Hamline Faculty Fired - Muhammad Painting

[hermione]

Jan 9, 2023 14:40:40 GMT -5 sequins said:

@@@


Coming off of yet another Christmas season, how would people feel about a teacher revealing that Santa isn't real to a bunch of kids? (I understand that Santa is not a religious figure). Why is it important to protect the illusion of Santa and why don't we have teachers fighting against censorship there? I think it's because the majority in the class believe in Santa and we feel obliged to cater to the majority. That courtesy is not extended to US-minorities and their beliefs.

Having said that, if there is a religious studies class and the teacher had responsible discussions on all religions, not just US-minority religions, I don't think I'd have a problem with that.

Is this comparable though? College age students vs little kids. Plus there was at least the option to opt out. If the teacher informed parents multiple times this discussion about Santa would be taking place with an invitation to discuss beforehand and/or opt out and could identify pedagogical reasons to have the discussion, it might be a fair comparison.

[fryjack2]

I guess I don’t understand why something offensive to any population needs to be shown at all. Again, it wasn’t a religious art history class, it was a global art class. And the fact that the professor said something like, “some Muslims find this offensive but not all do so keep that in mind.” was kind of a slap in the face to the actual Muslim student in the class who it does offend.

And I do think that if it was another religion, or something else was shown deemed offensive by a large group of people, some responses would be different.

[sequins]

Jan 9, 2023 16:57:15 GMT -5 hermione said:

Jan 9, 2023 14:40:40 GMT -5 sequins said:

@@@


Coming off of yet another Christmas season, how would people feel about a teacher revealing that Santa isn't real to a bunch of kids? (I understand that Santa is not a religious figure). Why is it important to protect the illusion of Santa and why don't we have teachers fighting against censorship there? I think it's because the majority in the class believe in Santa and we feel obliged to cater to the majority. That courtesy is not extended to US-minorities and their beliefs.

Having said that, if there is a religious studies class and the teacher had responsible discussions on all religions, not just US-minority religions, I don't think I'd have a problem with that.

Is this comparable though? College age students vs little kids. Plus there was at least the option to opt out. If the teacher informed parents multiple times this discussion about Santa would be taking place with an invitation to discuss beforehand and/or opt out and could identify pedagogical reasons to have the discussion, it might be a fair comparison.

@@@



Good point. However, if a teacher were to announce a lesson plan that included a discussion on the existence of santa, would the question from parents be - "are we accommodating believers sufficiently by allowing them to opt out" or would it be " what is the point of this discussion and why are we violating this socially held norm in the first place". Does that make sense?

Leaving Santa aside, my point is that we allow a lot of "mass delusions" when it comes to religion. Why are some allowed and some not?

[meganew]

Jan 9, 2023 17:07:27 GMT -5 fryjack2 said:

I guess I don’t understand why something offensive to any population needs to be shown at all. Again, it wasn’t a religious art history class, it was a global art class. And the fact that the professor said something like, “some Muslims find this offensive but not all do so keep that in mind.” was kind of a slap in the face to the actual Muslim student in the class who it does offend.

And I do think that if it was another religion, or something else was shown deemed offensive by a large group of people, some responses would be different.

Where does that end though? Especially in terms of an art class- no Piss Christ? No nudes? No profanity/vulgarity? Whose beliefs are deemed worthy of censorship and whose aren’t? The class didn’t pass religious judgement, it didn’t force viewership, it offered up the image as optional and for broader discussion.

[TR]

You guys are gonna make me google “piss Christ”, aren’t you?

[wildrice]

Jan 9, 2023 17:31:37 GMT -5 meganew said:

Jan 9, 2023 17:07:27 GMT -5 fryjack2 said:

I guess I don’t understand why something offensive to any population needs to be shown at all. Again, it wasn’t a religious art history class, it was a global art class. And the fact that the professor said something like, “some Muslims find this offensive but not all do so keep that in mind.” was kind of a slap in the face to the actual Muslim student in the class who it does offend.

