57

What is the proper course of action if while teaching an undergraduate or even secondary school course an assignment violates the religious beliefs of a student?

For a more concrete example of where this might happen, let us consider an art class with a Muslim student (Disclamer: I am not an adherent to, or scholar of, Islam; please forgive me for any misunderstandings this post might contain):

Within Islam it is considered haram (forbidden by God) [1] to produce images of non-plant living creatures (including humans), this is called tasweer.[2]

Now if I were to assign a portrait of a person to the class as an assignment, what would be the most ethical option, should a student raise a concern to me about this? Would it be appropriate to assign an alternate assignment?

[1]: Similar to a christian sin, but with a stronger connotation from what I can tell; literally: taboo.

[2]: I believe this is from a hadith, but one that is deemed to be the most accurate/reliable.

Community
  • 1
Juan Sebastian Lozano
  • 1,575
  • 2
  • 15
  • 18
  • 25
    Another concrete example is "you have to use this pirated software for your assignment, download it from the course website". Although this also violates laws, only religious students objected. – marczellm Mar 06 '14 at 11:42
  • 4
    In this particular case, I would respect the student's wishes, and follow the suggestions below, BUT refer them to the outstanding research by Professor Michael Barry on the tradition of courtly art, ie Indian and Persian miniatures which were anthropomorphic and authorised and valued by the highest Islamic religious authorities. I'd also consider involving everyone in a course in sacred geometry drawing on the art and symbolism of Islamic culture. – Leon Conrad Mar 06 '14 at 12:22
  • 22
    @LeonConrad I wouldn't recommend that - it comes across as suggesting to the student that he is misinterpreting the religious requirements, or suggesting he follow other interpretations of those requirements than his own. The student does not want to feel like he has to convince you of his interpretation, nor do you want to be convinced; the student just wants to know how he can meet class requirements given certain restrictions. – ff524 Mar 06 '14 at 14:14
  • @ff524 I don't see our views being mutually exclusive - no convincing either way is implied, just a mutual widening of horizons and awareness. The wider our horizons in my view, the more tolerance and understanding there is in the world. Sensitivity in handling the situation and mutual respect are implied - I would have thought that was obvious. Obviously this would most easily be applied in a liberal and tolerant society. The liberal educator has choices, always. – Leon Conrad Mar 06 '14 at 15:31
  • 1
    @LeonConrad In the context of education in general, it is certainly nice to widen horizons and awareness :) My concern only applies to the student saying, "I can't do this assignment because of the requirements of my religious observance" and the instructor replying in that context "This is another interpretation of those requirements" – ff524 Mar 06 '14 at 15:35
  • 8
    Don't think that only Muslims will object to such an assignment. All Mosaic religions have such a prohibition, although exactly how broadly it is applied certainly varies. Someone who uses a broad interpretation probably shouldn't be in such a class, however. – Ben Voigt Mar 07 '14 at 00:21
  • 1
    @BenVoigt Fair point, but the Islamic tradition has the benefit of having an an emphasis on the interpretation of scholars, especially through the rulings called fatawas. Both the size of the religion and the emphasis on these (cite-able) fatawas (also called fatwas) caused me to cite Islam as an example (as the scholarly writings allow me to learn about such practices from a reliable source, avoiding misinterpretation). – Juan Sebastian Lozano Mar 07 '14 at 01:33
  • 11
    I agree with Ben Voigt that someone who believes drawing/painting/figurative art is a sin should not enroll in a drawing/painting/figurative art history class. There is in fact figurative art in Islamic tradition, but of the student argues "That art is not really Islamic", there is nothing you can do. That applies to history classes as well. –  Mar 07 '14 at 11:26
