thumper, it was to be broadcast on a loudspeaker, so it would be audible to students just passing by.
I don’t think this is an issue. If it doesn’t apply to you…just keep walking and ignore. Why is this an issue?
Well, it’s not an issue anymore since within hours of the announcement they reconsidered the idea,
In the Catholic town where I grew up, there was for some reason a tradition that a siren (not a bell) was sounded every 6pm for the Angelus. Most residents, being Catholic, would stand in place and some would silently pray the Angelus.
Visitors who were unaware of the tradition were known to start looking around wildly wondering if there was some kind of disaster inbound. It was pretty funny for us kids to watch.
Just thought I’d share; the “just keep walking” comment reminded me of it.
“So Billy Graham’s kid calls up Duke donors and tells them they better threaten to stop donating because Duke wants to let Muslims have calls to prayer on campus? That’s any different than pro-Palestinian students not liking Hebrew prayers?”
It’s different in how those reactions impact the campus. The donors withhold money. The protesters make a stink on campus. Both are disruptive, but in different ways.
I would just like to add the point that a public university is required to make reasonable accommodations for the free exercise of religion. That’s a Constitutional right. Not surprisingly, there has been a lot of litigation over the years on what constitutes a reasonable accommodation.
One thing that occurred to me–it may be that the sponsors of this idea thought that the translation into English would make the idea more palatable, because then it wouldn’t just be a broadcast in a “foreign language” that average students couldn’t understand. I suspect that you would have heard complaints along those lines if there never had been any translation proposed.
“I would just like to add the point that a public university is required to make reasonable accommodations for the free exercise of religion. That’s a Constitutional right. Not surprisingly, there has been a lot of litigation over the years on what constitutes a reasonable accommodation.”
Are there public universities that are currently doing this call to prayer from a bell tower or somesuch, out of curiosity?
Despite the position I’ve taken above, my real-life position is, and what I’d tell my kids if this were on this campus – assuming it wasn’t disruptive (from the sense of noise pollution), enjoy it for what it is and move on with your day. I’m really appalled by the bubbas who apparently threatened violence or harm over it.
Since every religion that I know of can be practiced without a church/temple/mosque or bells or a call to prayer (and in Duke’s case the Muslim students have been doing without these for years), there is arguably no reason to start allowing a call to prayer now, at least for the purpose of making a “reasonable accommodation.” (Although I know you were talking about publics, and we already know Duke’s claim to want to allow it for “diversity” reasons.)
Translation into English will clearly make this prayer a religious propaganda.
Every week we see videos on TV where terrorists and suicide bombers scream “Allah Akhbar” so without translation it does not sound very attractive to general US population either.
Duke administration is now genuinely surprised with public reaction to their new diversity initiative.
Well, that’s intelligent, CCDD14. Because some bad people say Allah Akhbar before bombing/shooting, that directly reflects on the “good” Muslim students at Duke. @@
Not everyone is so intelligent as you, PG.
I would suggest that one should refrain from using the word “clearly” in a discussion like this.
Let’s say you are the head of a public university. On your desk are the following requests. Which ones should you grant? Which ones will a court require you to grant as a reasonable accommodation?
- Orthodox Jewish students request that at least one dining hall serve kosher food.
- Orthodox Jewish students request that class seating plans be changed so that Orthodox men do not have to sit beside unrelated women.
- A Buddhist group wants to have a weekly meeting in a classroom on campus.
- A Christian group wants to have a sunrise Easter service on the main student quad.
- Muslims and Jews ask for single-sex time slots at the swimming pool.
- Muslims ask that depictions of Mohammed be banned from campus as "hate speech."
You could come up with many more.
Thank you, Hunt. It’s nice to see your thoughtfulness, as opposed to knee- jerk “Muslim = bad” dialogue.
“Every week we see videos on TV where terrorists and suicide bombers scream “Allah Akhbar” so without translation it does not sound very attractive to general US population either.”
So the test is whether it sounds attractive to the general US population? That’s an interesting interpretation. Who decides who the general US population is? White? Christian? Religious? Not religious? What part of the country?
I think from the perspective of “Nones” (agnostic, atheist, or other not religious) what is important is not starting down a road where religion of any type is encouraged or provided with additional privileges by the institution.
It is important to treat people of all beliefs equally. When you allow public displays, whether they are visual displays or audible displays, it is important to show that students of all beliefs are treated equally treated equally and given the same privileges. There is a long history in this country of bias against people of all minority religions, as well as atheists, and agnostics. The university should be working toward ending this bias.
In the examples provided by @Hunt, it seems to me that the first 4 at least could be extended to anyone, and are not imposing on others. The swimming pool request would seem to depend on the availability of pool time on campus, and whether it would impact other students. Also, perhaps they could share a single sex pool time that is open to anyone?
In my opinion, the image of Muhammed being banned as hate speech is a not reasonable, imposes their beliefs on others, and is a violation of the Constitutional right to free speech. I think that someone claiming that images of Muhammed are hate speech would have a very high burden of proof to be upheld.