And I do think that if it was another religion, or something else was shown deemed offensive by a large group of people, some responses would be different.

Where does that end though? Especially in terms of an art class- no Piss Christ? No nudes? No profanity/vulgarity? Whose beliefs are deemed worthy of censorship and whose aren’t? The class didn’t pass religious judgement, it didn’t force viewership, it offered up the image as optional and for broader discussion.

Maybe I just don't "get" art, but is this piss Christ thing important to art curriculum?

My gut reaction here is that yes - it could go too far toward censoring anything that offends anyone, and that's not good obviously. But would we draw this same line here if it was something that widely offended Christians? And would it be as big of a deal if it did, because Christians experience all kinds of privilege and accommodations for their religion in general that Muslims don't experience? This is probably a terrible equivalence but I'm thinking it's kind of like the difference between a white person being called a redneck and being offended and a black person being called a racial slur and being offended. Both are offended, but one of the issues is obviously much more serious due to the oppression that one group experiences.

[wildrice]

Jan 9, 2023 18:35:00 GMT -5 TR said:

You guys are gonna make me google “piss Christ”, aren’t you?

I just did. It's basically a Jesus figure immersed in the artist's urine. I don't really understand so much of art, lol.

[msmerymac]

Jan 9, 2023 14:57:05 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

Jan 9, 2023 12:28:24 GMT -5 meganew said:

The article posted stated that it was an online lecture, so the scenario you have in your head doesn’t fit. The students were given warning before class and also before the slide was shown.

I’m really struggling here to see how this was in any way Islamophobic. The painting in question was not a caricature or demeaning- I understand that the image itself is considered blasphemous to certain Muslims, but viewing it wasn’t a requirement. And someone else’s religious belief shouldn’t dictate curriculum or discussion, as long as it’s respectful.

I read several that referred to having the option to "leave the room" so I'm not sure which is accurate. Regardless, I'm struggling to reconcile what the student says - that she was completely blindsided - with the professor saying she gave warnings. Both of those can't be true.

Knowing how often college students look at the syllabus, I think both could be true.

[fryjack2]

meganew. I don’t know. Something feels off to me about this particular situation. I think it’s the unnecessary choice of pic to share (could have chosen other Persian art) and the professor’s comment that seemingly conveyed a dismissive attitude about not all Muslims believing and a so I’m going to show it attitude.

I also don’t think everything needs to be censored. If this was a religious art class, I don’t think I would have an issue with the piece beings shown. I agree that the professor seems to have given a lot of notice about seeing it and it was a zoom class so seems like she tried to accommodate students.

As someone who was raised Muslim and been on the receiving end of a lot of Islamophobia, something is making me feel like something is a little hmmm about the situation. But I wasn’t there to know how it all really went down.

[meganew]

Jan 9, 2023 18:37:02 GMT -5 wildrice said:

Jan 9, 2023 17:31:37 GMT -5 meganew said:

Where does that end though? Especially in terms of an art class- no Piss Christ? No nudes? No profanity/vulgarity? Whose beliefs are deemed worthy of censorship and whose aren’t? The class didn’t pass religious judgement, it didn’t force viewership, it offered up the image as optional and for broader discussion.

Maybe I just don't "get" art, but is this piss Christ thing important to art curriculum?

My gut reaction here is that yes - it could go too far toward censoring anything that offends anyone, and that's not good obviously. But would we draw this same line here if it was something that widely offended Christians? And would it be as big of a deal if it did, because Christians experience all kinds of privilege and accommodations for their religion in general that Muslims don't experience? This is probably a terrible equivalence but I'm thinking it's kind of like the difference between a white person being called a redneck and being offended and a black person being called a racial slur and being offended. Both are offended, but one of the issues is obviously much more serious due to the oppression that one group experiences.

