omid Safi, a professor of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies at Duke University, said he regularly shows images of the Prophet Muhammad in class and without Doctor López Prater’s opt-out mechanisms. He explains to his students that these images were works of devotion created by pious artists at the behest of devout rulers.”

More importantly, President Miller seems to be making the argument that students should be protected from any ideas that might threaten their beliefs. This is more nonsense! Education is supposed to challenge students’ beliefs, to make them think, not cocoon them in swaddling clothes. And where would this shielding from harm stop? What if a religious student, Muslim, Buddhist, or Christian, objected to art that showed nudity, or homosexuality? Would Hamline University move to protect them from those hurtful ideas?

President Miller mentions Hamline’s “Civility Statement,” but that very statement says “The University embraces the examination of all ideas, some of which will potentially be unpopular and unsettling, as an integral and robust component of intellectual inquiry.” [Emphasis added.] The statement does prohibit “personal vilification based on race, ethnicity, religion,” but Professor López Prater’s showing of the painting was in no way targeting any student personally.

It is far easier to criticize, from the security of our computer screens, than it is to have to make the hard decisions that serve the interests of the entire campus community. What disappoints me the most is that little has been said regarding the needs and concerns of our students that all members of our community hold in trust. I hope this changes.

What disappoints me the most is that a university president has so little respect for what universities are supposed to do.

I also note that Hamline is an independent university still closely affiliated with the United Methodist Church, and its foundational principles inscribed in the oft-repeated words on our campus of John Wesley: “To do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.” We at Hamline live by these words.

To do all the good you can means, in part, minimizing harm. That is what has informed our decisions thus far and will continue to inform them in the future. We hope you understand and respect the values guiding our efforts.

Sincerely, Fayneese Miller, PhD President.

A school that truly wished to minimize harm would have to toss out 99% of its books. There are mountains of harmful ideas out there! I teach about Marx, Nietzsche, Rousseau, and Dostoyevsky. All of them spewed scary ideas that might “harm” a sensitive student. I once had a student leave my class in tears because I was giving a lesson on the Holocaust. Should I have been fired for “harming” her? Maybe at Hamline University, I would be! (What I did was follow the student out into the hall, speak to her sympathetically about why she was so upset, and allow her to go home for the day. We can care about our students without coddling them.)

So Hamline’s shame continues. They prioritize protecting students’ feelings over educating them. The only freedom academics seem to have at Hamline is the freedom to walk on eggshells lest they trigger any student’s sensibilities.