Said a statement from Ellen Watters, the chair of the Hamline University’s board of trustees, and Fayneese S. Miller, the university's president.
"Like all organizations, sometimes we misstep. In the interest of hearing from and supporting our Muslim students, language was used that does not reflect our sentiments on academic freedom. Based on all that we have learned, we have determined that our usage of the term ‘Islamophobic’ was therefore flawed."
The lecturer, Erika López Prater, is suing based on religious discrimination and defamation.
The lawsuit [asserts] that Hamline treated Dr. López Prater negatively because “she is not Muslim, because she did not conform her conduct to the specific beliefs of a Muslim sect, and because she did not conform her conduct to the religion-based preferences of Hamline that images of Muhammad not be shown to any Hamline student.”
ADDED: Watters and Miller fail to state clearly that López Prater was not Islamophobic. They don't admit that it was wrong. They say, "Based on all that we have learned, we have determined that our usage of the term ‘Islamophobic’ was therefore flawed." Why was the "usage" "flawed"? In context, it looks as though they're asserting a belief in academic freedom, and that's something they are under pressure to do in response to the lawsuit. They haven't withdrawn the opinion that López Prater was Islamophobic, but merely acknowledged that out of respect for López Prater's academic freedom, they should not use the term. And I don't even see them as confessing that the term shouldn't have been used at the time. It's only now that they "have learned" more about the controversy, the use of the term is "flawed." They've left room to argue that when the controversy was new and the desire to "support[] our Muslim students" was strong, it was acceptable not to perceive the flaw in the use of the term.
पोस्ट्स
५२ टिप्पण्या:
Rehire the teacher.
This is agility worthy of Olympic gymnastics.
They by golly meant it. Until it was inconvenient and now they no longer by golly mean it.
‘Ummm guys, you’re gonna lose a lot of money’
- Hamline Lawyer
as usual, gilbar says, think about how this would all be reported; if the religion was:
Christianity?
Wokeism?
Transphillia?
Lawsuits I hope will win and did.
Yes, sometimes one does "misstep." And then there are the occasions where you have a clear choice between doing the right thing and doing the wrong thing, you choose to do the wrong thing, you double-down on the correctness of your choice to do the wrong thing, you get dragged publicly for your craven unwillingness to extend your spine, and you eventually have to fess up to having done the wrong thing.
Guess whose lawyers told them they are screwed...
Is today's theme, "slow walking to an apology"?
In the interest of hearing from and supporting our Muslim students ....
In the good old days, the students were supposed to hear from and support their professors.
Derrida makes a choice about Islam
``What appears to me unacceptable in the ``strategy'' (in terms of weapons, practices, ideology, rhetoric, discourse, and so on) of the ``bin Laden effect'' is not only the cruelty, the disregard for human life, the disrespect for the law, for women, the use of what is worst in technocapitalist modernity for the purposes of religious fanaticism. No, it is, above all, the fact that such actions and such discourse _open onto no future and, in my view, have no future_. If we are to put any faith in the perfectibility of public space and of the world juridico-political scene, of the ``world'' itself, then there is, it seems to me, _nothing good_ to be hoped for from that quarter. What is being proposed, at least implicitly, is that all captialist and modern technoscientific forces be put in the service of an interpretation, itself dogmatic, of the Islamic revelation of the One. Nothing of what has been so laboriously secularized in even the nontheological form of sovereignty (...), none of this seems to have any place whatsoever in the discourse ``bin Laden.'' That is why, in this unleashing of violence without name, if I had to take one of the two sides and choose in a binary situation, well I would. Despite my very strong reservations about the American, indeed European, political posture, about the ``international terrorist'' coalition, despite all the de facto betrayals, all the failures to live up to democracy, international law, and the very international institutions that the states of this ``coalition'' themselves founded and supported up to a certain point, I would take the side of the camp that, in principle, by right of law, leaves a perspective open to perfectibility in the name of the ``political,'' democracy, international law, international institutions, and so forth. Even if this ``in the name of'' is still merely an assertion and a purely verbal committment. Even in its most cynical mode, such an assertion still lets resonate within it an invincible promise. I don't hear any such promise coming from ``bin Laden,'' at least not one in this world.''
``Autoimmunity: Real and Symbolic Suicides'' _Philosophy in a Time of Terror_ p.113
And with this the left swings a bit back from it's blind forgiveness of all things related to Islam (i.e., a mix of fear per European crime and terror, plus the ambiguous Israel situation). Look for more left ideological dams to break in the next year.
Thank God for lawsuits.
Thank God for lawsuits, and Allah for opportunity. The Adjunct Professor that gave advance warning twice should be given her job back, with back pay and an apology from the ingrate that fired her.
Good for Hamline. I’d never heard of that university before. Now it leads on how to step back and rethink the situation, once challenged. Perhaps the Oberlin case influenced their decision, too.
Ann, I don’t think anyone here thinks, it the abstract, that lawsuits are bad. They are a tool. They are, like some useful medical compounds (‘drugs’) useful, and also abused. And, we, might, think that some consequences to abuse might need to be added. But, outside of the government, people don’t want painkillers all removed from the toolbox of modern medicine, they just don’t want the drug addict living and defecating on the streets outside their homes and work places. The same for lawsuits.
