Upholding a little discomfort in the classroom
The ninth circuit recently upheld the freedom of a professor to teach a unit that made some students uncomfortable.
What your professor can and cannot say in the classroom has become a black box of sorts in recent years. There are times and topics that seem open to discussion, debate, and criticism from any and all angles, and there are times when circumstances appear to prompt the exact opposite. University and college professors often need to teach controversial or uncomfortable subjects as part of fulfilling the function of opening students’ minds to new ideas, challenging their way of thinking, or simply providing factual information.
Throughout my academic career, I sat in my fair share of classes where professors said things that went so far as to make my blood boil from how firmly I disagreed with them, but I can clearly account for the number of times professors said things that I believe to have been problematic in such a way as to warrant attention from administration, either because information engaged in discrimination and/or because it was irrelevant to the course material - at the forefront of my mind were discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a Canadian administrative law class and a professor in an Indigenous law class calling out students by ethnicity including the phrase: “where are my yellows at?”.
One of the things that is very difficult about being a university student, and about beginning the process of becoming an adult, is coming to terms with the things about ourselves, our cultures, and our history that don’t reflect well upon the groups we belong to. When I was seven years old, my family went to London. I remember walking around the British Museum in awe of the collections of complete temples and giant statues from Egypt and Syria. When I went back to the British Museum at 22, in my final year of university, looking at those exhibits was almost sickening as I took in the extent to which the British Empire plundered and stole from other parts of the world. While I am not British, my perspective and understanding of a history I was so enamored with as a child was met with the reality that some bad things happened. I have had moments like this of varying magnitude countless times. But compartmentalizing and understanding that not only do these things happen, but that we can call them out without shifting our allegiances entirely away from our communities and identities is one of those important life skills that uncomfortable experiences in university and college classes can be so good at developing. Recently, the ability of professors to challenge students to engage with difficult subject matter was put to the test.
In Sabra v Maricopa County Community College, a student challenged the constitutionality of a unit on Islamist terrorism in a world politics course on the basis that it violated the student’s free exercise of religion. The plaintiff argued that the course material, particularly the test given on the unit, put the student in the position of needing to choose between their religious beliefs and a higher grade. The ninth circuit court held that the professor’s course was protected under qualified immunity and dismissed the case raised by the student with the support of CAIR.
The court held that “the offending content did not arise in a vacuum”, and emphasized the need to consider it in the context of the course as a whole. When viewed in this light, they found that the professor’s decision not to discuss other forms of terrorism did not constitute a constitutional violation as the module was focused on the “phenomenon of Islamic terrorism”. The court did not dispute that the material included in the course and on the test could have been displayed better or that it may have been disconcerting for the student. But, just because content disturbs a student, so long as it is not incorrect or promotes intolerance, does not automatically warrant its removal from the curriculum where it is relevant to the course. The Court additionally reasserted their conclusion from Wood v Arnold that requiring students select answers on a test in conflict with their “personal religious convictions (or risk losing points) imposes a substantial burden on religious practice”.
The court’s decision to uphold the right of the professor to teach difficult material in his class is an important one. While academic freedom should by no means be interpreted as a license to orate on any topic of their choosing, when controversial material is directly relevant to the subject matter of the course, it should be allowed to remain barring a real, substantial problem with the material.
Islamist terrorism is a part of understanding some aspects of world politics. It is by no means the only form of terrorism that exists in the world, but it has had important geopolitical impacts, making a deeper understanding of its origins relevant. It is also entirely reasonable that a Muslim student would feel uncomfortable during discussions of a small, radical sect their faith who have interpreted religious texts as supporting violent actions. We never want to be associated with the worst parts of the communities we belong to, or feel like we are at risk of being reduced to negative stereotypes because of the actions of a small group.
For all of us, but particularly for members of minority communities where further minorities of that community do things that shine a negative spotlight on every member of that group, it will be a lifetime of needing to confront and come to terms with difficult situations. University is a good place to start to grapple with these topics, both in how they do not define us as individuals and how we will address them when they are brought up. Enabling difficult conversations like the one taking place in the world politics course, where they are relevant to the material being taught in the class, and do not engage in hateful rhetoric is an important function of academic freedom. Being a little uncomfortable or having your beliefs challenged in a course are not a bad thing. It does not mean that a student needs to change their personal beliefs just because they are being challenged. If nothing else, it will be an opportunity to practice defending and explaining their beliefs on a difficult issue.