Ms. Okruhlik said she and her academic colleagues have dealt with Christian students who don't want to read Henry Miller (who wrote detailed accounts of sexual experiences) or literature that portrays homosexuality favourably.
"And we say to those students, 'No, we value diversity and plurality, but we also value academic freedom. So if you want to take this course, you have to read the assigned reading,' she said.
"It's hard for us to see how equal treatment means we can say to some students, 'No, I'm sorry you have to read that novel that portrays homosexuality in a favourable light -- but, no, you don't have to do that drawing.' "
I wonder why they used the homosexuality analogy, because that's a massive red herring. If a book has graphic sex scenes, that has to do with how explicit it is. It is possible for reading too-graphic written sex scenes to be contrary to a person's sexual morality, which would make it an appropriate analogy with not doing life drawing. (Aside: I haven't read Henry Miller, but I do wonder if you can still study the book effectively if you skip the sex scenes?) However, if a book portrays homosexuality favourably, that's a completely different thing. That's the theme and message expressed by the book. You are welcome to disagree with the theme and message of the book - that makes for good essay fodder! - but just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean you should be excused from reading it.
This would have been a perfectly reasonable analogy if they'd stopped at the Henry Miller. Muslim students don't want to draw nudes, xian students don't want to read sex scenes. But then they went on to the false analogy of books that portray homosexuality favourably, which made a huge dent in their credibility. You'd think academics would be better at analogizing.
Aside: I wonder why life drawing has to be of nude models? I wonder why they can't have the models wear underwear or a bathing suit or a leotard? Surely the human body presents enough challenges even if you don't expose the genitals.
4 comments:
Good point. It's always assumed life drawing has to be nudes. I wonder why that is. You must learn how to draw a penis?
My question is why anyone studies Henry Miller in any school. It might be good erotica, but it's not literature. IMNSHO.
A favorable portrayal of homosexuality runs counter to the teachings of religions that consider it a sin. That's essentially the same point the chaplain makes on behalf of the student in this case, that "prolonged exposure to the nude body of a person who was not one's marital partner was contrary to Islamic teaching." And so I think the analogy holds up fine.
I don't understand how anyone can argue for separation of church/religion and state on one hand and then argue that certain churches/religions can be exempted from that separation on the other hand.
No, it's a completely different thing. The book expresses an opinion that's different from the teachings of the religion. It's an opinion. The life drawing demands that the student actually do something that's contrary to the teachings of the religion. It's an action.
If we must use the homosexuality-life drawing parallel, a book that favourably portrays homosexuality would be like a book that favourably portrays seeing other people naked. Assigning the student to draw other people naked would be like assigning them to kiss someone of the same sex and then write a paper about it.
It's like the difference between a assigning a student to read an essay about pornography and assigning a student to watch pornography.
I also think that separation of church and state is more about not forcing people to do religious things that aren't part of their religion, as opposed to preventing them from following the teachings of their religion. So they don't start the day at a public school with an Our Father and a few Hail Marys, but students are still free to say a little prayer to themselves if they want to. They don't ban all students from eating leavened bread during Passover, but they still allow people to keep to the dietary requirements if they want.
It's like the difference between a assigning a student to read an essay about pornography and assigning a student to watch pornography.
OK, but I think someone who doesn't want anything to do with pornography (or homosexuality or whatever) whether it be because of their religion or personal preference might consider either one just as objectionable and not see a difference or make the distinction.
At work or in school, many times we're given assignments that involve things we don't really care for or want to do. We have to do the assigned work, anyway, if we want to pass the class, or keep our job.
The student must get used to this, if she intends to live and work in the real world. Employers and customers are not always going to bend to her religious beliefs or her personal idiosyncracies. I suspect that's what is behind the school's stance here.
Post a Comment