  • 1
    Is this an actual problem? It sounds like you are making up an example for the sake of this question, but I don't believe a lot of Muslims would consider this a rule to be followed in modern day. There is no need for discussing hypothetical questions. If you had an actual situation you should use that as example. – aaaaaaaaaaaa Mar 08 '14 at 20:17
  • 2
    @eBusiness: The question isn't about many, the question is about some. – user Mar 09 '14 at 01:23
  • 2
    This is ridiculous! If your religious belief doesn't permit you to do some things, then avoid these. What's the point of enrolling then complaining about assignments? – user Mar 09 '14 at 01:33
  • 2
    @eBusiness Yes this is a hypothetical situation, however, it is not an unreasonable one. I cited the modern interpretation of the Islamic law by Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz, Grand Mufti (highest religious official) of Saudi Arabia until his death in 1999. While I agree that this might not be a common occurrence in American institutions of learning, that does not make this situation an unreasonable one. I cite this meta question. – Juan Sebastian Lozano Mar 09 '14 at 01:55
  • 1
    @user The student may not have been informed of the assignment before enrolling in the class (or before the add/drop deadline for enrollment) – ff524 Mar 09 '14 at 03:06
  • In the given case, if there is only one portrait as part of the course, then why not a portrait of a pet? – Ian Jun 06 '14 at 07:59
  • @ian It is considered haraam to depict animate beings, not only humans, therefore the pet would also be prohibited. – Juan Sebastian Lozano Jun 07 '14 at 17:09
  • 1
    @marczellm That's different. Piracy is illegal, if your instructor is compelling you to use pirated software you can easily report them to the university administrator or the police. – Superbest Dec 19 '14 at 15:59
  • 2
    There is not a single verse in the Quran against drawing a picture of a live human being. The source you have cited merely talks about a subjective interpretation of particular events at the dawn of Islam. The cited text or its' author is not considered genuine by the majority of muslims. The whole point of my comment is to differentiate between religious laws and personal interpretation of religious laws (which are not included in the Quran) – Abbas Javan Jafari Nov 26 '15 at 07:56
  • 2
    @AbbasJavanJafari To my knowledge, there is not a single verse in the Quran with this prohibition, which is why I cite a source as close to the original source of the prohibition (an early Hadith) as I can. Nevertheless, whether or not it is considered genuine by the majority of modern Muslims, it has historically been of import (as seen in much of the art of the Islamic empires), and it is conceivable that a Muslim holds this belief. It is also not my place to say whether they are "true" Muslims for believing this or not. In a similar sense, it would be wrong for me to say that (cont..) – Juan Sebastian Lozano Nov 26 '15 at 08:13
  • 1
    I could provide an exception if you quote a bible verse, but not one if you quote from the book of Mormon (which the majority of Christians do not believe), as this is blatantly discriminatory. – Juan Sebastian Lozano Nov 26 '15 at 08:14
  • 2
    (That is not to disagree with the fact that Wahabism, which the Saudi Arabian official I cite is a proponent of, is not a terribly common form of Islam in the US) – Juan Sebastian Lozano Nov 26 '15 at 08:18
  • @ff524 very well spoken on the issue of how students interpret their religion. This happens often to Seventh-Day Adventists, who consider Saturday to be the "correct" day of rest and worship even while nearly all other Christians disagree. Arguing is fruitless - nowadays both sides have more or less "agreed to disagree" and are trying to move on with their lives - staying true to their own beliefs while respecting others. – Robert Columbia Apr 06 '19 at 00:34

