Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Daniel Kaufman's avatar
  2. AG Tanyi's avatar
  3. Noah Gordon's avatar
  4. Roger of Invisible America's avatar
  5. Luis Marxuach's avatar
  6. David Velleman's avatar
  7. Will Schofield's avatar

Philosophy professor at UT San Antonio allegedly threatens LGBT student with disciplinary action after he remarks to a classmate that he could be executed in some Muslim countries

Brian Leiter

MOVING TO FRONT FROM YESTERDAY–VARIOUS UPDATES, AND COMMENTS NOW OPEN

This is a very odd story, which several readers have sent.  I suspect there's a bit more to it, but what should be clear is that it can not, legally, be grounds for disciplinary or remedial action at a state university (and should not be at a private university) that a student expressed the views in question.  (Orthodox forms of all religions are horrible on matters of human sexuality, surely one can note that fact!)    It's made worse here by the fact that the student expressed these views outside of class in an informal setting.  This just isn't the university's business.  Any readers with more details can e-mail me with additional links.

UPDATE:  Reader Joshua Blanchard (UNC-Chapel Hill) confirms my suspicion that there is, indeed, more to this story:

From the transcript linked on the Volokh Conspiracy post, it's clear that the student was brought in by the chair for a wide variety of problems, many of which were directly relevant to participation in the philosophy program. I think that the question of whether he was specifically threatened/removed for expressing the views about Islam is hard to disentangle from the overall picture that the department was apparently getting of the student. But regardless of what one thinks of the "derogatory comments to other graduate students" component of the problem, the pieces that act like the comments were the only factor (like the one you linked to, I think) are apparently deeply dishonest, at least going by the transcript. 

But of course the story would be much less sensational if it went like this: "Student is questioned and apparently removed after a host of disturbing or unprofessional behavior, one component of which was derogatory comments to his colleagues, one example of which seems non-actionable."

ANOTHER:   Allin Cottrell, an economist at Wake Forest, writes:

It's clear from the material posted by Joshua Blanchard that there was "more going on" in this case than was suggested by your original link ("very odd story").

Nonetheless, I think Blanchard is minimizing something that really is egregious. Eve Browning, the student's interlocutor in the transcript linked to by Blanchard, makes _great_ play of the student's comment on Islam, qua "an inappropriate thing to say about someoneʼs fiance" (the "someone" being the woman with whom the student was talking, whose fiance is a Muslim).

The student is adamant that his statement was about the beliefs attaching to Islam, and enforced in numerous Islamic countries, and _not at all_ about the fiance. Browning doesn't merely not accept this claim, she seems incapable of understanding the implied difference, and simply states that "that kind of thing is not going to be tolerated in our department." We're left with the impression that "that kind of thing" is just making a statement about a religion that somebody might find offensive for whatever reason.

Read the transcript yourself and see what you think. IMO your first reaction — "This just isn't the university's business" — is quite correct. BTW it also appears that Browning was misinformed about some other aspects of the student's alleged misconduct: either that or the student was lying or delusional.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

11 responses to “Philosophy professor at UT San Antonio allegedly threatens LGBT student with disciplinary action after he remarks to a classmate that he could be executed in some Muslim countries”

  1. Jean

    I think the student's comments about Muslim countries could reasonably be found offensive even if they're not literally about the fiance. What I gather is that (for reasons unknown) student B mentioned having a Muslim fiance, and then student A starts talked about how bisexuals can be executed in many Muslim countries. So the topic of execution was prompted by the mention of the fiance. It doesn't seem unreasonable for student B to find this offensive. Even if the comment is not literally about her fiance, student A conveys to B that, in his mind, a Muslim is first and foremost a member of a group that executes bisexuals. There is a time and a place to discuss the fact that people can be executed for being gay or bisexual in many Muslim countries. Certainly people have to be able to discuss that horrendous fact in many classes, and in after-class discussions. If that were prohibited, we'd have a major problem here. But no, you don't launch into a discussion of this issue just because a fellow graduate students says she's marrying a Muslim.

    Reply
  2. JDB

    1. It was the student, not Browning, who picked out "inappropriate comments" as the item to focus on. She certainly agreed to pursue it, and someone might think that particular component was non-actionable, just as I suggested.

    2. Setting aside the issue of what's actionable, the idea that the comment was "_not at all_ about the fiance" is hard to credit, even going by the student's own telling. Suppose someone has a Jewish fiance, and upon hearing as much, someone else in their department immediately expresses their view that the Jewish religion has such-and-such problems, or that Israel is bad for such-and-such reasons (having to do with the Jewish religion), etc. Even if we think such claims need not be inappropriate in general, is the claim, "This is not at all about the fiance" believable in this context? If someone intervened or objected, would we be "left with the impression" that views about Judaism can be censored "for whatever reason", in Cottrell's phrasing? A reasonable person can oppose departmental involvement even in such a conversation, but we shouldn't fudge the details of the case even if it makes for a more dramatic story.

    3. It's also worth noting when thinking about cases like this (not in reply to Cottrell, just generally) that universities have a variety of internal investigative institutions – some disciplinary, some psychological – that both instructors and administrators might notify (and are often encouraged to notify) when they begin to receive troubling reports about a particular student or witness the behaviors themselves (one such institution at UTSA is mentioned by Browning). Such institutions typically develop and respond to a cumulative picture of a student, many individual components of which are not themselves actionable in isolation – that's part of the point of these teams. Meeting with the student semi-informally can be a last-ditch effort before triggering these mechanisms, which can be much more burdensome for everyone involved, including the student.

