A brand new American Affiliation of College Professors report criticizes Hamline College for its remedy of an adjunct professor who confirmed college students pictures of the prophet Muhammad, saying she was academically justified in displaying them and the establishment was improper to label this “Islamophobic.”
Erika López Prater’s state of affairs made nationwide headlines this winter. The report says the college didn’t renew her part-time educating place and an administrator—David Everett, vp for inclusive excellence—known as her actions “undeniably thoughtless, disrespectful and Islamophobic” in a universitywide electronic mail.
This all got here within the wake of a Muslim scholar complaining concerning the pictures. Many however not all Muslims consider these pictures are sacrilegious.
Most In style
López Prater was educating international artwork, and the AAUP report says she forewarned college students each within the syllabus and on the day she confirmed the pictures of Muhammad, Oct. 6, that she could be displaying them.
“The session, dedicated to Islamic artwork, included PowerPoint slides of the work The Prophet Muhammad Receiving Revelation from the Angel Gabriel and Muhammad, Proven with a Veiled Face and Halo, at Mount Hira,” says the AAUP report, launched as we speak.
“Though the committee has not seen information ample to justify a definitive conclusion on this problem, circumstantial proof strongly means that the Hamline administration rescinded the casual provide to assign Professor López Prater one other artwork historical past course in spring 2023 solely as a result of she had displayed pictures of the Prophet Muhammad in her Oct. 6 class session, thus violating her educational freedom,” the report says.
The AAUP report says Hamline officers additionally didn’t present a rationale for the nonrenewal, citing López Prater’s ongoing lawsuit.
The report cites emails from López Prater’s division chair, earlier than Oct. 6, asking if she want to train within the spring and saying, “My college students in your class have stated nothing however great issues, so we might actually like to have you ever again within the spring!” The division chair had additionally seen the syllabus with the forewarning and didn’t object, the report says.
“From November 7 via January 11, the administration of Hamline College, together with President [Fayneese] Miller and Dr. Everett, inspired and promoted, via electronic mail messages and different means, what amounted to a de facto marketing campaign of vilification in opposition to Professor López Prater that additionally represented an assault on basic ideas of educational freedom,” the report concludes. “This marketing campaign seems to have engaged outdoors entities and will have inspired scholar involvement, and its repercussions seem to have adopted Professor López Prater to a neighboring establishment.”
In a joint assertion to staff Dec. 9, the report says, Miller and Everett had written, “It’s not our intent to position blame; reasonably, it’s our intent to notice that within the classroom incident—the place a picture forbidden for Muslims to look upon was projected on a display screen and left for a lot of minutes—respect for the observant Muslim college students in that classroom ought to have outmoded educational freedom … Tutorial freedom is necessary, however it doesn’t have to come back on the expense of care and decency towards others.”
Miller is resigning a yr from now. Her announcement got here after, the report says, Hamline’s full-time college members accepted 71 to 12, with eight abstentions, a decision calling for her to depart.
“We acknowledge,” the report says, “that Muslim college students at Hamline College are battling real and severe issues about Islamophobia and anti-Black racism. These college students have a proper to be heard, and we condemn abuse directed at them. On the similar time, we reject administrative overreach, irrespective of how well-intended, on their behalf. It’s exactly as a result of the Hamline scholar physique is more and more various that the college should defend the rights of scholars and college members alike to precise and examine varied viewpoints and experiences, a few of which is able to undoubtedly offend some members of the neighborhood.”
Henry Reichman, one of many report’s authors and a professor emeritus of historical past at California State College, East Bay, stated he doesn’t anticipate the report back to result in the AAUP inserting the college on its checklist of censured administrations.
However he stated he was “a little bit discouraged” that the administration was “so defensive” in response to the report. He had hoped it might be a chance for change.
“I need to admit I used to be in all probability extra optimistic once I left the campus firstly of February than I is perhaps now,” he stated, although he conceded there could also be progress he hasn’t heard about.
The report quotes from the college’s rebuttals from “an almost 4,000-word response.” The college didn’t present Inside Greater Ed this response or interviews Friday, however it emailed a remark.
“AAUP was supplied with full entry to administration and college throughout their time right here,” the college stated. “Sadly, within the AAUP draft report, Hamline discovered a sample of factual inaccuracies and omissions, subjective characterizations and conclusions that had been unsupported by AAUP’s draft findings. Accordingly, Hamline expressed its disappointment and supplied an illustrative set of observations concerning the draft report. Nevertheless, whereas we have now not reviewed the AAUP ultimate report, Hamline stays dedicated to its insurance policies, procedures and the ideas of educational freedom.”
Hamline is presently making an attempt to dismiss López Prater’s lawsuit in opposition to its Board of Trustees. The go well with is now within the U.S. District Court docket of Minnesota.
“The information underlying this matter have gained important media consideration over the previous a number of months, partly as a result of plaintiff’s personal efforts,” the college’s attorneys wrote in a submitting. “Whereas there could also be some common public debate about ‘educational freedom’ and a college’s proper to train its personal discretion in making personnel selections, plaintiff’s claims, as offered within the criticism, have to be ample to fulfill the relevant authorized requirements.”
“Merely alleging that an hostile employment motion touches upon faith is inadequate to state a believable declare for discrimination underneath the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and statements of opinion regarding a matter of public discourse don’t present a believable declare for defamation,” the attorneys wrote. “As set forth beneath, plaintiff’s criticism fails to state a declare upon which reduction might be granted and may subsequently be dismissed.”