The dangers of progressive speech policing

These days, complaints about the tyranny of “wokeness” have become a blatant political ploy that often masks right-wing assaults on speech about racism or gay rights. And yet a recent incident at Hamline University, a private college in Minnesota, serves as a reminder that progressive speech policing in the name of protecting the marginalized really does threaten intellectual freedom in America.

A lecturer at Hamline, Erika López Prater, lost her job because during an online art class last fall, she showed—after several warnings, both in the course syllabus and at the start of the session—a 14th century Persian painting of the prophet Muhammad receiving a revelation from the archangel Gabriel. Most Muslims today believe that depictions of Muhammad are forbidden; part of Prater’s point was to show that such prohibitions are not universal in Islam.

A Sudanese-American Muslim student, Aram Wedatalla, voiced her discomfort to Prater after the class and then complained to the administration. While school officials were initially supportive of Prater, complaints from other students who were not in the class quickly brought about a reversal.

Meanwhile, rhetoric from campus activists, echoed by school administrators, turned the instructor’s behavior into an “Islamophobic” incident of intolerance and hate. A Dec. 8 ”Community Conversation” about the controversy was entirely one-sided. Wedatalla spoke tearfully of being traumatized by the image; all panelists apparently agreed that showing it was offensive and racist. (Wedatalla, like most Muslim students at Hamline, is black.) Jaylani Hussein, executive director of the Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), who led the forum, declared that it was unacceptable.

Hamline religion professor Mark Berkson, who pointed out at the forum that many Muslims do not believe respectful depictions of Muhammad are wrong, was discouraged from speaking by two school officials. His article in support of Prater for the campus newspaper, The Oracle, was removed by editors who posted a note explaining that they wanted to “minimize harm” and that “trauma and lived experiences are not open for debate.”

Notably, a number of Muslim scholars and commentators agree with Berkson’s dissent. Amna Khalid, a Muslim associate professor of history at Minnesota’s Carleton College, wrote in the Chronicle of Higher Education that Hamline has effectively endorsed an “extreme and conservative” viewpoint on an issue of legitimate disagreement within the Muslim community.

To their credit, many liberal organizations, such as the free expression advocacy group PEN America, have championed Prater’s cause. The national leadership of CAIR, the Muslim civil rights group, has also weighed in to say that intent matters and Prater’s actions cannot be regarded as bigoted. But, disturbingly, CAIR also said that it supports the offended students and “strongly discourage[s] showing visual depictions of the Prophet.”

First of all, while no one should deliberately seek to offend people’s faith, private religious values should not govern expression in the public square—be it depictions of gay sexuality or of religious figures. What’s more, there should be no question that even genuinely offensive images, such as antisemitic or racist cartoons, can sometimes be shown in academic settings—for instance, in a class on the history of white supremacy.

The belief that protection from “trauma” and “harm” should circumscribe expression and debate is a prescription for wide-ranging authoritarianism which is dangerous even if doesn’t come from the state. If many young people are learning to associate such authoritarianism with progressive values and social justice, concerns about tyranny are not misplaced.

Opinions expressed by Cathy Young, a cultural studies fellow at the Cato Institute, are her own.

By Cathy Young

Cathy Young is a writer for The Bulwark.