After showing a painting of the Prophet Muhammad in her art history class, Professor Erika López Prater was informed that her teaching contract at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minnesota, would not be renewed. Those who condemned the professor’s actions believed that what she did was not only offensive to Muslims, but that such disrespect should not be covered under academic freedom.
These attitudes are grounded in the language of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). DEI activists insist that the dignity of select ethnicities, sexual orientations, and, in this case, religious groups be affirmed. Therefore, a violation of academic freedom is justified in certain circumstances, as is a denial of employment. And this is what makes the Hamline incident disturbing.
Two important lessons can be drawn from the episode: first, any language can be corrupted, including that of DEI; and second, universities have not gone far enough to defend academic freedom, especially for adjuncts.
DEI enthusiasts often manipulate terminology for political ends. Take, for instance, the rhetoric that informed the university’s position. Hamline University President Fayneese S. Miller, along with David Everett, associate vice president of inclusive excellence, wrote the following in support of the complaint against Professor López Prater:
[R]espect, decency, and appreciation of religious and other differences should supersede when we know that what we teach will cause harm [….] Many disciplines have embedded within them difficult and controversial theories and material, but as with virtually all subjects, they can be discussed without causing harm [emphasis mine].
What Miller and Everett really mean is “causing offense,” and in a classroom setting, it results in the antithesis of harm. Getting upset over course content leads to a more enlightened perspective. It forces students to move outside of their comfort zones and to examine academic material in a more nuanced manner. To improve critical thinking, students need to embrace uncomfortable ideas, not avoid them.
[Related: “To the Slaughterhouse with You”]
Yet, some advocates of DEI adopt a paternalistic stance: students require protection from pedagogical choices that make them feel unsafe. From the viewpoint of DEI, the fault lies not with the student’s inability to manage her emotions, but with the professor for heightening them.
Those who subscribe to the language of DEI have a difficult time balancing the hurt feelings of a Muslim student with the damage done to Professor López Prater’s career and reputation. They have become so entrenched in their positions that the mere possibility of any wrongdoing evades them.
To be fair, Hamline University is right about one line that cannot be crossed. Academic freedom does not include “personal vilification,” meaning that a professor should never demean a student’s race, ethnicity, or religion. But in this specific case, Professor López Prater was disseminating knowledge, not making students targets of abuse.
Strategic advantages arise from equating offensive expressions with harm. In a liberal academic institution, being offended is unlikely to attract much attention; being harmed, however, garners far more sympathy. Associating unsettling expressions with violence or injury also facilitates ideological mission creep. Since academic freedom frustrates attempts at censorship, rhetorical maneuvers are required to weaken its grip. Substituting “offensive” with “harmful” serves only one purpose: to control others whose thoughts one finds personally disturbing.
[Related: “Reaping Postmodernism’s Violent Whirlwind”]
The events at Hamline University also demonstrate why academic freedom requires additional guarantees. It becomes increasingly compromised whenever defenders of DEI, backed by administrators, ask that students’ right to dignity be respected and that academic freedom not be used to silence the concerns of marginalized peoples. These demands are too subjective and will only lead to further abuses against instructors.
Much to the chagrin of DEI supporters, controversial and hurtful statements fall under the purview of academic freedom. Professors must be able to use any word, idea, or expression when engaging in critical inquiry. Without these safeguards, DEI jargon can operate as a moving target, applied anywhere its proponents see fit, and rationalized in any fashion to suit their agenda.
The language of DEI—like all language—is contested and contextual. It loses credibility whenever its adherents argue in bad faith. Characterizing Professor López Prater’s lesson as “harmful” is a prime example. Her punishment—via moral condemnation and the non-renewal of her contract—illustrates how, at times, rigid interpretations of DEI lead to unjust outcomes.
5 thoughts on “The Lessons of Hamline University”
The professor warned the students—in the syllabus, no less—that mohammad would appear in some of the images shown in class. That muslim student could have dropped the class, but chose not to. So the college should have told the student they had two choices: grow up or find some other college to attend. Instead, they caved.
The author of this article mentioned “…David Everett, associate vice president of inclusive excellence”. Talk about irony.
I’m reminded of the latter days of the French Revolution when it started to eat it’s own.
the sound of the other shoe dropping:
Yes, the president should resign. She has embarrassed her university, failed to support her colleagues, and has zero understanding of academic freedom. In other words, she is politically and ideologically motivated toward DEI.
There’s likely more, and it likely includes tenured faculty worried about their jobs — which will be lost if the college folds.
Enrollment is down 34% — possibly because they closed their law school, possibly in addition to that — and that’s before the current demographic decline. Becoming nationally known as a place run by Radical Islam doesn’t exactly help with recruitment — remember what happened at Missou?
i still wonder why SEIU — which represents adjunct professors at Hamline — hasn’t said anything about this. (They may be quietly lobbying the Faculty to do what they did.)
And if you are a tenured faculty in your early 50s, with a family and mortgage and like earning your current six figure salary — do you really want that to all go away?