A Lecturer Showed a Painting of the Prophet Muhammad. She Lost Her Job
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
College that fired prof for showing image of Muhammad could lose accreditation - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34293131 - Jan 2023 (85 comments)
As for this art piece, I think it would certainly cause some controversy. I'm a Muslim myself, and afaik depictions of living beings are discouraged, and depictions of the Prophet (PBUH) are a no-no (though perhaps I should mention that I do believe firing that teacher was absolutely the wrong decision, and what she did was not at all an instance of Islamophobia).
Beyond that, there is little to suggest that Islam explicitly forbids art depicting humans. In the case of prophets though, I think it is discouraged (by muslims) largely to prevent misattributing features or misrepresenting them (and of course, mockery as well).
I should add, there is probably a bit of miscommunication when people use the term "Islamic art". Some may mean art that does not violate Islamic principles (whatever those may be to them), others may take it to refer specifically to the typical aniconistic style of art that has now become synonymous with "Islamic art" (at least that's what I, admittedly, thought of in my previous comment), or perhaps art originating from muslim territories / made by muslims, etc.
Just as an example, in sunnism even the grave of the prophet Mohammed (pbuh) is basically completely anonymous and unremarkable, to the point where you wouldn't know about it even if you were right in front of it. That's to avoid any grave worshiping, or ritualistic "pilgrimage."
Shiism, on the other hand, involves a LOT of rituals around saint worshipping, huge shrines, and important relics. Because of that, representations of saints and even the prophet are a lot, lot less problematic (and even mainstream, with portraits of Husayn being common in religious ceremonies). Even then, Persian art was historically even less restrictive than the mainstream modern shia tendency of not really representing the prophet itself anymore.
Now, you might say that this proves Ken White's point, but it really doesn't!. The reality is that for most muslims, sunnism being the biggest denomination by far, there is really no debate that this type of representation is completely forbidden. There is also virtually no disagreement on the subject between the different sunni branches (who usually are pretty similar in general anyways). The only rift is between sunnis and shias, but it is so wide that it makes no sense to even lump the two groups together in this conversation. It's not just a sectarian disagreement over interpretation that could be open for debate, it's almost two completely different approaches and beliefs.
So basically those "specific sects" would basically include 99.99% of practicing sunnis, all branches of sunnism, and every sunni religious authority. That's more than 80-85% of muslims, including shias. So there is definitely some universality of opinion here.
Dunno if I agree all Islamic art doesnt depic humans, that does not agree with what I've seen in museums. Also, since it's a representation of an event that occurred in islam, I thin kit's not entirely unfair to say it's "islamic art" even if it was created by a Persian jew.
I feel absolutely terrible for the professor, they did absolutely nothing wrong. I took an religious art history class in college too...and yeah, we had Muslims in the class. One of them just didn't show up that day, and others just continued on as if it was just another piece of art. No complains, no grandstanding. Just mature people with the mindset of "I'm not in any position to complain, I'm not special, the professor isn't targeting me, nor anyone else. My religious beliefs are not and will never be part of the law system here and I don't expect them to be." That's it.
We are a secular country. We have separation of religious institutions from our government (in theory). If someone of any faith wants to whine about being offended because of a picture they saw at school, they need to grow the fuck up.
It’s indeed a form of maturity. Or learning or aspiring to be exposed to other viewpoints and ways of seeing.
The problem is that this doesn't matter. In the case of the beheaded french teacher the girl just lied about being in that class (he was not her teacher, and she didn't even come to school that day) and tell everybody later that she was forced to see pictures of the prophet naked. I wonder where is she now.
1. Wijdan Ali's From the Literal to the Spiritual: The Development of the Prophet Muhammad's Portrayal from 13th Century Ilkhanid Miniatures to 17th Century Ottoman Art. 1999. Open Access, available here: https://webspace.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/islam/downloads/ejo...
2. Christiane Gruber's The Praiseworthy One: The Prophet Muhammad in Islamic Texts and Images. 2019. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37702531-the-praiseworth...
I hope this bit doesn’t get lost in the conversation. Tenure seems to be extremely hard to get, even for very smart people who (in my opinion) fully deserved it.
It's not, which is why many schools are moving away from tenured faculty and more toward contract instructors. They're paid like regular faculty (not pennies like adjuncts) but aren't on a tenure track. 3-5 year contracts give better job security than a typical job, but not a guaranteed job for life.
That is easy to say when you don't have family. Children don't do well being pulled out of school and moved to different school, they can suffer academically, emotionally and socially from having their lives disrupted. Then you have to consider your spouses career.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10655679/Teacher-30...
https://www.france24.com/en/france/20211015-the-violence-sho...
Remember that in US this happened not a long time ago: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabbing_of_Salman_Rushdie
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad#Conte...
On top of that, it is the religion that gets in unproportional amount of media time in every european country due to all the problems it represents.
UK Census 2021 (England and Wales): https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/cultural...
Why? In Spain either you converted to Christianism 500 years ago or you got expelled. Most of Moors which came into Iberia where from modern Morocco origin and a few from Algeria. And a lot of them have "interesting" beliefs, such as drinking in private.
Also, every Moroccan has satellite TV and for sure they follow the Spanish soccer Liga.
They are very aware of Flamenco in Andalusia and the tiling from toilet rooms, which are the same in Andalusia and Morocco, or pretty close. Thus, they get assimilated fast in Spain to the Western values.
In the case of Germany is probably because they received a lot of Turkish workers after WWII.