Muslim groups have recently asked to ban speech by those opposed to Islam such as Ayaan Hirshi Ali. They were successful in getting her uninvited to Brandeis, but thankfully Yale allowed her to speak. The test of whether we have free speech is in allowing people to speak that you do not agree with. It is important not to lose that in this country. Especially on college campuses. If conflicting ideas can not be discussed on college campuses, where can they be discussed? If and atheist speaking against Islam is hate speech, then is the Muslim group speaking out against the atheist also hate speech? Should they be banned too?
“If it doesn’t apply to you…just keep walking and ignore. Why is this an issue?”
To me, that is a reasonable as long as groups of all views can receive the same opportunity. If group of any other world view can also request equal time to announce their views that would be fine. Can the Hindus, Buddhists, secular humanists, Christians, and Pastafarians also make proseletyzing announcements to their adherents? If the call to prayer is a Sunni call to prayer and the Shiites want their own prayer announcement, is that okay? If once a week is okay, why not twice? or five times a day? Where is the line where something becomes too annoying to allow?
Notice that I am not saying that all groups have to receive equal broadcast time. It is possible that the Secular Humanists, or Jewish students, for example, do not request to announce something for 3 minutes per week. If the Buddhist’s want to have a 3 minute meditative chant, why not? This is about having the same opportunity, whether or not they wish to utilize it.
“It’d be interesting to know how many Duke students – the only people affected by this – were against the broadcast of the adhan. I’ve yet to see a poll or any systematic investigation of opinions on campus.”
It seems like that is a reasonable way to assess what will be allowed, but it gets more complicated. First, students are not the only stakeholders. Students, faculty, staff, alumni, donors, and parents all have to be considered.
Second, should which practices are allowed be decided via a popular vote? What about unpopular practices? Isn’t this approach the reason the US has always used to mistreat minorities and unpopular views? How should the size of a group impact that groups rights and privileges. Does a group with 5% of the students have fewer rights than a group with 30% of the students? What about 1%? What about 10 students?
Some have suggested that whether an activity is a tradition is important. Hindus have the longest traditions, then Jews and Pagans. Does that give those groups priority over newer religions? How old does something need to be to constitute a tradition? This is a slippery slope.
The point is that being fair to everyone will not be easy.
I hope that they announce a comprehensive policy that provides equal opportunities for all beliefs. I think the adhan is fine as long as equal opportunities are given to people of all beliefs.
Much2learn, I think you make some very good points, but I’d like to again make the distinction between free speech and free exercise of religion (and the accommodation thereof). When it comes to free speech, I agree that it’s essential that all groups have an equal opportunity to speak, even if the message is unpopular. With free exercise, it’s a little different. Here, the question is what accommodations to the free exercise of religion are reasonable. These may not be “equal” in the sense of all groups getting the same magnitude of accommodation. Some may not need (or want) much accommodation; others may want a lot, but not get it because it’s not reasonable. For example, if I were the college president adjudicating my list, I think I’d provide kosher food (if possible), but I don’t think I’d allow Orthodox Jewish men to insist that they can’t be seated next to unrelated women; that would, in my mind, be too much of an imposition on the freedom of women. I think all requests for accommodation should be treated equally in the sense that they will all be subject to the same balancing test of religious exercise vs. burden on others; but they will not necessarily be equal in results–one group may get a lot of accommodations because they are not very disruptive, while another may not get any.
As I said before, what makes the “call to worship” case even more difficult is that it seems to have elements of both speech and free exercise.
@hunt I think you are trying to disagree with something I said, but I am not smart enough to identify it. I think I agree with your last post, as long as an accommodation that is not too burdensome to offer to one group Is also not too burdensome to allow others to have, if requested.
@Hunt, in “my” public university I would deny all special accommodations requests. It would have a few public indoor and outdoor spaces available for use by religious and non-religious groups but quad is off-limits. It will be a fairly priced bare-bone institution for middle-class students who do not expect that their non-educational needs will be met.
Going back to your examples - only Buddhists with their benign request would be approved.
Single-sex time in a pool? What pool? Why public university should have a pool?
@hunt Also, I think I also agree about the Orthodox Jewish men. My initial response was based on how I imaged the situation. I was thinking about a 1/2 full lecture hall where these men wanted to sit together in an out of the way area and there is plenty of room. I was not imagining it would impinge on the rights of others. However, I agree with you that there are many situations where it would.
"Muslim groups have recently asked to ban speech by those opposed to Islam such as Ayaan Hirshi Ali. They were successful in getting her uninvited to Brandeis, but thankfully Yale allowed her to speak. The test of whether we have free speech is in allowing people to speak that you do not agree with. It is important not to lose that in this country. "
While I was against the move to have this young woman uninvited at Brandeis and think it’s a shame she was shut down, it’s important to note that no free speech principles were violated. Free speech has to do with the govt shutting speech down, not private entities. Brandeis is a private university which is not obligated to give any particular person a platform. For that matter, even a public university is not obligated to give all comers a platform for their views either.
Likewise, a private bookseller (such as Barnes & Noble) is not obligated to sell copies of a book they deem for whatever reason they don’t want to sell. Maybe a better example is those Christian bookstores, who aren’t going to sell copies of Lolita or Playboy magazine. They’re entitled not to. It’s not a violation of free speech.