Talk:Hamline University

New source

[1] (I found that from [2])

So, the rules of Islam apply to non-Muslims at that University? That is Islamism, isn't it? Do women have to wear hijab on campus? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

This needs to go into the article. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Response by PEN America. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

In December 2022, the university attracted attention after Christine Gruber, an acclaimed art-historian, noted of Hamline to have fired an adjunct proffesor for showing paintings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad in a class on the history of Islamic art. The month before, a few students — led by the president of the Muslim Student Association's university-chapter — had accused the proffessor of harboring "Islamophobia" in the aftermath of the class; in response, the university administration not only declined to renew her contract but also characterized her usage of the paintings as "undeniably inconsiderate, [and] disrespectful." Academics and free speech groups have criticized not only Hamline's prioritizing of its students' religious sensibilities over academic freedom but also their attempt to portray Islam as uniformly condemning of the images; many art-historians find the paintings to be an indispensable component to any lesson on Islamic art history.

I believe this to be a NPOV representation of the conflict. Copyedits and removing grammatical errors (if any) are welcome. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Nice overview alongside NYT. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

This debate has the incidental benefit of articulating different views on Islamic art and the differing opinions within Islam on whether it is permitted to depict the Prophet. There is enough scholarly commentary to fill a festschrift. The NYT story linked to one of those scholars, https://newlinesmag.com/argument/academic-is-fired-over-a-medieval-painting-of-the-prophet-muhammad/ "An Academic Is Fired Over a Medieval Painting of the Prophet Muhammad," by Christiane Gruber, professor of Islamic art in the History of Art Department at the University of Michigan. Some Muslim scholars think that it's western stereotyping to assume that Islam prohibits the image of Muhammad. ––Nbauman (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

"A new era and schools (2004–present)"

The subject heading "A new era and schools (2004–present)" is overly promotional, vague, and -- worst of all -- doesn't help the reader know what the section is about, which turns out to be several significant controversies. It sounds like it was copied from university PR material.

I think it would be better to replace it with a "Controversy" heading. (Contrary to common opinion, "Controversy" headings are not forbidden in Wikipedia.) If you don't like "Controversy," do you have a better suggestion? Nbauman (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

"Censorship" or "Academic Freedom"? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

"Teacher fired over Muhammad art", but it's a little long. This has become such a big issue that, in accordance with WP:WEIGHT, it should have a significant separate section in the article -- and probably also a separate article. ––Nbauman (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree about a seperate section but not yet to a standalone article. Besides, this needs to go to the lead - when was the last time that Hamline made it to NYT? TrangaBellam (talk) 05:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree on both counts. It's way too soon to know if this recent event will have any lasting, meaningful impact on this 170-year old institution. ElKevbo (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I would point out that WP:RECENTISM is an essay, that simply represents the views of some Wikipedia editors (and not others). To quote the page: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." The essay itself acknowledges that there are arguments for and against recentism. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Recentism#Recentism_as_a_positive .

Furthermore, it requires a longer treatment because of the complexity of the issue. You can't treat both sides fairly if you reduce the argument for each side to a snippit.

I think we should follow WP:WEIGHT, which is a Wikipedia policy. Most or all of the major news organizations gave it prominent placement, and most or all of the major academic freedom organizations took positions on it. "Wokeness" vs. academic freedom has been an ongoing debate for decades, and this seems to be one of the more egregious examples of firing a teacher for legitimate teaching about an important current idea. ––Nbauman (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree at large. Nobody has heard of Hamline in the last few decades except for this mess.

Fwiw, this has got more to do with finances than "wokeness", as the unanimous backlash from every quarter of academia shows. I am reasonably certain that Muslim students form the backbone of Hamline's economy; it's simply that the customer is always right. Otherwise, I find it hard to concede that the President of Hamline is s**pid enough to keep on digging. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

In Minnesota, the vast majority of Muslims are Black (and not particularly wealthy, by and large). In the student population of Hamline, less than a tenth are Black. So even if all the Blacks are also Muslims (not likely), and even with a few 'White' Muslims thrown in, Muslims would make up less than a tenth of the student population, so are hardly likely to be the "backbone of Hamline's economy." But if you have data supporting your claim, please share. https://www.collegetuitioncompare.com/edu/173665/hamline-university/enrollment/#race-blockJohundhar (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we should adhere to WP:WEIGHT. This institution is nearly 170 years old. How much of the information published about the institution during that time has focused on this event? ElKevbo (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

"Recentism" would be a strong concern in a printed, static, reference work, but Wiki's dynamic. We know for a FACT that people are looking at this article now for a reason that is hard to find currently. We can fix that today. If there ever comes a time in the future that Hamline is no longer famous for this incident, and mentioning it is somehow a distraction or worse, someone can make that judgement then and do the needful, no?