I'm French and there were many muslim kids in my school when I was a kid (a few decades back). This type of "incident" didn't happen in those days. I don't remember religion ever being an issue. These kids would often respect ramadan and not eat pork, but this was the only visible religious thing, and nobody really cared about it.
I don't know what exactly has changed, who are the extremists and where they got their ideas, but something has changed.
This would not have caused problem in Malayasia, Maldives, Indonesia, Bahrain, among many other countries.
“I am showing you this image for a reason. And that is that there is this common thinking that Islam completely forbids, outright, any figurative depictions or any depictions of holy personages. While many Islamic cultures do strongly frown on this practice, I would like to remind you there is no one, monothetic Islamic culture,”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TMHIYDHMSE
"If there's anything we have learned, is that terrorizing works"
"If you don't want people to make fun of you anymore, all you need are guns and bombs"
The fake outrage is really disgusting back to the dark ages.
I miss the progressivism of old, where there was more of an emphasis on tolerance even when one disagrees.
You'll find this is a feature of all isms. Even the free speech absolutists ban the blasphemers when given the chance.
I yearn for the, looking back, somewhat balanced days where not everyone was head deep in politics, and we could have useful debates about maybe health care or national budget, without degenerating into blanket character attacks. Then after the debate, everyone is at least cordial.
Just finished the first season of white lotus. Did not expect to see some good dichotomies of two generations interacting with one another (re: the scuba family)
Thankfully this isn't happening, so crisis averted I guess.
Does that mean that virtually all Western art is islamaphobic?
At what point does the demand that Western art doesn't do something that offend Islam itself become westernphobic.
The standard response is that there can be no such thing as Westernphobia because the West is powerful and Islam is weak, just as there can be no such thing as anti-white racism because whites are powerful and nonwhites are weak.
I am not at all racist, my best friend has dark skin, but I also can't help but notice that on social networks there's always that black* group/tag/community never do you see white,red, yellow, only ever black. I do find that quite racist and exclusive. If we're all the same, why does such distinction exist?
It's not all about race and sexuality.
Non property owners are discriminated against?
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
Look for the etymology of the term "slave". You will be surprised.
That is not remotely true, if I log into Reddit I can find subreddits with white, black, Spanish, German, Japanese, Indian, French, Jamaican, etc. topics as well several subcategories such as Valencian etc. I am not sure what or where you are looking.
I don’t think Native Americans go by red or East Asian people yellow as well honestly. What social networks are banning you?
There is a heterosexual flag here if you need one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_flag
You're wrong about that; the Chinese do refer to themselves as yellow. (It's not a native tradition there - it's taken from the old Western taxonomy. But it's still current.)
If you want me to treat you equally, you need to hold us both as equals, anything less is hypocrisy.
Right or wrong, that's the context.
One fact of religious tolerance is that one person will inevitably view as sacred something that another person views as stupid. Drawing lines around certain practices is a challenging task for society as a whole. I personally don't believe that reducing everything to "fascism" is productive.
Your suggestion that people be deported to Iran or Afghanistan is among the most common racist retorts against Muslim people and indicates a lack of tolerance for what is in reality a fairly complicated issue that can only be solved by mutual respect.
That's the point. This student obviously doesn't have any respect for the country and the culture he's currently living in. He has a point to make and a war to wage.
And that's not xenophobic to say that; I've hosted an Afghan refugees for months. I didn't try to feed him pork, and he didn't try to stab me for eating ham or not praying for Allah. There are decent people everywhere. You can be an oppressed refugee, and still be a fascistic, intolerant moron; you can be a white cis male billionaire and still be a good person (this one's tough though). Being a victim buys you no moral superiority at all. Being a decent person only does.
Regarding your experience with a refugee...doing good isn't a cache of poker chips. You can't justify judging a person today based on using something good that you said/did yesterday.
I don't think it's right to say something along the lines of "we might as well send this Sudanese person to Afghanistan for objecting to an image depicting something they consider sacrilegious."
I think you are wrong to frame the situation as a renegade student who is out to wage war. This (along with "if they don't like it, deport em") is a pretty common racist trope that is used to put Muslims down. Not saying that's your intent.
Religious freedom in the US is usually viewed in a way that differs from Europe (esp. France). Rather than forcing people to act or think secularly, Americans try to respect other people's boundaries as they are. It's a fundamentally different concept. No idea where you're from, but based on your attitude toward the meaning of "mutual respect" I'm guessing France.
It is likely that a Sudanese Muslim will view a depiction of the Muslim prophet as impermissible, and that a Persian Muslim will not. Why conflate the two?
There's more context in the school newspaper. [0] "'I am showing you this image for a reason. And that is that there is this common thinking that Islam completely forbids, outright, any figurative depictions or any depictions of holy personages. While many Islamic cultures do strongly frown on this practice, I would like to remind you there is no one, monothetic Islamic culture,' the professor said before changing to the slide that included these depictions."
The lecturer was aware that the images would be considered by many Muslims as forbidden. The head of the university's Muslim Students' Association was in the class. The lecture was on video and undoubtedly reviewed by the administration before they chose to let the adjunct professor go.
To me, it seems like this was a self-own by the lecturer rather than some kind of "war" waged (as you put it) by a student.
I think intolerant religion must not be tolerated in an open society. I think that a society has absolutely no obligation to try to be amenable and welcoming to any ideology. When I travel in a Muslim country, I don't go around at noon during Ramadan eating ham sandwiches and drinking beer. That student is doing exactly that. She's literally spitting in the face of the country that hosts and educates her.
Yes, the professor may have tried to teach her students about the complexity of the world. That's the very definition of her job, after all!
