>

Throwing out " Islamophobia" when criticizing Islam is equal to calling people an "anti-Semite" when criticizing Israel. It's an inflammatory word used only to shut down all discussion.
Edi: shut
What a bizarre failure of a school.
The liability must be enormous. They went on record stating the professor's actions were  "undeniably Islamophobic" in trying to educate art history students about art history.
Indeed historic Islamic art by Islamic artists can be challenging but that's why it's important to understand it. It's not 'phobic to believe it's worthy of study. Theres so much value to learning of the fluidity of belief and how art is a window on the world over time. 
Now they'll finally understand backtracking by saying they've made a "misstep" is not enough when you've tried to suppress academic freedom within an academic institution 
Does anyone enrolled there think they're getting a decent education? 
They even failed the student, they naively thought they were protecting, since they're not preparing them for the real world where there isn't some overarching hand that can move the chess pieces of life around to ensure you always win. >

The job of educational institutions is to prepare the child for the road, not the road for the child. >

Did you get this from The Coddling of the American Mind by chance? >

Sure did! Great book. >


According to the lawsuit, López Prater’s course syllabus included a note that students would view images of religious figures, including the Prophet Muhammad. The syllabus also included an offer to work with students uncomfortable with viewing those images. She also warned the class immediately before showing the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad.

Seems like the student who made a fuss about it did it intentionally to get her in trouble. An institution of higher education firing a professor over a single complaint is ridiculous. This lawsuit seems like a no-brainer. >

Right? It appears the student was offended even at the thought of anyone seeing an image of Mohammed and chose to stay to get the professor in trouble. >

Even though the image thing is only relatively recent. >

Which ironically is the sort of thing you should expect to learn in an Art History class. Things like how religions aren't monoliths, and beliefs can and do change over time. >

I have a degree in art history and took a class on Islamic art. We absolutely looked at early depictions of Muhammad and how those changed over time. >

No I need the credit >

For the beheading!? >

For the French Revolution history course, yes. >

"...the university chose to impose the student’s religious view that no one should ever view images of the prophet on all other students and employees."
This is exactly the issue.  How can one student's viewpoint be imposed on absolutely everyone. >

Legally it shouldn't. This was a historical piece being talked about in an art history class and the professor went above and beyond in my opinion to make sure students were notified ahead of time in case it made them uncomfortable.   
The Muslim society complained and she was fired. We are supposed to have freedom of religion so people can safely practice their religion free from persecution. You are free to practice but you can not force others to abide by the rules of religion.
This is so beyond ridiculous its like a random student complaining that a professor should be fired for eating a ham sandwich which is against kosher rules of the Jewish religion. It sounds ridiculous but that is exactly what happened here.
EDIT: Thanks kind stranger for the award >


banning depictions of the prophet is very recent, as in 2005

No, banning depictions is not very recent.  It's a long standing accepted teaching of Islam.   There is very very very very very very little art depicting Mohammod or any of the prophets found throughout history because its almost universally seen as idolatry by muslims.   
The Koran doesn't explicitly ban all images of people, but it definitely calls out idolatry and that's been interpreted by the muslim population, scholars, and leaders throughout its history to mean no images at all, particularly of the prophets and Mohammod. >

Ironic though as a ex-muslim, I feel like Muhammad is already idolized to an absurd degree that basically is equivalent of worshiping. You don't need pictures for that. Just a bunch of false stories of him being a great human when in reality he was a warlord who had a sex addiction issue. >

True enough.  Its ironic that in the pursuit of no idolatry, they've placed him into a category or interaction mode that elevates him well above humanity.    The naming of male children and the insistence of 'peace be upon him' any time he's mentioned, plus this obsession with no depictions. >


The statement did not address the lawsuit, but said the university strongly supports academic freedom...

No, it doesn't. If "the university strongly support[ed] academic freedom," then the student complaining would have been told to pound sand, and the university would never have considered taking any disciplinary action against the professor.
What should be now happening is other students suing, on the grounds they were defrauded by the institution into believing that it did support academic freedom. >

When I originally read the story it seemed that those complaining weren’t even enrolled in the class. 
Many were claiming trauma and “couldn’t focus on school” because of how upset they were. But they weren’t even students in the class or saw the picture. 
If your religion forbids it, it does so to those who follow it. If your imam breaks that rule then you have the right to be angry. If someone who doesn’t follow your religion does, that’s none of your business. 
It’s like expecting a citizen of the US to follow Canadian laws… even though they’re in the US. 
Anyways, anyone have a link to the photo/art piece? >

They included the image in this NYT article: A Lecturer Showed a Painting of the Prophet Muhammad. She Lost Her Job. 

The painting shown in Dr. López Prater’s class is in one of the earliest Islamic illustrated histories of the world, “A Compendium of Chronicles,” written during the 14th century by Rashid-al-Din (1247-1318).
Shown regularly in art history classes, the painting shows a winged and crowned Angel Gabriel pointing at the Prophet Muhammad and delivering to him the first Quranic revelation. Muslims believe that the Quran comprises the words of Allah revealed to the Prophet Muhammad through the Angel Gabriel.
The image is “a masterpiece of Persian manuscript painting,” said Christiane Gruber, a professor of Islamic art at the University of Michigan. It is housed at the University of Edinburgh; similar paintings have been on display at places like the Metropolitan Museum of Art. >

It’s paywalled >

I made sure to open this just to spite to student President who complained >

Congrats, even more people have seen the image now. >


On Friday, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a national civil rights organization for Muslims, disputed the belief that López Prater’s behavior was Islamophobic. The group said professors who analyze images of the Prophet Muhammad for academic purposes are not the same as “Islamophobes who show such images to cause offense.”

Honestly, the student is just being extra. >

Here's CAIR's press release about this if anyone is interested >

Some additional comments from the executive director of CAIR-MN

“You’ve seen what happened in the horrible tragedies of Charlie Hebdo,” Jaylani Hussein warned the faculty and students of Hamline. “Muslims revere our Prophet in a meaningful way, and regardless of whatever you are teaching, you have to respect them.” >

"better behave or we'll IED/Machete you" is not really the way to build inroads with other communities. >

Good.  She should win.
For anyone who doesn't know the story, she showed historical depictions of the Islamic prophet in context and with warning for anyone who wanted to leave the room or not attend class that day.  It wasn't done to mock Islam, it was done in an art history class, discussing the history of Islamic art.
And these malicious religious fundamentalists complained to the administration and got her fired for doing her damn job.
These people want to stifle academic speech, and the school are cowards, idiots, or both for going along with their agenda. >

From a Muslim perspective, most of us are on the side of the art professor. She showed nuanced, understanding, clear communication. We like these things. There's even talk about a petition to show this, not sure what happened to it though >

The Council on American-Islamic Relations spoke in her defense. >

That was a while after the executive director of the Minnesota chapter of CAIR came out in support of the Muslim student who complained, said that the college should not have allowed the painting to be shown in the first place, and confirmed that showing it was an act of Islamophobia.