Anyone reminded of Kevin Kline and John Cleese in A Fish Called Wanda? Here it is, with Cleese playing Hamline University and Kline playing Prater's lawyer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwfuUyTMpVY
Yes, we knew that was never your intent. That your intent was to be uber-woke and just react by cancelling the professor with no consideration at all for anything else was pretty obvious
The contrast with Oberlin is interesting. Even after paying the very large judgment, Oberlin's President has failed to apologize to the Bakery, or to otherwise issue any statement that shows even a modicum of reflection. Even if one would wish that the Hamline statement was better, at least it shows some evidence that the Board of Trustees, at least, has learned something.
Great legal strategy ... immediately after you are sued, admit in public that you're guilty.
Bold move Cotton. Let's see how it works out for them.
It cost Oberlin College $36 million to defame someone.
The depiction of Mohammed in medieval art is a narrow, specialized subject for a university class. It's not a class primarily for undergraduates -- especially for undergraduates who are not majoring in art history.
* Were the complainers graduate students?
* Were they at least undergraduates who were majoring in art history?
Both possibilities are unlikely.
=======
What is much more likely is that they were just trouble-makers.
Maybe they are Moslems, but I doubt that they are devout.
The content of this graduate-level art-history course was not their business.
It's also not their business to police the depictions of Mohammed at a Minnesota state university.
=======
The complainers should have been summoned to the Dean of Students, who should have advised them to stop their trouble-making -- or else they might be suspended from the university for a semester.
"language was used that does not reflect our sentiments on academic freedom...."
In other words, language was used that all too clearly reflected Hamline's true sentiments on academic freedom.
In other news, Hamline University announced that it will discontinue use of the noun, "Hamline" because of its racist connotations.
The statement was so cleverly written I read it three times and still couldn't figure out whether they were apologizing to Prof. Lopez or to the students who were offended. I'm not interested enough to read the whole thing so I'll just have to be left wondering.
"Blogger Amadeus 48 said...
Anyone reminded of Kevin Kline and John Cleese in A Fish Called Wanda? Here it is, with Cleese playing Hamline University and Kline playing Prater's lawyer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwfuUyTMpVY
1/18/23, 9:51 AM"
Thanks for that, Amadeus. I needed a laugh.
What I like best about this story is that the lecturer filed her lawsuit almost immediately. She didn't try to litigate from press conferences, or turn it into a national circus for months on end. Instead, she basically marched from her classroom into a lawyer's office.
We all know how this ends -- Hamline will settle, lecturer will get her money, everyone will claim victory. For an example of this, see Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying.
They say, "Based on all that we have learned, we have determined that our usage of the term ‘Islamophobic’ was therefore flawed."
Every use of the suffix -phobia is flawed unless preceded by something like "arachno".
This incident is a perfect example of progressive abuse of language.
So if some Christians objected to a picture of Piss Christ.... Probably be accused of some kind of terrorism against non-Christians.
Add me to the long list of people looking askance at that quote. It was absolutely the intent of the college President to muzzle academic freedom.
Why do so many leaders of organizations let the woke tail wag the dog? I suppose for the same reason that they jump at the sight of their own shadows.
Lenin learned a long time ago that a small fierce cadre that will stop at nothing to gain power can intimidate and become masters of all. The woke, the intellectual issue of Bolshevism, know that lesson well.
The many splendors of psychiatry and diversity [dogma].
The contrast with Oberlin is interesting. Even after paying the very large judgment, Oberlin's President has failed to apologize to the Bakery, or to otherwise issue any statement that shows even a modicum of reflection.
That's because the people who run Oberlin don't think they did anything wrong. And the 34 million isn't coming out of their paychecks (not to mention their lawyers fees). As far as they're concerned they attempted to fight racism, but were defeated in court because of systemic racism. The last article I read stated that students were still telling incoming students not to buy from Gibson's because the family that owns it are racists. Freaking townies getting above themselves. When your woke then all this is settled. Self-reflection is patting yourself on the back about how much more moral than everyone else.
"9To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’
13“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’
14“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
Luke 18
Like Insty says, even a flatworm knows to turn away from pain.
The professor does not need her job back, that window has closed. She would be persona non grata with the rest of the faculty.
What she needs is a major damages recovery. What she will more likely get is a minor secret settlement, worth a few years pay.
What Hamline needs is to go out of business. This is a minor school of no consequence. We have far too many colleges and universities, they are not adding value to the economy any longer (at least in proportion to their costs) and many of them will be closing up shop in the coming years. Hamline should be at the head of that line.
“It was never our intent” is how the woke write “it was absolutely always our intent.”
These things will never be settled satisfactorily to me until those that are responsible lose their jobs and furthermore become unemployable at anything above a minimum wage position for some time to come. I realize that is unrealistic and will never come to pass, but just as they are entitled to their Utopian view, so am I. Their utopia is my dystopia and so on.