The next step for a person like this student ends in a Samuel Paty or Charlie Hebdo. My advice is to deport her back to her miserable, war-torn, fascistic backward country she shouldn't have left.
Tolerance is great, but must be with at least a modicum of reciprocation. As Paul Claudel said "Tolerance? There are houses for that."
The Bible however, does actually forbid it: Exodus 20:4
I seem to remember that Jehovas Witnesses actually practice this as they take the words of the Bible literally.
I’m by no way an expert on theology, mainly interested on a hobby level, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
As evidence, consider the vast number of practicing Jews and Christians who were or are artists. Also consider the vast number of churches which have artwork (like stained glass and statues).
In Exodus 25:18-20, on the other hand, God commands Moses to carve statues for a religious purpose: two cherubim which would sit atop the Ark of the Covenant.
Notice that these angelic images were to serve such an exalted purpose (not because the statues themselves were in any way intrinsically exalted but because of the use to which they would be put) that God was very exacting in the instructions he gave Moses as to the materials to be used and the posture in which they were to be carved.
Similar divine commands to carve statues and embroider images of various religious objects are found in Exodus 21:6-9, Numbers 21:6-9, 1 Kings 6:23-28, and 1 Kings 7:23- 39. In each case, the statue or embroidered image was intended by God for a religious use.
Although the worship of anything, not just statues, in place of the True God is idolatry, there are times when statues are not just tolerable but recommended.
Just as those Old Testament statues were ordered fashioned by God to reminded the Israelites of heavenly realities, Catholic statues of Jesus and the angels and the saints serve the same purpose.”
If it were to be implemented in full in any of our Western societies today, it would result in a misogynistic, brutal, intolerant regime that infringes severely on what we understand as universal human rights. Just look at Afghanistan for an example. We should definitely be "phobic" of this.
Similar to fundamental Christianity then?
Edit: found it!
> After Dr. López Prater showed the image, a senior in the class complained to the administration. Other Muslim students, not in the course, supported the student, saying the class was an attack on their religion. They demanded that officials take action.
Why is she complaining if she chose to stay in the class despite all the warnings?
Islam doesn't allow much nudity either:
---
[0]Tell the believing men to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts. That is purer for them. Indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what they do.
[1]And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their chastity, and not to reveal their adornments1 except what normally appears.2 Let them draw their veils over their chests, and not reveal their ˹hidden˺ adornments3 except to their husbands, their fathers, their fathers-in-law, their sons, their stepsons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons or sisters’ sons, their fellow women, those ˹bondwomen˺ in their possession, male attendants with no desire, or children who are still unaware of women’s nakedness.
---
I'm pretty sure art history is full of pictures of men and women in various state of nudity - should all that also be purged from the classroom? What is the standard to decide whether a painting can be shown? Or should the universities start allowing random art students from various religions to make decisions on whether The Dancing Girl[2] or Michelangelo's David[3] is fit to be displayed in the class?
Observing Hindus worship cow but beef is routinely consumed in Europe/America. So in accordance with their beliefs, they don't consume beef. Strict observers do not even go to places that serve beef (as is their right). What they don't do is complain to McDonald's that they are offended by other people consuming beef (and even if they did, I'm pretty sure the answer won't be to ban beef in McDonald's).
> At the Dec. 8 forum, which was attended by several dozen students, faculty and administrators, Ms. Wedatalla described, often through tears, how she felt seeing the image.“Who do I call at 8 a.m.,” she asked, when “you see someone disrespecting and offending your religion?”
What you do is, you question whether what happened was non-malicious, whether there was legitimate reason behind it and whether the offended person had the chance to avoid the experience altogether. In this scenario the answer to all those questions is, yes.
> The lecture was so disturbing, she said, that she could no longer see herself in that course.
Absolutely correct thinking and beneficial to all parties because clearly she doesn't have the mindset necessary for an art history class.
[0]: https://quran.com/24?startingVerse=30
[1]: https://quran.com/24?startingVerse=31
Separately but on the same theme, there was an outrage against sex education in schools, because Muslims were offended, saying it was against their way of life. The irony was that the protest was lead by a dude who didn't even have children.
https://popehat.substack.com/p/hamline-university-and-cancel...
In India, a Lady, Nupur Sharma merely quote the Hadith about Mohammad's marriage to Aisha and she had to go underground.
Many people lost their lives. The Islamists call for 'San Tan se Juda' - Separation of the Head from the Body.
The Islamic world needs a renaissance.
This is not equivalent to the case in question (to be clear about my stand, I think the firing of the lecturer was completely wrong). However, there are few things to consider in Nupur Sharma case:
1. Nupur Sharma is not a random Lady, she was the spokesperson of the ruling party BJP. As part of the ruling party, she had the responsibility of acting as is appropriate for a national-level party member. More so as being the spokesperson, her views could be seen as the views of the party. See point #3 on why this is relevant.
2. Her comments were not part of some art history or philosophical discussion. By her own admittance, she couldn't accept the insulting of Hindu god Shiva and retaliated by making comments about prophet Mohammad.
3. Her comments were not made within the confines of a classroom where free academic discussion is paramount; she went on three national TV channels and basically tried to make the same comments deliberately knowing well that in a deeply religious country like India, such actions have far reaching consequences. My personal view is that one should be free to insult any god, Hindu or Muslim or any other religion; however, practicality demands that care should be exercised by members of political parties on such public platforms (if she was a Muslim leader who insulted a Hindu god, the point would still stand i.e. her behavior was irresponsible).
But it seems your comment sort of justifies all that because nupur is a spokesperson of a party.