This is an instance when I think intent does matter

[mae141]

Jan 9, 2023 19:42:11 GMT -5 fryjack2 said:

meganew. I don’t know. Something feels off to me about this particular situation. I think it’s the unnecessary choice of pic to share (could have chosen other Persian art) and the professor’s comment that seemingly conveyed a dismissive attitude about not all Muslims believing and a so I’m going to show it attitude.

I also don’t think everything needs to be censored. If this was a religious art class, I don’t think I would have an issue with the piece beings shown. I agree that the professor seems to have given a lot of notice about seeing it and it was a zoom class so seems like she tried to accommodate students.

As someone who was raised Muslim and been on the receiving end of a lot of Islamophobia, something is making me feel like something is a little hmmm about the situation. But I wasn’t there to know how it all really went down.

I majored in art history long ago, and the vast majority of art throughout history until more modern times tends to incorporate religion and belief systems. There's no way to look at the history of art without learning about religions. That said, I do agree with you that there likely could have been other ways to approach this. I don't quite understand the purpose of showing the image when there probably were other pieces that could have been used, or even discussing the image without showing it and addressing why it wasn't being shown.

[sonrisa]

After reading the article, I looked up a number of images from the source document. Yes, the Compendium of Chronincles is important and influential, but there are many, many images from it that do not include Muhammed. In fact, the wikipedia article on it contains a number of such images: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jami%27_al-tawarikh.

So even if, as one supporter said, it is too important a work to leave off the syllabus, you absolutely can include it without that image.

Just because something is famous in part for it's most controversial image doesn't mean you need that image to get the greater import from the work. 

[mae141]

FWIW, I pulled out my survey of art history textbook from 2000. There's two pages on Muhammad in the chapter on Islamic art. The image they use is a picture where everything is in color, but Muhammad is an outline with no details or face. I am interested to know why the professor chose the image she did.

[shauni27]

Jan 10, 2023 9:01:13 GMT -5 mae141 said:

FWIW, I pulled out my survey of art history textbook from 2000. There's two pages on Muhammad in the chapter on Islamic art. The image they use is a picture where everything is in color, but Muhammad is an outline with no details or face. I am interested to know why the professor chose the image she did.

I was wondering why she did not do something just like that. Could she not show it without putting pixilation or something over Muhammad?

[mae141]

Jan 10, 2023 9:05:36 GMT -5 shauni27 said:

Jan 10, 2023 9:01:13 GMT -5 mae141 said:

FWIW, I pulled out my survey of art history textbook from 2000. There's two pages on Muhammad in the chapter on Islamic art. The image they use is a picture where everything is in color, but Muhammad is an outline with no details or face. I am interested to know why the professor chose the image she did.

I was wondering why she did not do something just like that. Could she not show it without putting pixilation or something over Muhammad?

Leaving Muhammad as an outline is a common way that he was depicted at the time in art, it's not even something that the textbook did. It's what artists did to avoid showing him. So that just makes me even more curious as to why she chose the image she did. I feel like choosing something that doesn't show Muhammad's face would have been even more meaningful from a historical perspective.

[hermione]

Jan 10, 2023 9:05:36 GMT -5 shauni27 said:

Jan 10, 2023 9:01:13 GMT -5 mae141 said:

FWIW, I pulled out my survey of art history textbook from 2000. There's two pages on Muhammad in the chapter on Islamic art. The image they use is a picture where everything is in color, but Muhammad is an outline with no details or face. I am interested to know why the professor chose the image she did.

I was wondering why she did not do something just like that. Could she not show it without putting pixilation or something over Muhammad?

I have been wondering about this as well. My husband read that the art work in question is considered a seminal piece but I have no idea if that's correct.

[hermione]

Jan 9, 2023 17:11:05 GMT -5 sequins said:

Jan 9, 2023 16:57:15 GMT -5 hermione said:

Is this comparable though? College age students vs little kids. Plus there was at least the option to opt out. If the teacher informed parents multiple times this discussion about Santa would be taking place with an invitation to discuss beforehand and/or opt out and could identify pedagogical reasons to have the discussion, it might be a fair comparison.

