CREEDE HINSHAW: When free speech, religious sensitivity collide

Alarm bells sounded when I read an article in the New York Times about Hamline University, a United Methodist-related undergraduate school in St. Paul, Minn. The first institution of higher learning in the Minnesota territory, Hamline was founded in Red Wing, Minn., in 1854. Men and women were both admitted, a very progressive idea then. I suspect this “radical” idea was met with much opposition, but almost 175 years later, Hamline is still turning out scholars.

The attention now focused on their school, however, is mostly unwelcome. The Times article (Jan. 8, by Vimai Patel) is headlined, “A Lecturer Showed a Painting of the Prophet Muhammad. She Lost Her Job.”

An adjunct faculty member teaching a course in art history decided to show a 14th-century painting of the Prophet Muhammad. The instructor, aware that most Muslims forbid depictions of the founder of Islam, from the outset stated in her course syllabus that this painting would be depicted. Not a single student complained or asked for a faculty meeting. On the day scheduled to show this work, which was painted by a Muslim, the instructor again mentioned — in advance — she was preparing to show the painting, giving students a gracious opportunity to leave. Not a single student protested.

But later that day, an Islamic student did protest, stating she had been marginalized. She found it incomprehensible that a professor would show a painting of the Prophet Muhammad when the majority of the Islamic world forbids such a thing. This belief comes from the Islamic determination to remain free from idolatry, a belief they hold in common with Christians and Jews. The vast majority of Muslims, though not in unanimity, believe idolatry extends to depictions of the prophet.

Hamline University administrators initially supported the adjunct professor but eventually fired her, concluding the lecture was “undeniably inconsiderate, disrespectful and Islamophobic,” a decision supported by the Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

The Times article noted this particular painting — and others like it — is regularly shown in art history courses across this nation and is considered an almost essential element for any reputable course in art history, especially in an age when art historians are trying to expand their curriculum to include more non-western art. Furthermore, the original painting proudly hangs in a European museum.

But the faculty member — untenured — is now gone, and this collision between free speech, academic freedom and religious sensitivity was decided in favor of the religion.

Some Christians are equally sensitive to slights, real or perceived, on high school and college campuses. I wonder if they would side with the Islamic student in this complaint? Should religious sensitivity be extended to people of all faiths? How far does accommodation go?

We live in a society where enormous give-and-take is required on the part of all. Perhaps the student, the faculty member and administrators each could revisit their reactions and decisions. As for Hamline, I wonder if the school needs to reclaim some of the groundbreaking courage that prompted the founders to make their school co-educational in 1854