The intolerance that many trans-rights activists show to those who don't accept that a man with a 'female gender identity' is a woman is similar to the intolerance that many followers of Islam show to non-believers.
No-one on the gender critical side has been beheaded yet, but there is a surprisingly large "kill the terfs" movement that parallels the extremism of Islamists.
It's like if someone said the Elon Musk is bad because he invested X amount of money into Y, and I'm better because I didn't (suppose I'm broke and I spend my days in a basement playing games). The "I'm better part" is flawed because we don't know what I would do if I was given his choice.
Let's put this whole subthread in perspective. Someone told a story about how they "got scolded" and then two replies later the conversation has drifted to the idea that LGBTQ don't exist, their movement parallels one of the most inflammatory boogeymen you can use in US political discourse, and the only reason they haven't come for our heads yet is because they aren't powerful enough. The conversation usually drifts from here to "Well how do we stop them from getting power?", at which point it gets really ugly. It's a subtle move from "these LGBTQ don't even exist" to "these LGBTQ shouldn't exist", and unfortunately we've seen the consequences of that kind of thinking more often recently. The usual solutions are: make their existence illegal through the political system we control, or exterminate them with violence.
And this gets me back to the defense mechanism. It's unfortunate, I agree. In a better world there would be room for nuance and polite discussion to foster understanding. Unfortunately in the real world, things go really quickly from a misunderstanding to actual violence. The real kind, not the suspected kind. So to prevent that real violence, you get a "nip this at the bud" kind of responses to things that may be benign or just a misunderstanding. Unfortunately deadnaming and misgendering are followed often enough by violence, that even when it's not intentional the response can be harsh. The sad part is that this way of interacting is not productive for anyone, but survival mechanisms are usually a last resort, not something meant to be polite.
And this just doesn't come close to what he did and the battles he fought and the pain he's been through, all done to praise God and obey his commands, all to spread the message of God to the world, and he's been reciting a verse about the Idols and how they've wasted a lot of lives along with another verse, and he cries and raises his hands to the sky saying: Oh God my people, my people. as in "God I am afraid for my people".
He's dearer to us than ourselves.
I think there are shortcomings on our side speaking of explaining our religion to the western audience but trust me it's not easy because any conservative Sunni Muslim who speaks out is being silenced and you're being left with Shia and liberal Muslims, and you're not going to get anything related to Islam from these people, for now you can follow Daniel Haqiqatjou and Sheikh Uthman Ibn farook.
One final thing I have to clarify is, Shia aren't representatives of Islam, why? simple as their books are based on dreams this is the short version, the long version is something you have to research for yourself.
Sorry about your bad experience.
Seriously. Why?. What's the point of all this drama?
Teachers risk entire careers. Risk decades of hard study and even their lives, to show students concepts like free speech and different points of view.
Students don't seem to appreciate the effort. Each single time, somebody will feel justified to use this situation to feel outraged and punish the teacher. Their families will use it politically and ask for public lynching. Is always the same history.
Wouldn't be more wise for the university to apply a self-defence stance and made muslim students to pick a different class. Period. No exceptions?
Save yourself all the bullying, and the undesirable publicity. Why to be forced to burn valuable human resources in a war that is not your war?. Why universities still accept the role of the dummy punching bag in this history? They should know better.
Wouldn't be better also for muslim students not to force them to choose between the university and their families?
Because this is an exaggeration:
> Students don't seem to appreciate the effort. Each single time, somebody will feel justified to use this situation to feel outraged and punish the teacher.
I don't know what causes you to feel this way, but it's just not true. That some students cause outrage at one small school, that doesn't mean students or Muslims writ large feel the same, or that "every single time" Muhammad is depicted something like this happens. Frankly it seems like the opposite it true; the last time this was controversy in the news that I can remember were the terrorist attacks a decade ago. If it's true that Muslim students will use this to punish teachers and feel outraged, why doesn't it happen more often?
Really all that seems to be happening here is that a student got more upset than they should have, the school overreacted more than they should have, and now the anti-woke internet mobs (because the reactionaries are just as bad as the activists at this point) are overacting as well.
Not. Is a risk, and risks should be addressed.
> the last time this was controversy in the news that I can remember were the terrorist attacks a decade ago
2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Samuel_Paty
Universities and schools should meet over a common protocol for damage control and stop the problem for good. This lectures are like throwing blood in a shark pool; any extremist in a radius of a thousand miles around will be invoked in holy duty mode to "save the students souls".
And the risk/benefits ratio is just mew. Is a losing situation for everybody.
It seems like it. It seems like the university didn’t even clearly understand that Muslims are divided on this topic before taking action.
> Liberal institutions in the west have begun to increasingly yield to the demands of extremist minority views and doing so only emboldens them. You are free to insult white people, Christianity, and non transexual heterosexual men in this country but everyone else is a protected class.
This, however, is just straight up alt-right talking points.
I beg to differ, this is exactly my impression, too.
https://torontosun.com/life/rutgers-professor-calls-white-pe...
Or Drexel:
https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/health/drexel-professor-white...
Or Yale:
https://news.yahoo.com/psychiatrist-delivered-lecture-yale-d...
But say things that are embarrassing yet true of minority students at Georgetown, and you’ll be fired and disowned by the college in under 48 hours:
https://news.yahoo.com/georgetown-law-professor-fired-over-1...
The Yale link was about a lecture given by someone not affiliated with the University.
> you’ll be fired and disowned by the college in under 48 hours:
Yes, much easier to do with adjuncts compared to tenured professors.
The liberals can be overreaching about such matters, but I personally think racial slurs shouldn't be tolerated a lot.
