Kieran Healy reports:
A bill presently working its way through the state legislature here in Arizona proposes that universities and colleges be required to ?provide a student with alternative coursework if the student deems regular coursework to be personally offensive,? that is, where ?a course, coursework, learning material or activity is personally offensive if it conflicts with the student?s beliefs or practices in sex, morality or religion.?
I'm betting any number of my fellow conservatives think this is a great idea. After all, we must protect the tender feelings of students from left-liberal professors, right? Before we all march off the cliff together, however, let's stop and ponder what might have happened in Professor James Lindsey's class if Colorado had adopted such a law (HT: Volokh):
Satirical cartoons that sparked deadly riots among Muslims overseas prompted a subtler response at CSU on Wednesday when a professor showed the drawings to his Islamic history class - instead erupting in anger, a man in the class wept.
The three cartoons shown to the about 125-student class included a satirical sketch of the prophet wearing a bomb on top of his head and another that depicted him wielding a sword, surrounded by women. They originated from a Danish newspaper.
Zaki Safar, vice president of the Muslim Student Association, said the cartoons make the holy figure out to be a terrorist and a "sex maniac" who oppresses women.
"The one with the bomb on his head was the worst," the Saudi Arabia native said, still teary-eyed just after 2 p.m., when class let out. "I cried with tears in the middle of the class."
... Khaleel Alyahya, president of the CSU Muslim Student Association, said that the cartoons violate values commonly held by Muslims. ... "(Lindsay) made a huge mistake by putting up the cartoons," Safar said. "Not only that, he's making the gap between the three religions bigger and bigger. ... Making chaos between people - I don't think that's the correct way of achieving peace." (Link)
Under the Arizona bill, Safar presumably would have been entitled to alternative coursework. Personally, however, I think Professor Lindsay got it exactly right:
"My job is not to bring people together," Lindsay said. "My job is to teach history. History is not pleasant in many cases, and I made it very clear in class that this is America and you all have the right to offend but you do not have the right to not be offended."
Among the values that a liberal education ought to instill is learning that being offended from time to time is one of the costs of a free society.
My friend and colleague Eugene Volokh observes:
Remember that the bill doesn't require reasonable accommodation, or limit itself to specific objections (e.g., objections to performing vivisection or abortions). Whenever a student sincerely asserts that an activity conflicts with his "beliefs or practices in sex, morality or religion" (what's a "belief or practice in sex," by the way), he's given a categorical entitlement to be provided with an alternative -- presumably an alternative that doesn't leave him at any disadvantage in the grading or diploma-granting process. Not a sound way to run a system of higher education, it seems to me.
Me too.