11 Answers11

83

If you can make an accommodation that allows the student to participate

  • without violating his religious observance, and
  • without compromising the educational goals of the class, and
  • without requiring an extreme amount of effort on your part,

then it is reasonable to make the accommodation.

I regularly miss classes and exams due to religious observance. My school has a very clear policy on the matter:

  • If students have to miss a class session, exam, or are otherwise unable to participate in a course requirement due to religious observance, they must notify the professor and a certain dean in a timely manner (the definition of "a timely manner" is further specified in the policy)
  • If said student follows the above requirement, they cannot be penalized for their religious observance and the professor must offer a fair alternative (e.g., makeup exam or assignment)

If your university has no policy on the matter, feel free to adopt mine, and specify it in your syllabus at the beginning of the semester.

However, I would not take a class where I know the main requirement of a class would violate my religious observance. Indeed, I know people who have refrained from pursuing a career because a non-negotiable required class for that field would require something that violates their religious observance. *

So, if the course is Figure Drawing and someone registers knowing that he cannot draw the human figure... I don't think you are required to let him pass the class by doing still lives instead. If the course is Introduction to Art for Non-Majors, it may be possible to offer an alternative to the portrait assignment.

This applies more generally as well. If a student in good faith (i.e., not to get out of doing work) considers an assignment

  • illegal,
  • unethical,
  • compromising to his health/safety,
  • etc.

it seems reasonable to offer an alternative assignment if it does not compromise the educational goals of the course.

* See: Can a Kohen become a doctor?

Community
  • 1
ff524
  • 108,934
  • 49
  • 421
  • 474
  • 38
    +1 for the combination of "be understanding and tolerant" with "don't let it get ridiculous". – xLeitix Mar 06 '14 at 07:26
  • 3
    It's also not the job of places of learning to label superstition. An answer similar to ff524 will go much further to promote learning than injecting your own opinions on religion or any other subject in the classroom. Stick to teaching the material and follow the charter. – user2988387 Mar 06 '14 at 19:11
  • 10
    This seems to me to be a pretty good answer, the only thing that I would add is that after becoming aware of a potential religious or cultural issue it would be a good idea to add a suitable caveat to the module description/specification, e.g. "the assessment on this module involves figure drawing". Hopefully that means that in future this sort of issue can be negotiated before the student registers for the module, and emphasises that the student has a responsibility to select appropriate modules (where there is a choice). Hindsight is always 20/20, but that is no reason not to use it! ;o) – Dikran Marsupial Mar 06 '14 at 20:20
  • 11
    I would second @DikranMarsupial's comment. As an example, when I was in high school the senior-year biology course included a laboratory class where you had to dissect a fetal pig. This was considered an essential part of the course, and it was made very clear to all students completing the introductory biology class that if they continued on to the advanced class they would have to carry out the dissection. If the student had any ethical or religious objections against dissecting a dead animal (or a pig in particular), they we warned not to take the class. – AmeliaBR Mar 06 '14 at 21:08
  • 2
    You regularly miss classes for religious observance? – JNS Feb 17 '15 at 18:17
  • @DikranMarsupial or, "This course requires discussion of sexual topics", "Papers in this course must be written from the perspective that evolution is true, even if you personally disbelieve", or "Due to safety regulations, students may not wear skirts in the lab". – Robert Columbia Apr 06 '19 at 00:45
  • @RobertColumbia "Papers in this course must be written from the perspective that evolution is true, even if you personally disbelieve" would be inappropriate as the student is free to submit papers expressing essentially any point of view they like (this is academia), but that doesn't mean they will get good marks for what they submit. – Dikran Marsupial Apr 06 '19 at 07:37
23

It's not the job of places of learning to give way to superstition. Indeed, quite the reverse: the whole Enlightenment Project was about bringing light into darkness, and all the Academia I'm familiar with puts itself broadly in the Enlightenment tradition.

So yes, this answer will read as uncompromising. Because, from experience, I've found that rigorous education is incompatible with compromising that rigour in favour of molly-coddling someone's religious beliefs.

There is no sane middle ground. If you're going to start compromising the quality of your teaching to avoid offending someone's belief, you'll quickly find yourself running out of space. Someone's going to get offended that you're teaching males and females at the same time, sat next to each other. Someone's going to get offended that anyone's drawing the human figure, let alone that they have to. Someone's going to get offended that you don't mention their pet crank theory alongside science as if they were somehow of equal merit.

If a particular course's actions are in contradiction to a student's religion, then there are two routes here. If the student is legally a child, then the student completes the actions - they are under the school's guardianship when in school. If the student is legally an adult, then they have the problem, and it's not fair on any of the other students that they should make their problem, the institution's problem. They can either fail that part of the course, or they can do the work.

If a student's beliefs contradict knowledge, science or art, that's not the problem of the place of learning. That's the problem of the student.

If this is about children, then the responsible adults are guilty of abuse, for bringing that state of affairs about, and the school should do as much as it reasonably can to make amends for that failure. Note that I am not saying that a religious upbringing is necessarily abuse. I am saying that teaching children nonsense such as creationism is abuse, because it can cripple that child's future opportunities.

If this is about adults, then they've taken responsibility for failing that part of their education, and should be marked down accordingly.