This is just my 2 cents on the subject.
The problem isn't much about racism, it is about some people act like jerks. And people can be jerks with or without racism.
sometimes things escalate and this same random jerk might murder you if they think there is a high chance they will escape the justice system because you're basically a subhuman under the new laws that these lighthearted racists passed.
You can't make everyone good and decent, but you can for sure punish the racists and limit their access to power and that's what banning does in this case.
That’s not the point, though. Turning this into a “what about the white men!” whinge is blatantly misrepresenting this scenario as the result of “modern progressivism” when it’s actually something else.
I believe that you’re not going to find many proponents of the sort of progressivism that the “white about the white men!?”crowd fight against, that are actually in favour of this decision. Furthermore I believe that you’d find plenty that are against it.
Around the proponents of this ideology are concentric circles of people making misguided attempts to “capitulate to this PC culture”, often as an ass-covering tactic. By the time you get to a layperson perceiving ‘the culture’, it’s a xerox of a xerox of a xerox created by various corporate HR, PR, and marketing departments. Then, of course, you’ve got the people revolting against Big Org #836 mandating wearing pronoun pins in the office when that’s clearly not something any trans person would advocate for. The collective facepalming at misguided attempts to pander to “LGBTQIA+” is a big part of the current queer community / culture. This is just the community I am familiar with. I imagine it’s the same elsewhere.
I don’t believe that this is much of a ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy. It’s pretty easy to draw a logical bound between those that believe in the cause, and the rest.
I do not believe that this action was taken as a genuine act of modern progressivism. It’s a typical corporate ‘make this go away and don’t upset the minorities with megaphones’ action. But we’ve got some great keywords like “university” and “Muslim” which opportunists obnoxiously use to fuel the culture war.
> Modern progressivism does distinguish instances of “punching down”
Doesn't make it inaccurate. Trying to cudgel GP into submission by casting aspersions of being "alt-right" affiliated is evidence of it being true, even. The gaslighting is unwelcome.
Of course, I'd assume most muslim don't care about this event, besides a minority of fanatics. But I don't think it even matters. A art history teacher should be free to discuss a painting in their class no matter what "Muslims" think.
Clearly the issue is with the school here. Not the teacher, and not the "muslims". This complaining student should have been explained that her demands are not legitimate.
Over the top, much?
Were you upset of the 'don't say gay bill'? It's an example, not just of a single school acting to restrict academic freedom and freedom of expression in general, but the actual government enforcing this on ALL schools. That should be enraging to anyone who cares about freedom. A elementary school teacher was fired not too long ago for reading 'A need a new butt', because Christians found it offensive.
I think the decision to fire this guy was wrong, but this sort of action is hardly the sole domain of the 'left', the 'right' is doing plenty of censorship in schools all by itself.
3rd grade classrooms are not places of intellectual freedom. They are places of indoctrination. A third grader does not have academic freedom, there is no countervailing point in the classroom. It is completely different than a university setting. According to the t xt of the bill, I can't think of any good reason for a teacher to want to violate the law unless they want to push their own agenda onto the children. And that should not happen in a public school.
'I need a new butt', was a book on the schools reading list. Was firing that teacher perfectly reasonable also? Was a funny book about butts indoctrination?
Critical race theory is being muzzled at the university level by the government in florida. Are you angry about that overreach by state?
> Critical race theory is being muzzled at the university level by the government in florida. Are you angry about that overreach by state?
After all, Ibram X. Kendi who is generally regarded as the foremost proponent of Critical Race Theory argued in his book How to Be an Antiracist that, “The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” This is a fundamental position of Critical Race teachings.
Many would argue it's reasonable for parents to not want this sort of "good racial discrimination" being taught to their kids.
Again, I don't think this teacher should have been fired. But the arguments against it in these comments seem hypocritical when support is given to other types of censorship only because they happen to disagree with what was being suppressed.
> Well then I don't get it. Putting up depictions of Mohammad can easily be viewed as inflammatory discrimination against Muslims, but that's ok?
Exactly my point. Arguments could be made about the validity of any of these topics. There is no consistent basis, just 'This is censorship because topic is bad in my opinion, but other topic can be censored without issue because I disagree with it'.
Ibram X. Kendi is making a few points in the quoted passage.
The first is that it's not enough to just say "no more discrimination" after the entire system has already been set up to discriminate. That just results in a system that perpetuates discrimination.
To illustrate with an example: you and I sit down to play a game of Monopoly. Except instead of letting you play from the beginning, I tie you down and you have to watch me play the game alone until I control the bank, and have hotels on every space. At this point, I untie you and invite you to join me playing by the usual rules of the game.
"But that's not fair, you're obviously going to win." you say
"How is it not fair? We're both playing the game by the same rules."
--
The second point he's making is that there's no "end" to discrimination. The entire idea is just nonsense given the dynamics he describes, and it shouldn't be a goal much like eliminating all bias to appear fair and balanced, or vowing to never make a mistake again in order to be competent. Even if you declare it at an end, and try your hardest to end it in practice, discrimination still happens. It should be our goal to think long and hard about how to deal with discrimination rather than to endeavor to eliminate it.
Do you think people in Appalachia or a trailer park near you who have lived in generational poverty are some how benefited by their skin color? That would assume upper class people associate themselves with lower class, just due to skin color. But we know really that it's based on in groups and out groups. To test this, ask the average upper or upper middle class educated white person to describe the average trailer park dweller with the same color skin, and see their response.