And it is a pity that no one at Oberlin has paid the price for enormity they attempted to inflict on the Gibson Bakery. No, it's beyond a pity and in a just world no rational human being would have a child of theirs attending such a self righteous, sanctimonious and utterly wrong headed college.
Not a single word of this non-apology is true. Hamline isn't doubling down, they have merely moved on from cravenness to dishonesty. They'll try on some other new attitudes too, until they find the perfect combination that lets them screw their professor and get away with it.
There are no adults in charge at Hamline, which is why the lawyers are involved.
The only islamophobic entities here are the college and its administration. They are the ones whose daily life is distorted by fear.
"Anyone reminded of Kevin Kline and John Cleese in A Fish Called Wanda? Here it is, with Cleese playing Hamline University and Kline playing Prater's lawyer..."
Good, but here's better. Kevin Kline playing Ellen Watters and Jamie Lee Curtis playing Hamline's counsel.
Hamline University is not a school where one can become educated in the real sense of developing discipline of intellect, regulation of emotions or even establishment of principles through open and free discussion with others in an effort to train your mind. As such, it is not a school for those who desire to be educated. Likely they are a fine place to get a credential to check off the HR spreadsheet cell. But it is not a place for those who desire to eventually become educated.
The faster we get the best and brightest students to avoid such schools, the better off humanity will be.
"A man learns more about business in the first six months after his graduation than he does in his whole four years of college. But—and here is the "practical" result of his college work—he learns far more in those six months than if he had not gone to college. He has been trained to learn, and that, to all intents and purposes, is all the training he has received. To say that he has been trained to think is to say essentially that he has been trained to learn, but remember that it is impossible to teach a man to think. The power to think must be inherently his. All that the teacher can do is help him learn to order his thoughts—such as they are."
Marks, Percy, "Under Glass", Scribner's Magazine Vol 73, 1923, p 47
Day 1: "Respect for the observant Muslim students in that classroom should have superseded academic freedom."
Day 2: Lawsuit
Day 3: "It was never our intent to suggest that academic freedom is of lower concern or value than our students — care does not 'supersede' academic freedom, the two coexist."
Just because I said something doesn't suggest I actually meant it!
A long, long time ago a blog named Protein Wisdom often had posts on the Heckler's Veto, and how it was being used to censor speech. The blog author refused to surrender to others the authority to determine the intent of his speech. I think this is still important today.
Oh, this is amusing
"Hamline University have been chosen for one of best colleges in next area of majors.
Dispute Resolution"
I'm also concerned that Hamline’s President, Fayneese Miller, does not know how to use the expression "begs the question."
Hey Skipper said...
Every use of the suffix -phobia is flawed unless preceded by something like "arachno".
So Islamoarachnophobia is an Islamic fear of spiders?
The suffix “phobia” implies an irrational fear, and really, what have Muslims ever done that would make it rational to fear them? Well, yeah, there was that...and that...and that...and that...oh, OK, maybe there is some rational ground to fear them, and so I agree that the term “Islamophobic” was inappropriate.
@Amadeus
Anyone reminded of Kevin Kline and John Cleese in A Fish Called Wanda? Here it is, with Cleese playing Hamline University and Kline playing Prater's lawyer:
That hit the spot!!
"It was never our intent . . . . We just stupid."
FIFT.
The letter sounds like it was crafted by a lawyer, but I don't see how it helps with a defamation suit. "Like most reasonable people we assumed that you were a bigot who needed dismissal. We have since pondered the issue and decided that no, despite appearances, you're not technically a bigot." I wonder who will have the most difficulty moving on to her next job: the college president or the lecturer? Maybe the lecturer will make enough from her lawsuit to make the question of another job academic so to speak.
“Never our intent” is a polite and pompous way of saying “you were too obtuse to understand our real meaning, so now we have to try again.”
“…care does not ‘supersede’ academic freedom, the two coexist.”
There’s your problem right there. This “care” BS is just a lightly buffed version of the “safetyism for fragile snowflakes” that is now embedded in the operating system for advanced child-care facilities like Hamline. A true university is about academic freedom. Full stop. The students are responsible for acquiring the mental toughness, adaptability, high intellectual standards and low cunning needed to look, listen and learn from demanding experts under demanding circumstances. It’s not a high-end playpen. Or shouldn’t be.
They say, "Based on all that we have learned, we have determined that our usage of the term ‘Islamophobic’ was therefore flawed." Why was the "usage" "flawed"?
Because their lawyer told them they don't have the slightest leg to stand on, and they're going to lose the lawsuit, so they better start walking things back before they become even MORE expensive.
See more lying bullshit from the president of the university:
"First, I must state that the adjunct instructor hired to teach the course in art history did not “lose her job,” as has been reported by some outlets. Neither was she “let go” nor “dismissed,” as has also been reported. And most emphatically, she has not been “fired,” as has also been claimed. The decision not to offer her another class was made at the unit level and in no way reflects on her ability to adequately teach the class."
The illiterate president also stated: "I am taking this opportunity to... correct the record ...as shared by those who have been enjoined in the conversation."
Injunction, subjunction, conjunction, whatever.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा