Hamline University: Is there an Innocent Construction

A student was offended, but was there an offense committed?

The Innocent Construction

I detest the word “#wokeness.” It’s more of a slander than a descriptor, a tag meant to deconstruct people without further analysis. I also detest terms like “the Left” or “right-winger,” or media interviews where one guest is identified as a “#Conservative,” but the other guest is just a guest.

All these terms, and more, are part of the infamous Culture Wars, which itself (as a collective noun) is poorly defined. The original “culture wars,” in my learnings, date back to the 1920s and the battle for control of Europe between #Fascism and #Communism. With 50 to 60 million dead across the globe during World War II, but mostly in Europe, one can argue that no one really won that war. Or, that we are still fighting it today, with liberal democracies facing truly reactionary regimes in Hungary, Turkey and especially Russia today, but also a “new Left” in America that is increasingly authoritarian and demanding.

China’s “Cultural Revolution” in the 1970s was part of the same process, though the Communist Chinese were killing their own, demanding a kind of ideological purity and commitment reminiscent of the French Revolution and religious cults everywhere. Citizen, die! Sinner, die! Counter-revolutionary, die!

I’ve titled this essay “The Innocent Construction,” and began by tickling the word “wokeness.” To that task I now return.

A recent example of so-called wokeness emerged at a small Minnesota school, #Hamline University, when it let go a Lecturer after she introduced a drawing of the Prophet Muhammad in her class. The University fired the teacher, Professor Erika Lopez Prater (or, rather, refused to renew her contract, which is the same thing), and David Everett, associate vice president of inclusive excellence, sent a Nov. 7 email to all (emphasis added) employees and students saying an incident had taken place in an online class that was “undeniably inconsiderate, disrespectful and Islamophobic,” according to local media reports.

Another administrator, Dean of Students Patti Kersten, called Lopez Prater’s decision to show the artwork “an act of intolerance,” also according to local media. And, in a Dec. 9 email to staff, President Fayneese Miller stated that “respect for the observant Muslim students in that classroom should have superseded academic freedom.”

Showing depictions of the Prophet Muhammad has sparked riots around the world in the past, so it’s not something to be done lightly, even in the name of free speech. But giving in to the mob, as it were, is not something to be done so cravenly, either.

I’ll try to look for the “innocent construction” in what happened. No university staff (or government official, or responsible adult) wants to engage in Islamophobia. I believe the Hamline University officials may have been sincere in seeking to suppress any unnecessary offense to Muslim students or the community at large, all in an effort to protect people from what is today rather amorphously called “harm.”

But, from what I’ve read, there is a difference of opinion within Muslim communities on just what can be shown, and when it can be shown. The depiction that Prof. Erika Lopez Prater showed included the archangel Gabriel delivering the word of God to Muhammad, an important moment in the religion, and it was originally included in an historic Islamic religious text. All the nasty controversies over recent depictions of the Prophet Muhammad have been in secular contexts, sometimes intentionally provocative, as when the French satirical publication Charlie Hebdo began occasional cartoon-like depictions of the Prophet in 2006. Twelve people were murdered in one set of protests against the publication. Such “in your face” actions by the magazine may have been unwise, but the punishment hardly fit the crime, if there was indeed a “crime.”

The Hamline professor was teaching a World Art course, essentially an art history class, and the Syllabus clearly stated that depictions of various religious leaders would be shown, including that of Muhammad. The artwork was not sprung on anyone, and it was not done in a satirical or aggressive context – it’s called education! And it’s not clear from news reports if just one student complained or if there were more than one (but it appears there was only one originally), and it’s not clear if the student was a native of a Muslim majority country or an American convert, possibly someone who didn’t understand the nuances of just what constituted a sacrilegious portrayal of the Prophet.

So much of what we fight over in our new culture wars, this tug of war, either is based on a misunderstanding of what the other side is saying, or reflects a kneejerk reaction to anything that might be a provocation, as something that can only be viewed in the worst possible light.

There are lots of other examples from the Culture Wars being much ado about nothing, or based on overzealous protectors of innocents, or people who just don’t know much but feel they have to take a stand anyway. In the Hamline case, staff are right to be against Islamophobia, but there’s just no evidence that’s come to light yet that Prof. Lopez Prater was engaging in any anti-Islamic activity.

Put another way, she’s not a witch! Let’s not start burning witches at the stake again.

Be sure to check out Abe Aamidor’s latest book, “Don’t Go,” a short story collection from the Stephen F. Austin State University Press. Available online or order from the publisher or order at your favorite bookstore.

https://www.tamupress.com/book/9781622889297/dont-go/