It also assumes a lot of things based on skin color alone. If the concern is that we want to help those who need financial assistance, or educational assistance or whatever then there are ways to do that with means testing, not by relying on a Sherwin Williams color chart held up against your skin.
No, that's not what I said. The point is that the state of the system interplays with the rules governing the system. You can't ignore the state of the system and declare the game fair by looking at just the rules.
> when the reality is we have no idea how much positive or negative impact the ancestors of any given person has had on their lot in life.
I mean, we do though. Generational wealth is a thing. American slavery isn't even the distant past; the last person born into slavery died within living memory.
> If the concern is that we want to help those who need financial assistance, or educational assistance or whatever then there are ways to do that with means testing
Right, which involves a process of discrimination to correct for past discrimination.
> not by relying on a Sherwin Williams color chart held up against your skin.
Of course there are better ways to do things than this terrible strawman you built.
> I mean, we do though. Generational wealth is a thing. American slavery isn't even the distant past
So if 15-20 generations isn't long enough, how many more generations into the future would you say we need to discriminate against people based on skin color before we can call it enough? And what do we do about the millions of poor people with the wrong color skin, just keep discriminating against them due to their race and hope they don't take it personally?
> Of course there are better ways to do things than this terrible strawman you built.
[1] https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/generational-wealth:-why-do-...
[2] https://money.com/rich-families-lose-wealth/
[3] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-why-90-of-rich-peopl...
Maybe you missed where I said the last person born into slavery died in living memory.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_last_survivors_of_Am...
But the discussion of slavery kind of misses the larger point; that systemic discrimination was not in fact dismantled in America with the end of chattel slavery. Other systems replaced the intent, and those persisted long past the Civil War, well into recent history to today.
> It's not a strawman though. If you're basing preferential treatment on race, how exactly do you determine that?
No one is holding up color scales to people’s skin, and no one suggested doing so, certainly not me. That’s how your argument is a straw man.
It sounds like you are trying to make a different argument now, and if you want to make that one without building a straw man, please do so.
You are the one making the argument that we need racial discrimination to right past wrongs. I gave you the reasons that is not only immoral, but unworkable. So if you have some method to make your vision of present & future racial discrimination a net benefit for society, I would like to hear it. Logically it isn't possible, so I'm curious to hear your proposed solution.
To be clear: not all discrimination is racial discrimination, and you don't need to racially discriminate to fix the effects of racial discrimination. Saying we need discrimination is not the same as saying we need racial discrimination.
2) Although this discussion surrounds race and focuses on rectifying past racial discrimination, we don't have to turn to future racial discrimination to rectify it. The point is that we do have to discriminate, however. I believe even you recognize and admit the need for that, because you suggested as much in your earlier post.
For example, we can recognize the impact racist policies like redlining had on minority communities. We can fix this past discrimination by investing in those areas, which of course involves discrimination. We don't have to decide who gets those dollars based on race, but we are basing who gets those dollars on past racial discrimination.
3) If you want to implement a policy based on race, obviously you can just ask the person what their race is. It's okay to let people self-report sometimes. Or market the program to people who are in the specific community you are targeting and ask for proof of residence. There's lots of things you can do, but literally no one has color swatches or endeavors to implement such practices. That's a strawman.
> You are the only one here arguing about race-based policies. Neither I nor the passage you quoted by Ibram X. Kendi make such an argument (if Kendi makes the argument that racial discrimination is necessary, I don't agree with that. But the passage you quoted isn't making that point)
> If you want to implement a policy based on race, obviously you can just ask the person what their race is.
Did you read the book? The foundation of the book is right in the title: to fight racism it's not enough to be not racist, one must be antiracist. The book is about defining this term and explaining that premise. The book makes a lot of points, some good, some strained, but I don't believe "racial discrimination is necessary" is one of them. I'd challenge you to find some quotes that support your position. And no, the one you already quoted does not fit the bill.
> And by backing Kendi, you are backing a racist.
Point in fact I was defending a specific point you raised, not "backing" anybody.
> Why would we ever want the government to participate in racial discrimination though?
I wouldn't and you wouldn't, but some people have wanted this in a misguided way.
> Did you read the book?
> I don't believe "racial discrimination is necessary" is one of them.
Racial equity (as opposed to racial equality) by definition requires racial discrimination. There is no other way to achieve the "desired" equitable outcomes other than racial preferences. It's a point acknowledged in Kendi's work along with every other "antiracist" author of note.
Yes, and I did not get your interpretation at all. Considering the fact that in our discussion you've misrepresented a quote from Kendi, and built strawmen to argue points never made by Kendi or myself (to the point you couldn't even recognize my argument, instead favoring to argue against the strawman you've built), I'm wondering if you haven't strawmanned the entire book.
In a previous post I asked you to substantiate your argument with quotes from the book, but you haven't. If you don't want to substantiate your argument I think we're done here.
> Racial equity (as opposed to racial equality) by definition requires racial discrimination.
This idea is unrecognizable to me. It seems more like a caricature of what progressives and anti-racists believe than what they actually believe (which is a common thread that unifies your posts). If we want to try at a definition, here's one as good as any:
"Racial equity is a process of eliminating racial disparities and improving outcomes for everyone."
https://www.raceforward.org/about/what-is-racial-equity-key-...
Here's another one:
"Racial equity is achieved when race no longer factors into or determines one’s socioeconomic outcomes. It is when everyone has what they need to thrive, no matter where they live or how they identify."
https://unitedwaynca.org/blog/what-is-racial-equity-definiti...
So we have a definition for racial equity used by a notable antiracist org (united way) that explicitly says racial equity is achieved in through an absence of racial discrimination, not through it.