As others say, this is really the ONLY noteworthy thing about the school. If the article mentioned only one thing, this should be the thing. NYT's only previous mentions are 1) two sports successes in 1950 and 2) a paragraph on page 22 of the sports section in 1953 (Rochester Royals, a pro basketball team, hired someone from Hamline, so it's not even about Hamline per se.) That's it for 70+ years. (I checked WaPo but it's too hard to search, turning up many Hamlin's, and "hamlike" in the cooking section.) Interestingly, the NYT article contains the very artworks mentioned, and that doesn't seem to raise controversy.

I independently came to the same conclusion as most others here, and added NPV wording to the topic sentence of the first paragraph, and @ElKevbo immediately reverted it requesting it be discussed. Swiss Frank (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

ElKevbo, you appear to be in a minority and I have reinstalled a line about the incident in the lead. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I bow out and leave it to my betters. Swiss Frank (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Law school

The Mitchell Hamline School of Law (https://www.hamline.edu/academics/college-schools/mitchell-hamline-school-law):

"Mitchell Hamline School of Law was formed in 2015 by the combination of William Mitchell College of Law and Hamline University School of Law. . . .

"Mitchell Hamline School of Law is an autonomous nonprofit institution governed by an independent board of trustees, with a strong, visible, and long-lasting affiliation to Hamline University"-- Should it be listed or linked to the separate entry? At present, it is only referenced in the section on publications and sort of in the section on construction. That's inadequate. Kdammers (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph, and probably First Sentence, should Mention Why the School is Even of Interest

No-one in the US or wider world has ever heard of Hamline University except for ONE THING, which I believe therefore deserves a mention in the introductory sentence. This thing is more noteworthy than any of the other information in the intro paragraph: it's more important than when it was founded, who it is named after, or even what exact city it's in.

I added this to the intro paragraph and it the edit was immediately reverted by user @ElKevbo with orders to discuss here. OK, I bow to ElKevbo. I accept that for whatever reason he calls the shots and I have to bow to his wishes. That he can make an edit without first discussing on the talk page, but I must do so. All fair and undisputed.

OK: Is anyone against the idea that the intro paragraph should mention the thing the school is famous now for? Do you think we should stick with the status quo that this famous thing be hidden in a sub-section 3/4 of the way down the page? Swiss Frank (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

This is in the news right now, but it will soon leave the news cycle, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Controversies over the firing of a professor are extremely common for universities; there are dozens where such controversies have happened, and they typically mean nothing for the institution a few years later. Hamline University is an institution which is approaching being two centuries old. Do you think that when it is nearly three centuries old, some controversy over a professor being fired a century ago would be so extremely important as to warrant comprising a large part of a short summary of what Hamline University is? I really don't think this should be in the lead. Endwise (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it's too soon to know if this incident will have a lasting, meaningful impact on the university. It might in which case it would warrant significant coverage in this article. But it might also be a passing event with no impact on university policy, finances, enrollment, or anything else. Time will tell and we're in no hurry. ElKevbo (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

We do not have crystal balls to speculate into the impact of the event, a decade hence. As of today, Hamline has been subject to significant coverage in numerous national and international MSM for the first time in its "two centuries" of existence. So, please argue on the basis of policies (DUE etc.) on why the event doesn't belong to the lead. There is no policy that the lead mention only those things with a lasting meaningful impact.

The way to keep out the information is really simple - provide evidence that Hamline has attracted national and international coverage for a variety of causes. So, we shall either mention them all or mention none.TrangaBellam (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

And, were I to speculate, given the President's latest statement doubling down on their handling of the issue, it does not appear that the event is going out of news-cycle anytime soon. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, in particular given the Board of Trustee statement on Jan 13, this event will have an impact: "The Hamline University Board of Trustees is actively involved in reviewing the University’s policies and responses to recent student concerns and subsequent faculty concerns about academic freedom." @TrangaBellam IDruben77 (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Please tell us how you came to the conclusion that "As of today, Hamline has been subject to significant coverage in numerous national and international MSM for the first time in its 'two centuries' of existence." How did you conduct the extensive archival research necessary to substantiate such a strong claim especially in such a short timespan? ElKevbo (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

How did you conduct the extensive archival research necessary to substantiate such a strong claim especially in such a short timespan?

Newspaper archives of most prominent (English) dailies across the globe are digitized and OCR-ed. I am hopeful that UoDelaware has librarians who can aid you in consulting such archives. Indeed, I do not know for certain whether a Hindi daily from the 1950s' or a Sudanese weekly from the 1980s ever featured Hamline on their front page, but common sense asks me to not expect such coverage.