This has been something of a hot topic in Britain recently, where the teaching of creationism and other ignorances is on the rise, where state-funded schools have been breaking equality laws by selecting staff on the basis of gender, sexuality and religion, and where pressure has been put on educational establishments to subvert the teaching of several branches of knowledge, including the censoring of some exam questions on evolution, and the censoring of two university atheist society's display of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and of "Jesus and Mo" t-shirts, because these were inconsistent with some extremist religous interpretations.

Academia is the bulwark against ignorance and superstition.

I'm not saying that religion = ignorance and superstition. Creationism = ignorance and superstition. Refusing to draw the human figure = ignorance and superstition. Avoiding listening to or playing music = ignorance and superstition. Preventing females from being educated = ignorance and superstition.

410 gone
  • 25,792
  • 6
  • 79
  • 135
  • 10
    This answer is not phrased in the most conciliatory way, but I do think there is truth to this. In the context of this question, I feel that everyone should adhere to the standard set by a specific course or face the consequences. If a student cannot/will not do part of the course for whatever reason, that is his or her responsibility. In my experience, subjects are too often catered to individual students which can result in the subject as a whole to evolve towards the lowest common denominator. This is particularly counterproductive because it indirectly harms the good students. – Marc Claesen Mar 06 '14 at 09:53
  • 49
    "all the Academia I'm familiar with puts itself broadly in the Enlightenment tradition". I, on the other hand, am studying at a Catholic university. I disagree with equating religion to ignorance, superstition, darkness and failure. I find the wording of this answer somewhat offensive. – marczellm Mar 06 '14 at 11:40
  • 25
    There is a big difference between students disagreeing with the actual substance of what they're taught (as in your example of Creationism) and students refusing to engage in certain activities (as in the example of art in the question). I think you're answering a question which wasn't asked. – TRiG Mar 06 '14 at 12:58
  • 25
    This is not what the question was primarily concerned with; the example (and the general case) is about when a student cannot complete something because the action is against their religion, whereas this answers the question of what to do when the knowledge contradicts their religion. In the case of the former, it is not that the student refuses to accept the knowledge, but that they are only allowed to apply it to things that are not haram (sin, et cetera). – Juan Sebastian Lozano Mar 06 '14 at 13:11
  • 27
    I have downvoted this. Multicultural societies (such as the one in which I live) need to be tolerant of religious and cultural differences, e.g. academic institutions should make reasonable adjustments where necessary. The suggestion that bringing up children in a religious faith is abuse is gratuitously offensive. With rights come responsibilities, the responsibility that goes with free speech is to refrain from causing needless offence in discussing things with which you disagree. This sort of polemic only appeals to those that already agree with you and will change nobody's mind. – Dikran Marsupial Mar 06 '14 at 13:38
  • 11
    @DikranMarsupial I think you've misunderstood what I've written. I do not say that bringing up children in a religious faith is abuse. Teaching them anti-science nonsense such as creationism, however, is abuse. It can cripple their future opportunities. – 410 gone Mar 06 '14 at 13:54
  • 5
    +1 I think you need to clarify what you have written to make that distinction. Personally I think it is at best hyperbole to describe the teaching of creationism as abuse. Parents inevitably end up passing memes on to their children that are incorrect to varying degrees (if only because our understanding of the world is not static and our parents are necessarily older than we are ;o) if this is well intentioned I can't see how it can be reasonably described as abuse. If you want to argue against creationism (and I do as well), then you are not going to change any minds with polemic. – Dikran Marsupial Mar 06 '14 at 14:07
  • BTW, I don't think you can contradict art! – Dikran Marsupial Mar 06 '14 at 14:10
  • 7
    @DikranMarsupial I've tried to edit that in to my answer. I'm not interested in changing minds: by the very nature of fundamentalists, there's no reasoning with them: if they were open to reason, they wouldn't be fundamentalists. And I'm not interested in courting any middle ground. I'm just providing an answer to the question. – 410 gone Mar 06 '14 at 14:11
  • 39
