I have seen references on social media over the past weeks to the adjunct instructor at Hamline University whose offer to teach during the Spring Semester (?) was revoked. I have followed it a bit. I usually do follow these stories not only as someone who works occasionally as an adjunct instructor but also as the spouse of someone who is a professor (Full) at a public college. Were I not living with someone who is a firsthand witness to the uptick in the number of oddball things going on in academia, I would be hard-pressed to believe half the things that have now become common place. G-d help us.
Back to the issue at Hamline. According to an article in the New York Times, a student, who is Muslim, complained to the University because an image of Muhammad was shown in class. The student claimed that it was wrong for the professor to show the image because images of Muhammad violate Islam’s prohibition against graven images. For the professor to show the image was blasphemy. The course in question was an art history course, and the image of Muhammad was painted by a convert to Islam who lived in the 14 th c. I had not seen the image prior to this controversy, but from what I have read, the artwork is a well-known and important. Something that someone well-versed in Medieval Art should be familiar with. Furthermore, there is no consensus opinion among Muslims whether the piece of art is blasphemous is not. Many Muslims have defended showing the image, and many have explained that Islam does not have a univocal view on the issue of sacred imagery. The overly strident position of the University administration is hard to understand.
But what struck me most about the article was how the University’s administration, especially its Inclusivity Office, felt competent to adjudicate such a longstanding theological issue with a wave of the hand.
From what I can see, the theological issue at the center of this case is the nature of sacred imagery, particularly imagery that includes depictions of persons. I have to admit it was hard not to think of how central iconography is in Christianity when reading this article. The fight against iconoclasm was long and hard in Christianity. Ultimately, iconoclasm was deemed heretical in Christianity because at its core, it implied a rejection of the Incarnation, the cornerstone of Christian faith. Basically, if you really believe that God became human (in the person of Jesus), then Jesus is a real person. Real people can be depicted in imagery. Saying that Jesus (or any of the other saints or prophets) cannot be depicted in imagery is the same as saying they weren’t real. This is heresy in Christianity, especially as it pertains to the humanity of Christ.
So, the decision of the administration to revoke the teaching contract of Dr. López Prater seems to me to be blatantly iconoclastic and as such, an explicit judgment against the religious beliefs of any Orthodox Christian or Catholic student. I don’t know the religion of Dr. López Prater, but that is not relevant. Why it is anti-Christian is that it is a theological judgment that rejects a central Christian tenet regarding sacred imagery and deems it erroneous and blasphemous.
In other words, other religions (also represented in the student body at Hamline) have clear theological convictions about sacred imagery. For many Christians, sacred imagery as a necessary corollary of their religion’s most fundamental tenet.
Some might say this is going a bit too far because it was an image of Muhammad, and Muslims should be able to dictate what the image of Muhammad means or doesn’t mean. That even in rejecting images of Muhammad, there is still a sort of ownership over such images. An iconoclast would destroy a centuries old work of art rather than heed the instructor’s “warning” and turn off your computer screen or avert your eyes. And we are all the poorer for it. But most people accept that Muhammad was a real historical figure. This means that anyone, including those who are not Muslim, may want to know more about him and, in doing so, encounter images and scholarship about him in a secular context (such as a liberal arts classroom).
I believe a person’s conscience in religious matters should be respected. If a person believes that looking at an image of Muhammad violates their conscience, then they shouldn’t look at such images. It is not clear whether the student also complained about other sacred images, such as those of Jesus (the penultimate prophet recognized in Islam). Some recent commentary has even mentioned that the prohibition of images would extend to the prophets. Many prophets, such as Jesus, are central to religious traditions outside Islam. Policing sacred images in a liberal arts context could become quite problematic, with iconophiles and iconoclasts pitted against one another.
In any case, I would concur with Jesus’ injunction here that if your eye causes you to sin, then gouge it out. Pretty extreme, I know, but there is a lesson here. Aside from compulsions or addictions, the basic gist is that the believer bears the onus for fulfilling the dictates of their religion, whatever that religion may be.
“Custody of the eyes” was always a virtue in Catholicism. Basically, unless you are physically restrained with your eyes taped open, you have the ability and obligation to exercise self-control in what you look at. You are free to close your eyes or look away. Not only are you free to, but you are also obligated to if you think looking at something would be wrong. What you aren’t obligated to do is tell everyone else what they should be doing. I know, not a popular position today.
But more to the point, there is no reason why iconophiles should be denied the ability to see sacred imagery in a liberal arts classroom, including art that portrays Muhammad. In siding with the complaining student(s), the University has imposed a theological position and a narrow and restrictive conception of blasphemy laws on all students. For some of these students, this position fundamentally contradicts their faith. For most, it is a rejection of academic freedom that makes students beholden to religious sectarianism and religious fundamentalism.
In the New York Times article, there was a professor at Duke who also shows the image of Muhammad and the angel Gabriel to his classes. He doesn’t give a warning, and he hasn’t had any issues. It makes me wonder whether the instructor’s warning caused her more trouble than if she hadn’t said anything. But, the theologian in me thinks that, in this case, giving the student(s) an opportunity to close their eyes or turn off their monitors or whatever was the right thing to do. There is something a bit icky about creating a situation in which a person might inadvertently violate the precepts of their religion. The instructor made sure not to do this by letting the students know ahead of time that an image of Muhammad would be included in the course. There is also something a bit icky about someone (an adult) who is offered a way to abide by the precepts of their religion in a situation where legitimate but conflicting values are at stake, and instead of choosing their religion and their fellow human beings, they choose to foment conflict and destruction. I can’t help but wonder, if this student truly believed that looking at an image of Muhammad was wrong, then why did she look? Maybe she never read the syllabus. Maybe she never paid attention in class. These are not excuses though, just admissions.
A clue is the student’s maximalist position: If I read the New York Times article correctly the student’s position is that no one anywhere of any religious faith, atheist or agnostic should ever be able to look at or see an image of Muhammad in any context, under any circumstance. This is an absurd position, and it is without justification for any liberal arts university in the United States to impose on its students and faculty. Yet this is exactly what Hamline has done. For an inclusivity expert to promote such exclusionary restrictions on religious freedom and academic freedom is shame, a damn shame, and we should all be concerned.