TrangaBellam (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be both in the lead section and described in details in the article. It obtained national and international attention, it involved a long-lasting debate on free speech and faculty autonomy in teaching. This is not a short term political stunt but a debate on the possibility of faculty to carefully presenting controversial ideas. The board of trustee is reviewing the policy of the university based on this, therefore it will have an impact. IDruben77 (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

We have no idea if this is a "short term political stunt" or will "have an impact" on anything. Wikipedia does not predict the future. ElKevbo (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The fact that the Board of Trustee had a public position on a issue and plan to review the University’s policies (see public statement), the fact that it has gained national and international attention (New York Times front page last Sunday, The Atlantic, The Guardian, The Chronicle of Higher Education), the fact that 400 faculty signed a letter to support denounce the action of the university, and the fact that the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, took a public position on this issue, it is showing its relevance now. Here and here you can find a pageviews analysis, from 2015 to 2023, this controversy created the second most visited day and month in the last eight years. IDruben77 (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The saboteurs struck again. I reverted and added a comment that they establish a consensus on Talk before deleting yet again. It seems like it's just two accounts that keep deleting it. They seem to raise two points: 1) Recentism. However this is not an established policy of Wikipedia, Wiki is edited to reflect breaking events constantly. 2) Will it be important in 50 years? At the moment it's the only time the school's been in NYT since 1950. Either nothing else of note will happen there in the coming 50 years, so yes, it will still be the most important thing about the school, or so many other things happen there of note that they cannot all be mentioned in lede. If this unlikely possibility indeed comes to pass, THAT would be the time to delete it, not now. My suggestion to the edit warriors is to simply leave it be until and unless consensus builds that it is indeed no longer of interest. Swiss Frank (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The list of news articles on this issue is growing. Previously I listed: New York Times, The Atlantic, The Guardian, The Chronicle of Higher Education. Now we can add BBC, National Review, The Washington Post, and a second New York Times article. IDruben77 (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course, people had heard of Hamline before this event. The school was an early co-ed college and the first oldest university in Minnesota. It had over a quarter million page views on this site before the current issue. It has a page (albeit only nominal ones) on 11 other wikipedias (and none of the ones I can read mention the current issue). I agree with the editor who argued for not having the issue in the opening section, on the same grounds. I don't know of any other college or university where a recent blow-up is mentioned in the opening section. Kdammers (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

What is the first oldest university?

Coverage in reliable sources matter.Page views is an irrelevant metric.

For an appropriate comparison, you need to think of a barely known university that attracted a barrage of criticism from different continents (!) in the recent past. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

"First oldest" is a typo: first or oldest.

There are numerous refs to the school in Google scholar. USNews rated it "#12 in Regional Universities Midwest" It has had some success it sports as well.

Page views is not irrelevant when the claim is that no one had heard of it before the current incident. Since Hamline is not a barely known school, your suggestion about what to compare it with is off-base. How about comparing it to Oberlin (admittedly much better known, but also a small, old school? The dust-up at that school, involving over $30,000,000, is not in the lede. Or, if you want a barely known school, how about Linfield University? Or how about Collin College? Kdammers (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Please cite me a policy/guideline that upholds pageview as an appropriate metric in assessment of DUE.

You are comparing Hamline with Oberlin, seriously? Did you see the volume of coverage received by Oberlin since inception in national and international media?

Further, it is your claim that the kerfuffle at Collin College was covered by the most prominent of national media of USA (NYT, WaPo, etc.), U.K.(BBC, Times, Guardian etc.) and many other countries in the Anglophone world just like the Hamline saga? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Paragraph on Teacher fired over Muhammad art

I added three improvements to that paragraph based only on published information (NY Times, The Atlantic and statements from University), they have all be removed by @TrangaBellam and they suggested discussing it here. I am not very experienced with Wikipedia and I would need some help to understand how I can improve and discuss what I added. I added:

• (1) description with Wikipedia internal links to the image that is at the center of the debate. This seems fundamental to understanding the issue, the professor did not show a satirical or mocking image of the Prophet but a very relevant piece of art in a art class. Both the author and the work of art have Wikipedia page. I do not know why this was removed.
• (2) reference to the comment of the past president of the University about the long-lasting negative impact of the decision of current administration.
• (3) the text, as is read now, do not refer to "Isamophobia". This is the main source of the controversy. The University administration defined the act as islamophobia, while the main association of Muslims (Council on American-Islamic Relations - CAIR) in the US and many scholars strongly stated that it is not islamophobia. Context and intention matter. There were no Islam experts supporting the idea that the act of showing the Prophet as done by the teacher was islamophobic. Not having this information in the current paragraph makes the issue less clear.

