> However, one student in class that day—the president of Hamline's Muslim Student Association—took offense, complaining first to the professor, and then to school administrators.
Then the paradox of tolerance [1] kicks in, and one offended guy forces everyone to comply (likely with silent support from other like-minded guys).
In clearer terms, if society has progressed from state A to state B while X was allowed, how can the paradox of tolerance then claim that, unless X is banned, society will inevitably go back from state B to state A? If X was such a strong driver towards state A, state B never would have been reached in the first place.
Unless of course this is cover for those that get to define what is intolerant [2] to act as censors and push the Overton window in whatever direction they please.
[1] 'Tolerant' or 'intolerant' on whatever axis you want.
[2] Is it intolerant to be inconsiderate of other religions? Or are those religions intolerant for insisting their taboos be upheld by others? What about describing other religions in terms that may lead to 'hate'? What if those descriptions are factual? When are you drawing attention to legitimate intersectional privilege that enables abuse and oppression, and when are you unfairly targeting a group based on protected characteristics?
People who take significant action to have a certain point of view suppressed are intolerant towards it. People who dislike that point of view but restrain themselves and allow others have their despicable ways are tolerant. (And those who don't care are neither, but are considered tolerant by some.)
The problem is that universities strive, at least notionally, to look for what's been found objectively true. For instance, portraits and other figurative paintings exist in earlier Islamic art. This is an undeniable fact, supported by multiple evidence. But this is also considered offensive by some modern people who profess Islam. They don't want these images to be shown, talked about, taught in a university, or otherwise made known. These people are citizens enjoying all the same rights and protections as other students, who might want to learn these facts.
So a university is in a double-bind. If they assert their right to teach objective facts in a course dedicated to such facts, they will make many enemies within the Islamic community, and suffer the uproar from the "pro-tolerance" crowd, on campus and in media. If they step back and remove these offensive facts form the curriculum, they will suffer an uproar from the "pro-objectivity" crowd (which may have a large intersection with the "pro-tolerance" crowd, by the way). But they choose the latter, because this way they will make fewer enemies. and risk a smaller dip in popularity and grant money.
The very same mechanism of civil pressure which was successfully used for various things me and you (hopefully) consider good, like women suffrage and racial desegregation, can be used for purposed me and you (hopefully) find problematic. Most people value social peace over some tolerable concessions to those who feel strong about a particular issue. I don't see any way around it: the mechanism is value-agnostic, much like strong encryption or firearms.
While natural sciences (even biology) are currently enjoying an environment where the scientific truth is considered the most important concern, social sciences, to my mind, are in a situation closer to that from the times of Galileo or Socrates.
[1] https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
You are trying to allude to free market systems to determine how a course evolves. Except there arent various forms of the same Islamic art class being offered at the school where a student can choose with money and choice which variation should be supported.
At some point, free market does not effeciently allow for the evolution of systems when choices are simply binary, like voting. In binary systems, participation and communication is key. And that is exactly what occurred here.
Which version of Islam and which Islamic laws though?
I assume the point of showing the specific image in question, sourced from the Jami' al-tawarikh, was to point out that here was an historic and significant Islamic history text commissioned by an Islamic state that contained .. ( <gasp>, <shock>, <horror> ) an image of Muhammad.
This is what happens in history classes, I hope somewhere a similar class is being taught that sainted Catholic nuns once prepared and admistered abortifacients (substances used to terminate pregnancy) as an example of the changing nature of religuous views and morals.