I was an undergraduate in the mid-1990s, the heyday of identity politics. We read copious amounts of Cornel West and bell hooks, demanded multicultural centers and gender studies departments, applauded Ellen's coming out, and protested demeaning mascots like Chief Illiniwek. "Race-class-gender-ethnicity-sexuality" was repeated so often that it almost became a single word.
No doubt parts of the identity politics movement went off the cliff (down with Western Civ!). And there was pushback, of course (only the West has civilization!). But over all, university administrations recognized an important opportunity and charted a sensible middle course.
In a society with too much racism and sexism, in a globalized world with too much ignorance and misunderstanding, campuses could be alternate universes -- models where equity, harmony, and appreciative knowledge of other cultures were the norm, launching pads for leaders who absorbed that larger vision and learned the skill set to improve the broader society when they graduated.
So new centers were started, new professors hired, new course requirements added. And most importantly, new norms were set. College leaders at the highest level defined their campuses as models of inclusiveness and open-minded learning. Incidents that were seen as marginalizing a particular group (white students showing up to a party in blackface), or books like The Bell Curve that argued that some races simply had lower aptitude than others, were met with the higher education equivalent of social outrage. Of course, the flags of "free speech" and "academic inquiry" were raised, but the mantle of building an inclusive learning community carried the day.
Muslim students waking up to chalk drawings mocking the Prophet Muhammad on their college quads are probably likely wondering why their identity is not a cherished part of the college ethos of inclusiveness. In case you missed it, "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day," which took place on May 20, was a campaign that hit several campuses.
The only ingredients you need are a handful of students who believe that they are crusaders for free speech, some chalk, and the cover of darkness. The campaign was sparked by Comedy Central's decision to censor an episode of South Park that depicted the Prophet Muhammad in a demeaning manner. South Park has a reputation for offending roundly and is, of course, on a cable channel people that pay for and opt in to. A college quad is a public place where there is an implicit promise by the university that students of all backgrounds will feel safe and accepted.
When there is a racially demeaning event on a college campus -- like the Compton Cookout at the University of California at San Diego -- higher education responds like it's a five-alarm fire. Administrators organize town hall meetings to discuss the threats to inclusiveness. Presidents send out e-mails to the whole campus calling for racial sensitivity. Faculty committees are formed to submit recommendations on how to make minority students feel welcome. The incident is used, appropriately, as a teachable moment, an opportunity to affirm and expand the university as an inclusive learning environment.
If there was any alarm raised by higher education in response to the chalking Muhammad incidents, it's been hard to hear (with the important exception of chaplaincies on certain campuses that have adapted to engage religious diversity). For the most part, the discussion has been in the frame of free speech vs. fundamentalist Islam. But isn't this incident also a teachable moment about identity? Shouldn't universities be boldly advancing the narrative of actions that build an inclusive campus vs. actions that marginalize a community?
While this particular incident may be about the sensitivities of Muslim students, there is a much larger issue at play here. What the race-class-gender-ethnicity-sexuality movement of the 1990s missed was religion. But faith can't be swept under the rug any longer. Religion is the new fault line in the culture wars. From the The Passion of the Christ to the passions raised by the Middle East, from the new aggressive atheism to the religious revival among evangelicals and Muslims, conflicts in the culture are quickly becoming conflicts on the quad.
Colleges ought to view this as an opportunity to be embraced, rather than a headache to be ignored. Just as campuses became models of multiculturalism, so too can they become models of interfaith cooperation. After all, campuses gather students from different religious backgrounds (including no religion at all), they view themselves as a vanguard sector that models positive behavior for the broader culture, and they already have an ethos of pluralism.
An awful lot is at stake here, especially if campuses want to maintain their reputation as inclusive learning environments. Just about the only agreement among different religious student groups right now is that the only identity you can openly insult on a campus without inviting social outrage is religion.
And as far as being the nation's flagship learning environments, higher education ought to consider this: Probably the most salient thing many U.S. college students know about the central figure in the world's second largest religion -- among the most influential people in history -- is that Comedy Central won't let him be portrayed on South Park.
