The Lessons of Hamline University

iQoncept/Shutterstock

Commentary

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 were convinced that what she did wasn’t only offensive to Muslim students, but that such disrespect shouldn’t be protected by academic freedom.

These attitudes are grounded in the language of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). DEI activists believe that maintaining the dignity of ethnic or racial groups is of paramount importance; therefore, a loss of academic freedom is justified in a few 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 haven’t gone far enough to protect academic freedom.

DEI enthusiasts often manipulate terminology for political ends. Take, for instance, the kind of rhetoric that informed Hamline University President Fayneese S. Miller’s decision to support a complaint against the professor. Miller notes how a student can be “emotionally, intellectually, or professionally harmed by the professor’s exercise of the power they hold.” Hence, “To do all the good you can means, in part, minimizing harm.”

Miller assumes that being offended qualifies as harm. In a classroom setting, the opposite is true. Becoming upset over course content leads to a more enlightened perspective. To improve critical thinking, students should embrace uncomfortable ideas and expressions, not avoid them.

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.

Faculty, students, and administrators who subscribe wholesale to the language of DEI have a difficult time balancing the impact of hurt feelings with the actual harm caused by suspensions, firings, loss of income, and a damaged reputation. They have become so entrenched in their positions that the mere possibility of being wrong evades them.

To be fair, Hamline University is right about one line that can’t be crossed. Academic freedom doesn’t include “personal vilification,” meaning that a professor should never demean an individual student’s race, ethnicity, or religion. But in this specific case, López Prater was disseminating knowledge, not making students targets of abuse.

There are strategic advantages with equating offensive expressions with harm: It allows champions of DEI to engage in ideological mission creep. Academic freedom thwarts their policy goals, so rhetorical maneuvers are required to weaken its grip. In a liberal academic institution, being offended is unlikely to attract much attention; being harmed, however, garners far more sympathy.

The events at Hamline University also demonstrate why academic freedom requires further protections.  It becomes increasingly compromised whenever defenders of DEI, backed by administrators, ask that racialized 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.

Much to the chagrin of DEI supporters, academic freedom includes the protection of controversial and hurtful statements. Professors must be able to use any word, idea, or expression when engaging in critical inquiry. Without these safeguards, DEI language can operate as a moving target, applied anywhere its proponents see fit, and in any fashion to suit their agenda.

The language of DEI—like all language—is contested and contextual. It loses credibility when its adherents argue in bad faith. Characterizing 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, the ideology surrounding DEI leads to unjust outcomes.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.