    Reply
  3. Untenured

    The issue is not whether Student B 'found' something offensive. The issue is whether the allegation, as Browning reports it, was true. Viz., "it was alleged that you made offensive comments about Islam to that student". The fact that someone finds something offensive is not dispositive that it was in fact offensive–and in an age where more and more people are reaching for the "I'm offended" card, the weight of that fact is less and less significant in the balance. Reading the transcript, even if everything Browning says is true she has not established that anything genuinely offensive was said.

    Finally, I disagree that it is not unreasonable to conclude that when someone points out something bad about a group of people then it follows (even defeasibly) that for that person the members of the group are 'first and foremost' people associated with that bad thing. There are all sorts of reasons one might point to some feature of a group as the first thing to bring up in conversation, and it is just not in general a good inference to conclude that every such first remarked upon feature is a defining characteristic of the group for the person who brings it up. To suppose otherwise is to believe that we must always begin our criticism of groups of people by first paying obeisance to all of their positive qualities. Doing so may be politically expedient when talking with the easily offended, but too often today that's treating the symptom and not the disease.

    Reply
  4. Brian Leiter

    I think it's perfectly obvious why the student was offended by the comment in that context, but that's also irrelevant to the main issue: this is not the university's business.

    Reply
  5. Bill Hoffman

    JDB: if you read what Alfred MacDonald has written elsewhere (eg. In the comments section of the Washington Post article by Eugene Volokh on this incident), he said that the topic of religion in general and Islam in particular came up *before* the other student revealed that her fiancée was a Muslim, and that his statement about his liability to be executed was not a response to this revelation.

    Reply
  6. Allin Cottrell

    Bill Hoffman's point is very pertinent.

    If Speaker makes a (factually correct) point about the practice of many states that enforce religion R, and then Hearer takes exception on the grounds that (a) the practice in question is clearly abhorrent plus (b) Hearer's nearest and dearest is an adherent of religion R and surely would not endorse said practice, then clearly the problem is strictly Hearer's, and Speaker is not even prima facie guilty of offensiveness, let alone anything "actionable."

    Reply
  7. Allin Cottrell

    Here's my "favourite" (so to say) point in the interview:

    EVE BROWNING: Muslims live in France, Muslims live in every country in the
    world — it's the fastest growing world religion.

    ALFRED MACDONALD: Yeah, one of my good friends at the university is Muslim.

    EVE BROWNING: And do you tell him that you object to his religion because
    there are places on earth where gay, lesbian and bisexual people are
    discriminated against, including your own country?

    ALFRED MACDONALD: Well, "her." And my verbiage was "killed" not "discriminated
    against." I mean, Death penalty's pretty severe.

    EVE BROWNING: What does that have to do with her being engaged to a Muslim?

    ALFRED MACDONALD: Nothing. I wasn't talking about the engagement to the
    Muslim. I was talking about Islam in that particular moment.

    Mealy-mouthed administrator vs plain-speaking student, it would seem. Although I have no privileged information and am just scanning the transcript as a third party.

    Reply
  8. Anonymous

    Yes, he did say this. But he is also quoted as saying that *after* the other student made it known that her fiancé was Muslim. In fact, this conversation was happening between the female student (whom by the way is not, and did not state she was Christian) and another student in the program. Mr. McDonald heard something that he thought he might be able to create conflict from and decided to do that. He approached the female student in question, as well as another student in the program inquiring about assignments (this was after the mention of 'Muslim' already took place among these students). After all the students introduced themselves to one another (the 2 students weren't aware of McDonald's status as a graduate student since he had rarely been to classes. Also, the class was cross-listed with an undergraduate class so it was assumed he was an undergraduate, given what presence he did have in the classroom) Mr. McDonald then rehatched the conversation about a Muslim fiancé (remember now, he was never originally part of this conversation) and stated something along the lines of "no offense to your fiancé… but I don't have a very highly opinion of Islam" for the reasons he has already mentioned. Yes, what he said about Islamic law in some countries may be true, but this was definitely inappropriate as he preceded to keep prodding at the issue, even after the student dismissed him. This is a prime example of misconduct and engaging in unprofessional behavior. Had it been during, or even after a religion course, sure, maybe that context would be okay. Perhaps even a conversation amongst colleagues that actually know one another. To insert yourself into a conversation amongst strangers for the sole purpose of generating conflict should not be tolerated.

    Reply
  9. Brian Leiter

    Although commenter #8 writes as though s/he has inside knowledge, I can not vouch for the fact that s/he does (#8 did not use a real e-mail address). If #8's account is accurate, it follows only that McDonald is a jackass, not that the university has any jurisdiction over the matter.

    Reply
  10. MA Student

    Professor Leiter, can you clarify what you mean by this not being something the university has jurisdiction over? Vis-a-vis JDB's comment, do you mean merely that this particular incident is not in itself actionable, or that it cannot be considered as a component if MacDonald's overall conduct where that overall conduct may or may not be actionable?

    Reply
  11. Brian Leiter

    Universities, as a matter of their legal obligations, do have to police certain kinds of speech by students, even outside of class, that might violate anti-discrimination or sexual harassment laws. The speech at issue here implicates neither set of laws. IF it were speech in class, the university would have jurisdiction because the university has jurisdiction over what goes on in the pedagogical situation (not unlimited, but substantial). Legally, then, the university has no jurisdiction over the speech at issue here, and we should be glad for that: it will not maximize human well-being to invest university bureaucrats with authority over speech outside the university setting.

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

    Reply

Designed with WordPress