Any help or comments would be much appreciated. IDruben77 (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

IDruben77, I came here because of the January 17 NYT article about the teacher´s lawsuit against Hamline. I do not agree with the wholesale reversal of your properly sourced content and agree that the comments of the past president of the University are noteworthy. Furthermore, I think that the reverter is apparently unwilling to discuss this for the last 3 days, editing plenty elsewhere as I write this. --Wuerzele (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Much of this content is UNDUE. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

See the current version. Best, TrangaBellam (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

If I am "the reverter," I have not added more comments here because I've said what I have to say and simply repeating myself won't help anyone. This isn't information that is particularly harmful for the article so there is no rush to remove it or edit it down while other editors are invested in simply adding more and more details right now. ElKevbo (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• I think we should add the recent development of the story. The university, after accusing the faculty of islamophobia, realized that its use was incorrect, and they publicly wrote: "Based on all that we have learned, we have determined that our usage of the term ‘Islamophobic’ was therefore flawed.” They also stepped back on another controversial statement when Hamline’s president, Fayneese Miller, co-signed an email that said respect for the Muslim students “should have superseded academic freedom.” I will add the reference to the new New York Times articles on Jan 17 about this. The professor sued the university.

  I have a question for you. Right now, the Wikipedia page does not mention the name of the professor, the name of the university's president (only in the summary box) and the name of the student involved. All these names are public and now part of the legal battle. Should we add those names to the article? Which is the common practice in Wikipedia? IDruben77 (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Wuerzele. Thank you! I appreciate it. I tried to add a detailed description in the Talk page about the changes I proposed. Some of them has been accepted but some of the most recent one are still missing. I added below a discussion of why I think we should add more details about it.

  I agreed with the other Wikipedians that adding the name may not be the best approach. IDruben77 (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• We have,

  In January 2023, after being sued by the professor, the university withdrew their accusations.

  So, please stop adding quotes from the email/press-release. Summarize than quotefarm.

TrangaBellam, I think the quote "the university withdrew their accusation" is not sufficiently clear, which is why I removed it. Could you let me know why you removed it? I think it is not clear for the following reasons: First, the University did not renew the contract of the professor. The university did not change its mind on this key issue. Second (less important), the university accused the professor of islamophobia, and it did not "withdraw" it; it stated its use was flawed. Third, a bigger issue is at stake that goes much beyond this university. The university claimed that not offending the students was more important than academic freedom. This is not an accusation, and it is an idea, a perspective on what matters. The university realized that this idea is dangerous (for example, a student that finds evolution offensive may ask the university to fire the professor teaching it). In this paragraph, this important issue that has ramifications beyond Hamline and, therefore, encyclopedic value is not discussed. Four, the university has one accusation (Islamophobic), not more than one. Based on these four points, I think that the sentence now present should be changed in one that specify the walk back on the Islamophobic accusation and on the priority between academic freedom and students' views. A side note: from the existing article it seems that only the students accused the professor of being Islamophobic, this missed the more important point that the University administration accused the professor of Islamophobia. IDruben77 (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

See my rewrite and propose additions/alterations at the t/p. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam, the text was very good. I rephrase a couple of sentences and added a wikipedia internal link to the president page. IDruben77 (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I offer no comments on mentioning the name of the Proffesor. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

We are very conservative and cautious about adding names of people to articles if they aren't already public figures. Adding their names to this article doesn't seem necessary for readers' understanding so we should leave them out. ElKevbo (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree, let's no add the names. IDruben77 (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

TrangaBellam, you removed my addition in the lead section of the second New York Times article about this controversy. Why did you remove it? I thought it was valuable because it kind of concluded this controversy by noting that the professor was suing the university and the university retracted some of the most controversial statements about Islamophobia and academic freedom. IDruben77 (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Also note that despite the supposed retraction, the professor's lawsuit against the university is presumably still going ahead, as too is this complaint [3]. So it is still an ongoing issue. 92.4.23.2 (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Update on the issue: Hamline president goes on the offensive: https://minnesotareformer.com/2023/10/06/hamline-president-goes-on-the-offensive/ Kdammers (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

How is this Undue:

"In 2023, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) listed the university in its list of "10 worst colleges for free speech"." 24.177.167.113 (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC) 24.177.167.113 (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

See the edit-summary. You need to show compliance of DUE. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Nothing about the Muslim Image controversy?

Hamline admin made the unfortunate decision to non-renew an adjunct faculty after an art history class in which the instructor showed an image of Muhammad from a medieval manuscript to the class. This created national headlines and should be included in the history of the university. 24.154.76.202 (talk) 05:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

You should probably take a look at the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)