@@@



Good point. However, if a teacher were to announce a lesson plan that included a discussion on the existence of santa, would the question from parents be - "are we accommodating believers sufficiently by allowing them to opt out" or would it be " what is the point of this discussion and why are we violating this socially held norm in the first place". Does that make sense?

Leaving Santa aside, my point is that we allow a lot of "mass delusions" when it comes to religion. Why are some allowed and some not?

I think that's the tricky part of this though, right? How do we balance religious beliefs with academic freedom? If we're talking about a seminal piece that influences and defines Persian art going forward is it more of a disservice to show it or not show it? I certainly don't know the answer.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Jan 9, 2023 19:42:11 GMT -5 fryjack2 said:

meganew. something is making me feel like something is a little hmmm about the situation. But I wasn’t there to know how it all really went down.

I agree with this. I think something's missing. And maybe rightly or wrongly, it seems suspicious to me that aside from NYT, the only other publications that seem to be running this story are Daily Mail, Fox News, New York Post, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if there's more to the story than "professor shows potentially offensive art,warns students appropriately, student gets offended anyway, professor gets fired."

[sonrisa]

Jan 10, 2023 10:35:08 GMT -5 hermione said:

Jan 9, 2023 17:11:05 GMT -5 sequins said:

@@@



Good point. However, if a teacher were to announce a lesson plan that included a discussion on the existence of santa, would the question from parents be - "are we accommodating believers sufficiently by allowing them to opt out" or would it be " what is the point of this discussion and why are we violating this socially held norm in the first place". Does that make sense?

Leaving Santa aside, my point is that we allow a lot of "mass delusions" when it comes to religion. Why are some allowed and some not?

I think that's the tricky part of this though, right? How do we balance religious beliefs with academic freedom? If we're talking about a seminal piece that influences and defines Persian art going forward is it more of a disservice to show it or not show it? I certainly don't know the answer.

As I said and linked above, the work is seminal but isn't just a bunch of images of Muhammed. Choosing that particular image was a decision. There are images of Jacob, Jonah, contemporaneous people, landscapes, etc.  

It's somewhat analogous to choosing which passage to include when citing a written work. Do you pick the one with the slur or not? The one with the slur could easily be what gets the most attention but it isn't necessarily a better example than a different passage.

Here, choosing a religious image from the work without including Muhammed, or even multiple non offensive images, would probably cover almost all of what she wanted to discuss. And then she could still verbally explain that there are also images including Muhammed. Explain that restrictions on images of Muhammed differ across time and across specific religious and cultural groups. And interested students can look on their own.

Including the image was a decision to step into a controversy rather than discuss a controversy. 

[basilosaurus]

I'm definitely no art historian, but there is no global art without religious art. I find that an odd distinction of definition of the class.

In persian or Arabic art religion infuses it.

Study traditional hymns (and way beyond into modern), and you'll hear the piccardy 3rd. This is a reference to the Trinity and salvation. Look at persian tiles, and you'll see similar religion behind structure, colors,etc.

I think we all agree that we shouldn't cover our ankles or eyes because some undefined many declare it blasphemy. And I think we agree we should hear minority voices that may be afraid to speak up and listen to them earnestly.

Problem #1 here is using adjuncts. Easily disposable. College washes its hands.

Problem #2 is did it happen as reported

[basilosaurus]

I'm not exactly sure how to phrase this, but people go to college to learn and be challenged. I've seen this art, blurred out, and it tells an artistic story.

Some might be offended by seeing my ankles or indeed my presence in a classroom. But isn't that what college is for? Challenge yourself and your assumptions.

Lest you think I'm an asshole, I do properly cover when going to a wat or mosque. And I dressed relatively conservatively in general.

