Hamline University, a small liberal arts college in Minnesota, made headlines earlier this year after non-renewal of the contract by assistant professor Erika López Prater, who showed figurative interpretations of the Muslim prophet Muhammad to her art history students. This month, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), a nonprofit organization focused on promoting and protecting academic freedom, published a damning report concluding that the university mishandled the incident and waged a “de facto smear campaign” against López Prater which represented “an attack on the fundamental principles of academic freedom”. Lopez Prater then sued the institution, seek damages for “loss of earnings, mental anguish, emotional distress, [and] loss of reputation. »

“The implications for academic freedom in art and art history of the events chronicled in this report are clear,” reads the AAUP report. “If a Muslim student can prevent the display of an image of the Prophet Muhammad, why can’t an evangelical Christian student seek to censor a work like Andres Serrano’s controversial Piss Christ or a devout Hindu student who opposes studying the work of Indian artist MF Husain But art history is not the only area of ​​study potentially at risk.

Last October, López Prater issued a two-minute content warning during a virtual session of his World Art Course before displaying two examples of medieval Islamic art, including figurative depictions of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, which are prohibited by certain Muslim sects. López Prater had informed his students through the course syllabus that this content would be covered during the course and encouraged anyone uncomfortable with this topic to leave the virtual classroom or turn off the video component. After showing the footage, Aram Wedatalla, a senior at Hamline University and president of the Muslim Students Association, said she was offended and confronted the professor before raising the matter with the administration of the university.

The AAUP report, released May 22, notes that López Prater’s course curriculum was reviewed and approved by the university prior to the incident. without any changes requested. After Wedatalla raised the issue with the administration, López Prater was encouraged to apologize to the student and the rest of the class. On October 24, despite an apology from López Prater, Baker rescinded the offer to renew the adjunct professor’s contract for the spring course via email without further details and did not respond to López Prater’s request to whether the decision was related to Wedatalla’s complaint and escalation.

In early November, Hamline University’s Vice President of Inclusive Excellence, David Everett, released a campus-wide email describing López Prater’s behavior as “undeniably inconsiderate, disrespectful and Islamophobic” and then gave an interview to the campus student newspaper, the Oracle, confirming that the dismissal of López Prater from the faculty of Hamline was directly linked to the incident in his class. A report on the incident of Oracle a month later, a quote from Patti Kersten, dean of students at the university, describing López Prater’s decision to post the images as “an act of intolerance”. The AAUP report says neither Everett nor Kersten had ever communicated with López Prater about the run or the incident.

In mid-January, university president Miller released a statement denying Everett’s use of the word “Islamophobe” to describe the incident, but argued that academic freedom should not be used as an excuse to harm. to students and minorities in Hamline.

The authors of the AAUP report reject Hamline’s view on this point. “Student rights coexist with the right—indeed, the responsibility—of faculty members to teach according to the academic and pedagogical standards of their respective disciplines,” they write. “Therefore, the committee rejects assertions made at Hamline and elsewhere that support for academic freedom must necessarily conflict with efforts to accommodate and nurture a diverse student body.”

In response to the AAUP’s findings, Hamline University issued a statement alleging that the report “remains littered with factual inaccuracies and innuendo, and that its main conclusions are unsubstantiated”.

“A report which says in so many words that its investigators lacked evidence of conflicting activities on the part of Hamline University, but goes on to affirm it anyway is irresponsible, unbecoming of liberal arts traditions, and deserves ‘to be thrown back on his face,’ the statement read.

AAUP has not yet responded to Hyperallergic request for comment.

The AAUP also noted that the incident likely would have been handled differently had López Prater been a permanent full-time faculty member rather than an adjunct. Unlike full professors, adjunct professors perform their duties under short-term contracts with no guarantee of renewal and are fewer academic freedom protections. Thus, colleges and universities reserve the right to fire assistants or not renew their contracts for class conduct without this being considered retaliation due to the short-term employment contract.

“It is difficult to imagine that the events reported here would have unfolded as they did if a full-time member of the Hamline faculty had viewed the footage in question,” the AAUP wrote. “This is not a problem exclusive to Hamline. The perils associated with a growing reliance on part-time and temporary teachers, and the consequences for academic freedom, have been well documented…The events chronicled in this report provide another warning of the dangers of such addiction.