(This piece originally appeared in Inside Higher Ed)
Follow Eboo Patel on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EbooPatel
Shahed Amanullah: Draw Muhammad Day: Collectively Punishing Muslim Americans
Is it in the spirit of diversity that only one form of interpretation of Islam, namely the one that no depiction of Muhammad is allowed, wins? Sunni/Shi'a difference, regional differences, historic context? All washed away?
We are told that this is in defense of multiculturalism and diversity when it is exactly cultural intolerance (only one culture, namely the one that prohibits depiction of Muhammad for everybody is allowable) is what actually happens.
As for interpretations of Islam. I would leave it up to actual Muslims to determine that. Just as I don't think it would be appropriate to interject myself into Jewish theological debates (because I'm not Jewish), I think it's inappropriate for those outside of Islam to frame what is allowed or not allowed within their religion & culture.
As far as cultural intolerance, I would be able to accept that arguement more readily if it were, in fact, other Muslims that were initiating this debate, but it is not. It is non-Muslims that have absolutely no interest in Islam or Muhammad that are drawing depictions Muhammad for political reasons. So I reject that explaination.
-|-
/ \
Mo the Profit
That's not true. Flatearthers are routinely ridiculed, as are UFOlogists, crop circle believers, and other loons. What sets religion a little apart from those, however, is that suicide bombing/witch hunt/crusade business, which tends to give religions a higher profile than other kinds of delusions.
If all you'd ever see from religious nuts is them peddling copies of Watchtower in pedestrian zones, things would be quite different. But seeing those rallies demanding the death of those who insult some "prophet", or the death sentences against writers and cartoonists, it appears that some kind of commentary supporting one of our most cherished freedoms is called for.
Drawing Muhammad is a genius idea, because it is self-selecting: if you feel offended and outraged by it, and demand that it should not happen, then you are ipso facto its addressee. Which in turn means that its usefulness is directly proportional to the outrage it causes: the more people are offended by it, the more it was quite obviously necessary.
Do you even know what the requirements are for libel laws?
And that's why the religionists call them blasphemers or infidels or whatever and claim that religionists are being treated with "disrespect". Mockers should not quote them or their "holy" books - they should be polite, and just pretend religionists are not barking mad.
This culture war was not sought out by atheists - it has been waged vigorously for centuries by organized religionists against isolated atheists. The only thing that's new in the last 250 years is that some atheists have not been putting up with it, and have been slowly chipping away at religious people's secular power.
South park put him inside a bear costume! Anyone who thought that was an image of Muhammad in any way just demonstrated the human ability to confuse imagination with reality. Like people who see Jesus' face on tortillas, or see a man on the moon.
Humans! What a bunch of maroons!
You are absolutely right. There is no depiction of Muhammad, but people want to be offended. They want the smiling stick figure with the name Muhammad next to it to be the prophet when it could be just anybody with that name (and there are many!).
But it is so important to make sure that everybody understands how darn insensitive we are towards religions. Even smiling stick figure with partial labels or no label at all is hate speech nowadays. Or so we are lead to believe.
Every religion gets 1 rule that all others have to obey.
Muslims can have the do not draw Mohammed rule.
Catholics can have the do not wear a condom rule.
Christians (only 1 rule for all the different sects) can have the ten commandments displayed everywhere.
Jews can prevent us from mixing meat and dairy (I think thats the rule).
Hindus can have us stop eating meat (which would help with the rule above).
Buddhists can have the haircuts mandatory for all men.
Mormons can finally repeal the one wife rule. (will check on whether they are considered christians or not).
Taoists and Confucianisms followers can make everyone read the Tao (no cliff notes, you must read it).
Discordians will make everyone spend one day a year naked in public.
Flying Spaghetti Monsterites will declare each Wednesday Prince Spaghetti Day.
I think Im really on to something hear. Did I forget anyone?
A monsterite is a bit of one of His tentacles which breaks off and falls to earth while He is conducting the Celestial Symphonette. It is a great honor to be splashed by one.