I think warning is more than fair in a place where legally they can see it anywhere, and it doesn't appear a grade was based on seeing it.

[sonrisa]

Jan 10, 2023 13:07:59 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

I think we all agree that we shouldn't cover our ankles or eyes because some undefined many declare it blasphemy. 

This isn't analogous to the teacher not covering her ankles for the sake of a conservative student who could take offense. This is more analogous to the teacher telling students in the syllabus that there was a "I steal your hat or head covering" day coming up. Then later ripping the hats off of all students in the room after giving a warning and acknowledging that some of the "hats" in question might actually be yarmulkes and hijabs.  

[hermione]

Jan 10, 2023 10:45:55 GMT -5 sonrisa said:

Jan 10, 2023 10:35:08 GMT -5 hermione said:

I think that's the tricky part of this though, right? How do we balance religious beliefs with academic freedom? If we're talking about a seminal piece that influences and defines Persian art going forward is it more of a disservice to show it or not show it? I certainly don't know the answer.

As I said and linked above, the work is seminal but isn't just a bunch of images of Muhammed. Choosing that particular image was a decision. There are images of Jacob, Jonah, contemporaneous people, landscapes, etc.  

It's somewhat analogous to choosing which passage to include when citing a written work. Do you pick the one with the slur or not? The one with the slur could easily be what gets the most attention but it isn't necessarily a better example than a different passage.

Here, choosing a religious image from the work without including Muhammed, or even multiple non offensive images, would probably cover almost all of what she wanted to discuss. And then she could still verbally explain that there are also images including Muhammed. Explain that restrictions on images of Muhammed differ across time and across specific religious and cultural groups. And interested students can look on their own.

Including the image was a decision to step into a controversy rather than discuss a controversy. 

I am not doubting you. I don't know enough on this topic to have an informed opinion. However, the professor in question seems to be arguing (from the limited amount that I have read) that teaching this work without including this image is a disservice to students. She also notes that the image is shown in college classrooms across the country (which certainly doesn't mean it is the right choice to do so).

[docholly]

As someone who teaches online classes, my first thought was that the warnings would be easy for a student to miss. A great many students don’t read the syllabus and half listen to recorded lectures, so if the image pops up automatically in the lecture after a warning that the student didn’t hear, I could see the student feeling blind-sided and feeling like they were forced into DOING something against their religion (viewing the image). That feels different to me than them seeing someone else participating in something they don’t agree with in the classroom (dress etc.) or learning about something they don’t agree with. I wonder how culinary schools handle the cooking of foods not allowed by certain religions.


If I were to teach something like this, I would probably have to absolutely ensure the student was aware of the content beforehand (zoom one on ones maybe)?

That said, adjuncts are really on their own… we often build classes a few weeks before a term starts with little guidelines/oversight from the departments for little money. Academic freedom is a nice idea but this is why I sometimes enjoy the schools that have a more standard text/ “shell” for instructors to work from. The schools take zero responsibility and place it all in contracted, term by term workers.

[fryjack2]

Jan 10, 2023 13:07:59 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

I'm definitely no art historian, but there is no global art without religious art. I find that an odd distinction of definition of the class.

In persian or Arabic art religion infuses it.

Study traditional hymns (and way beyond into modern), and you'll hear the piccardy 3rd. This is a reference to the Trinity and salvation. Look at persian tiles, and you'll see similar religion behind structure, colors,etc.

I think we all agree that we shouldn't cover our ankles or eyes because some undefined many declare it blasphemy. And I think we agree we should hear minority voices that may be afraid to speak up and listen to them earnestly.

Problem #1 here is using adjuncts. Easily disposable. College washes its hands.

Problem #2 is did it happen as reported

I think this may be directed at me as I asked why other art couldn't be used in a global art class?  It shows my ignorance as I didn't realize all global art is religious in nature. Or do you mean that global art includes religious art pieces?  That, I know.  I just have too many questions about why this particular piece being shown. Not all Persian art is religious based. 

