I suppose it’s only fair that I should try and answer my own questions as well.
Ugh, this is a messy one, I fully admit. Personally, I think that the art teacher followed a good methodology in terms of giving warning on the syllabus and prior to the reveal in the class. If a kid had objected, then perhaps the kid could have studied an alternate image, either one not depicting Mohammad or one where Mohammad is veiled (as in the link from @kelsmom…a solid white veil so that no facial features are seen). Something equivalent, kind of like schools that have kids do either an online dissection or study the anatomy of an animal from books rather than doing an actual dissection.
But that’s a relatively “easy” case when the topic is art history, so a different artwork could potentially be substituted that had similar characteristics (i.e. from same geographic area, time period, and techniques), and perhaps similarly true for a literature class. But for subjects like history…those who don’t know their history are doomed to repeat it. And even if one doesn’t like a certain behavior/group, that doesn’t mean one should remain ignorant of it. And one of the purposes of college is exposure to new ideas and concepts. Challenging one’s beliefs can often be how one grows (and I’m not referring just to some of the hot-button topics). And for many colleges, their mission is often about expansion of the mind, and so to let certain students not have some of the same experiences…so should a person from an evangelical family be able to avoid reading The Color Purple because of how LGBTQ relationships are portrayed because of their religion? Conversely, should LGBTQ students be able to avoid readings that show negative depictions/comments of the LGBTQ community? (And feel free to replace LGBTQ for something about one’s race, religion, immigration status, or other protected status.) If so, then where does it end?
So yes, a mess. I am obviously somewhere in a circular pattern of thinking and welcome the sharing of other viewpoints. Tagging some people who I think have some academia-ties: @dfbdfb @ColdWombat @2plustrio, I’m sure there are others.
Our family is committed to public K-12 schooling, so the question for us really applies to college. I don’t think that Hamline’s fumbling, bumbling response here would be enough to eliminate it from contention with respect to our willingness to pay, although it would certainly be an area of concern. If there were repeated violations of academic freedom similar to this by the same institution, then that college might get nixed.
I will say that I would have tremendous difficulty paying for an institution that blocked academic freedom in a reverse way. If the institutional policy & culture was such there were never any positive mentions/representation of historically (or currently) marginalized populations, that would pretty much be a deal-breaker for me. If forced to choose, I’d prefer an institution that denied academic freedom in favor of marginalized communities than against them. But I’d obviously prefer neither and would be willing to pay more if that was the only way for it to happen for our kid.