Again, bring some quotes or some other source to support your position and we can have a discussion.
> There is no other way to achieve the "desired" equitable outcomes other than racial preferences.
You also insisted that the only way to determine someone's race is to use a color chart (and also your view of race is very narrow -- it's not about skin tone), so I think your imagination is lacking. In fact if you actually listen to anti-racists (which is distinct from pretending to listen and then putting the words in their mouths you wish they had said), you'd hear that equity is achieved through anti-racism, which is not just reflected racism as you are claiming.
> "Racial equity is a process of eliminating racial disparities and improving outcomes for everyone."
I'd encourage you to try and find some actual examples that run counter to this, and see for yourself.
More like "if one arbitrary student (of no particular description) can cause this much damage, how much damage can multiple like-minded students (of any particular alliance) cause?" And that question would apply to secularists Muslims Christians etc. equally.
Not necessarily "if one Muslim can do this, how much damage can lots of Muslims do?"
But maybe I'm wrong? I could see how you got that impression upon rereading the comment.
In the end, you will have one of the two encompass the other. Either you have a secular country living by democratic, progressive law which allows people to be Muslims modulo this. Or you have a Muslim country living by Shariah law, but tolerating secular non-believers in it.
First won't work because Muslims (in the traditional sense) won't tolerate some other framework encompassing their worldview. They have taboo topics nobody should ever question, and secular ideology based on science will question things.
And second won't work because Shariah law gives very concrete directions on dealing with non-believers.
It is. There are plenty of more or less practising Muslims who behave perfectly well and are strongly opposed to theocracy. In the same way that there are plenty of white Christians who don’t feel the urge to take a gun and mow down blasphemers.
> And second won't work because Shariah law gives very concrete directions on dealing with non-believers.
It’s a false dichotomy. Lots of Muslims do not believe that Shariah law should be applied. On the Christian side there have been debates for centuries about this sort of issue, and pretty much nobody believes that the laws in the Old Testament should be applied or have any relevance nowadays. By painting the whole of Islam as being one simple shade of fundamentalism, we contribute to making the situation worse. People need to realise that there are old Muslim traditions that don’t advocate for stoning people, and that what we take for standard Islam is the creed of a particular cult and not universal.
The Ten Commandments are in the Old Testament, and there are lots of conservative Christians in the U.S. trying to get them posted in courtrooms and public school classrooms.
> Lots of Muslims do not believe that Shariah law should be applied.
I feel that one big difference of Islam is that it makes the rules very explicit, from how the government should be organized to the last detail of how you should wash your hands (and how often). Christianity, on the other hand, has very few concrete regulations, but instead a ton of metaphysical, mystical and ethical things from which people are trying to deduce those regulations.
So Christianity was easier to steer away from being a concrete manual for life to being a philosophical thing, a matter of choice that people who live within secular ethical framework can voluntarily practice. My question is, if you do the same to Islam will it still be Islam given how deeply the practical instructions are ebedded in it?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, I have a rather rudimentary education in both topics.
Well, have a look in the old Testament then. There are very explicit rules about how to treat homosexuals and heretics for example and they are not nice.
(I like the brick testament - famous bible quotes illustrated with Lego stones)
https://thebricktestament.com/the_law/homosexuality/lv20_13a...
And yes, there is also Jesus, but among other things he has (supposedly) said,
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law of Moses or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them."
https://thebricktestament.com/the_teachings_of_jesus/on_the_...
So it is really not that simple. But the basic comparison between Jesus and Muhammed, well the one seemed to be mostly a love preaching hippie and the other mainly a warlord. But I know I have met Muslims who were devout believers, but who would never use violence, except to defend themself.
And also doesn't Christianity give some good excuses to question or review these? Especially, considering that New Testament builds up on top of the Old Testament. I'm asking about the stuff around the quotes you've shown (otherwise we could fall for confirmation bias).
Please understand me correctly. I'm not saying Christianity doesn't have cruel or bad things. I'm saying it doesn't give one concrete, final, unchangeable set of rules. With Christian rules, it's easier to find excuse to augment or re-interpret them. I'm not saying there's no rules.
Like I said, it is complicated and up for debate. I have heard many conflicting viewpoints about it. Some take the whole bible literal, including the literal laws of the old testament - and they are not just a few, but many, many explicit laws about everything. More are mainly literal about the 10 commandments. And for some the only law is Jesus saying: "Love other people like yourself".
Since being raised catholic, I know quite a lot about the bible and less about the coran, but as far as I understand "With Christian rules, it's easier to find excuse to augment or re-interpret them." this is possible there as well, as Mohammed also said conflicting things, was softer in the beginning and harsher in the end, so you can also pick what you like. Hijab for example is not an explicite rule. And about Homosexuals, well, you probably won't find anything tolerant in the coran about it, but I think you won't find something in the bible either. What matters to me, is what people are doing.
To some extent, yes. Also, there is a long tradition of theological debates in Christianity, right from the beginning. Christians are much more comfortable with the idea that the Bible should not be taken literally.
Of course, there are 2 points that show up immediately when you say that. First, some Christians are literal fundamentalists so a long tradition is not enough. Second, Islam also has a long tradition of theological debates, and many different views and movements. I am not familiar enough with the History of Islam in the 20th century, but the fact is that there are lots of aspects that we associate with the religion without second thoughts that are actually Wahabbi practices. The rules against sex and alcohol are no less strict in the Old Testament than in the Quran. There is no reason why Islam would have to be more literal than any Christianism.
> With Christian rules, it's easier to find excuse to augment or re-interpret them. I'm not saying there's no rules.