[NewOrleans]

Jan 10, 2023 14:02:43 GMT -5 sonrisa said:

Jan 10, 2023 13:07:59 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

I think we all agree that we shouldn't cover our ankles or eyes because some undefined many declare it blasphemy. 

This isn't analogous to the teacher not covering her ankles for the sake of a conservative student who could take offense. This is more analogous to the teacher telling students in the syllabus that there was a "I steal your hat or head covering" day coming up. Then later ripping the hats off of all students in the room after giving a warning and acknowledging that some of the "hats" in question might actually be yarmulkes and hijabs.  

This is not analogous to that at all. Ripping off people’s head coverings is assault. Using relevant course material is not.

At any rate, this argument piece is very detailed and not paywalled.

www.thedailybeast.com/hamline-university-fired-teacher-for-showing-islamic-art-depicting-muhammad

When the head of the religious studies department came to her defense in an open letter in the campus newspaper, the letter got removed. That doesn’t suggest an academically free and open campus.

This wasn’t some caricatured art conjured by the Western imagination and being perpetuated by an ignorant American: “the images—devotional paintings of Muhammad produced by Muslim artists in the 14th and 16th centuries, respectively.”  

[NewOrleans]

Jan 9, 2023 17:07:27 GMT -5 fryjack2 said:

I guess I don’t understand why something offensive to any population needs to be shown at all. Again, it wasn’t a religious art history class, it was a global art class. 

How is it possible to detach the religious from the global? Even the internationally accepted modern calendar is religious in origin.

[sonrisa]

Jan 10, 2023 20:53:44 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Jan 10, 2023 14:02:43 GMT -5 sonrisa said:

This isn't analogous to the teacher not covering her ankles for the sake of a conservative student who could take offense. This is more analogous to the teacher telling students in the syllabus that there was a "I steal your hat or head covering" day coming up. Then later ripping the hats off of all students in the room after giving a warning and acknowledging that some of the "hats" in question might actually be yarmulkes and hijabs.  

This is not analogous to that at all. Ripping off people’s head coverings is assault. Using relevant course material is not.

At any rate, this argument piece is very detailed and not paywalled.

www.thedailybeast.com/hamline-university-fired-teacher-for-showing-islamic-art-depicting-muhammad

When the head of the religious studies department came to her defense in an open letter in the campus newspaper, the letter got removed. That doesn’t suggest an academically free and open campus.

This wasn’t some caricatured art conjured by the Western imagination and being perpetuated by an ignorant American: “the images—devotional paintings of Muhammad produced by Muslim artists in the 14th and 16th centuries, respectively.”  

Yes - that would be battery so the analogy isn't great. 

My point is that the student in question objected because she felt that it was something done to her. Not just someone else's bad behavior near her. Much like when people hear a racial slur quoted, they can feel like it is an attack on them, not merely someone saying something offensive near them. She felt the act of viewing such an image was "forced" upon her (if you think she truly missed the warnings or felt she was not empowered to heed them). 

I'm going to stop here.

I'm not comfortable with multiple non-Muslim posters repeatedly challenging the few Muslim posters on what is or isn't offensive to Muslims. I am also not muslim so I am equally culpable. I'm stepping out and just listening to them. 

[basilosaurus]

Jan 10, 2023 21:02:05 GMT -5 NewOrleans said:

Jan 9, 2023 17:07:27 GMT -5 fryjack2 said:

I guess I don’t understand why something offensive to any population needs to be shown at all. Again, it wasn’t a religious art history class, it was a global art class. 

How is it possible to detach the religious from the global? Even the internationally accepted modern calendar is religious in origin.

I know my birth year in a few different calendars, and they're all based on religion. Every time I go to hospital I have to give my birth date in Buddhist years.

You cannot detach religion from anything in history.