That’s because we let a fundamentalist sect (well, mostly 2) redefine a whole religion.
Bit of a false scottsman. Not every Italian eats Tagliatelle and joins the Mafia but it's still an Italian recipe.
That’s a bit disingenuous. It’s easy to see who is Muslim and who is not: you just need to ask them. I don’t see a reason to say they aren’t when they identify themselves that way and believe in that religion. I am not saying that only moderates are true Muslims, just that there are more believers than the fundamentalists.
> Not every Italian eats Tagliatelle and joins the Mafia but it's still an Italian recipe.
I’d be surprised if Italians were the majority of tagliatelle-eating people these days.
Wahhabism is a view of the religion. It is the mirror image of Christian supremacism, just with a different book and different sound bites but with the same goal of subjugation. I would not say that all Christians are murderers, either.
Certainly some Islamic groups are incompatible with secular values.
If you read the news there is certainly a stronger impact by one group.
Yes it is. I don't know about Shariah law, but all muslims I know are just like anybody else. I think you're conflating some zealots with a large group of people who are mostly secular (just like lots of christians don't do anything christian besides celebrating Christmas and the occasional funeral at the church). The real issue here is some school administrators bending over because a fanatic complained.
Anything as prominent in humanity and history as religion is certainly that. However, flamewars destroy intellectual interest (put bluntly, they're predictable, nasty and dumb), and it's nearly impossible for a large community to discuss religion without religious flamewar (the most predictable, nastiest, and dumbest of all flamewar). That's unfortunately the other issue with stories like this, besides the run-of-the-mill controversy that you correctly point out.
The article was a concrete instance of the abstract dilemma i posed in my comment, so it was on-topic and necessary imho.
either way, your home your rules, so whatever. (which, ironically, confirms my original point...)
I don't think the painting itself is significant, it could just be referenced. The context of why the painting is banned inside of Islam is relevant as previously there was a lot of idol worship and even nowadays figureheads like Jesus are now claimed to be God, stuff like "Jesus is Lord". But this moves more into theology than art history now.
Reminds me a bit of Kanye being banned on the new free speech platform Twitter and people saying it wasn't an actual Swastika, it was an UFO cult symbol, it being tied to the older peace symbol of Hinduism etc.
How is that relevant to anyone not muslim? Because this is what this is about - (some) muslims wanting other people to follow their religious rules.
It's not like any of the painting depictions had any notable art styles nor new techniques, from what I can tell. So I think it crosses moreso into the intersection of religion and art, that's why historical context becomes relevant. If you deem context irrelevant then why include any of it unless the art has some different quality about it?
I think there was art novelty with the decorations of churches and mosques though.
No horse in the race but I find it important to try to understand the perspective from all sides.
Apparently its similar to showing a swastika or hail hitler. People have been punished for that as well: https://www.thefire.org/cases/george-washington-university-j...
Not just Wolfenstein 3D, the same thing happened even with the Wolfenstein: The New Order and Wolfenstein: The New Colossus
But that law was retarded and they recently repealed it. It's now okay to depict fictional nazis and nazi iconography even in Germany.
Swastikas are not acceptable, but very few have any strong personal feelings about it. The prophet of this ideology, however, is like a (glorified) family member to 1/4 of the world's population, and you can very easily get killed for depicting him. The most recent and well-known case was the stabbing of Salman Rushdie.
Swastika is welcome, the nazi version of it isn't.
The better and most appropriate term is Hakenkreuz, that the Nazis themselves used.
I dunno if that is quite right! Context matters.
Why is it so hard to accept that some people have redlines, once violated you leave no place for respect anymore? Is it a hard concept or is it entitlement that makes you feel you have the upper moral ground?
What do you all think about the UN forcing LGBTQ+ rights on Muslims in their own countries?
Do you consider that "freedoms" too? or is it proxy colonization?
I wonder.
My heart goes for this teacher I am sure if someone depicted her or anyone, she cares about in a derogatory manner she'd be so happy and grateful and quite tolerant, she'd joke about it I guess especially if the picture was shown to a wide audience. I'd have loved to see people making derogatory cartoons of someone she loves and sharing them on the internet and seeing how much of a tolerant and freedom advocate she is.
Must be so hard for the atheists to understand that we care about our prophet and to stop mocking him and just be decent people. You have to mock religious people or otherwise you're not the cool kid I guess, because disbelieving gives you extra brain points, who gives them? nvm, they just pop up out of nowhere.
However, I think they should have left the class and contacted her regarding this subject and firing her probably was an overkill and done to make the problem go away, though not sure why the student complained to the administration before contacting her despite her giving warnings to the students.
Not it isn't. Teaching art is totally legal in Minnesota.
The reason for "bringing it" to an art history class is that it is historical art.
I accept they have, but I'm not obligated to respect them. Imagine a world where it's sufficient to declare an arbitrary redline to force the rest of humanity to respect it.
I don't know why they did that to her they should have left the class and contacted her later to take exemption from the classes she's going to use those pictures in.
I don't know how to feel about this but firing her and complaining to the administration before contacting her to clarify the situation, these are 2 wrongs I won't defend.
Moreover, "bite me" is pure flamebait and even trolling. I'm sympathetic to the discomfort of being in a small minority, surrounded by hostile views and so on, and how it creates a tendency to pre-emptively lash out in this way. But it's still extremely against the rules here.
I agree with the parts of your comment that are arguing for tolerance, understanding the other's point of view, and not mocking religious people. Nonetheless your account is not using this site as intended. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and start using HN as intended, we'd appreciate it.