    -1 for adopting an unnecessarily intolerant tone, for effectively equating religion to "ignorance and superstition" at the end, for implying that the religious belief of the student "is the problem of the student", and for ultimately not answering the question. – badroit Mar 06 '14 at 15:58
  • @badroit I must have phrased it very badly, given that's what you've inferred from my ending. I've reworded to be more explicit about what I intended. – 410 gone Mar 06 '14 at 17:34
  • @marczellm 1642. 1992. – 410 gone Mar 06 '14 at 17:35
  • 12
    I respect your opinion; however, contrary to your experience that rigorous education is incompatible with compromising.. etc., my own experiences include many "compromises" that allowed me to participate fully without affecting educational standards at all. – ff524 Mar 06 '14 at 17:49
  • @EnergyNumbers What do you mean by your comment of "1642. 1992."? I'd like to read more but I find it's not enough to go on, unless you mean the Church's apology to Galileo. – TylerH Mar 06 '14 at 20:53
  • 3
    I understand this is a sensitive topic, but in general, please do not use the comments to start a discussion about religion and education. –  Mar 06 '14 at 21:52
  • 9
    It really is amazing to me how many people seek to invoke the Enlightenment to support their intolerance, apparently completely ignorant of the fact that tolerance, particularly religious tolerance was a core principle of the Enlightenment. – RBarryYoung Mar 06 '14 at 22:09
  • 12
    Nope, you made it worse. by the very nature of fundamentalists, there's no reasoning with them — Pot, kettle, black, etc. – JeffE Mar 07 '14 at 05:47
  • 5
    Its okay as long as students don't want to take a course on evolution and such. Its okay if they wish to be fully covered. But, its a problem if they expect the world to follow unjustifiable rules and live by them. How is music "bad" or "haram" is beyond me. Violent music could still be considered "haram" or even avoidable. But how do you justify neutral music by Beethoven as "haram" ? – Steam Mar 07 '14 at 07:25
  • 7
    @EnergyNumbers, I agree this is the only sane option. I happen to teach one of those "sensitive" subjects. I often wonder what I'd do if I had to compromise my teaching to accommodate any sensitivities. –  Mar 07 '14 at 11:35
  • 7
    @EnergyNumbers, thanks for considering my comment but the -1 still remains. For me, your ending paragraph is like people who start sentences with "I'm not racist but ...". In my opinion, the core fallacy of your answer is that, throughout, you reduce religious belief to trivial superstitions and then answer the question from that cut-and-dry perspective. But religion is much more complex: it is about individual ethics, identity and culture. Painting with broad brush-strokes, not considering the individual, and arbitrarily rejecting all middle-ground is, for me, synonymous with intolerance. – badroit Mar 07 '14 at 16:44
  • 10
    ... also I wonder how the answers would change if the question were rather about students having ethical concerns regarding course-work: research on stem-cells, analysis of sensitive/private data, exploitative business practices, euthanising patients, experiments on animals, eating meat, observing abortions, performing sex acts, analysing snuff videos. One could imagine that any such act, even bordering on the hypothetical/extreme, can have an educational aspect. Each individual has a different line (potentially informed by religion). Nobody is right/wrong. There is only a middle ground. – badroit Mar 07 '14 at 16:53
  • I appreciate your edits, your answer is much clearer and much less offensive now. – marczellm Mar 07 '14 at 18:19
  • 1
    I think this answer is correct, but unfortunately, it's not politically correct. – Superbest Dec 19 '14 at 16:08
  • 2
    Your exasperated tone here is interesting because it reveals underlying suppositions about epistemology and ontology which themselves are at least in part under attack in your answer. That is, you have a strong revulsion toward what you call superstition, but don't seem cognizant of the fact that this is a clear "how things ought to be" derived from the worldview you've selected as the best one. So, you're making a worldview superiority claim on the strength of that worldview, but by what means do you select your worldview over others that allow for the existence of the supernatural? – ErikE Nov 10 '15 at 21:24
  • 1
    If you were a character in a universe inside a computer, ala The Sims, certainly some Sims would argue that there is no programmer, and no computer (a.k.a. super-nature), there is only the software (a.k.a. "reality"). Your experience of the software's rules could expose the programming underlying it (rules of logic, reason, existence, and so on), but how could you discern whether those rules were inherent and fundamental properties or if they were founded on something deeper? Certainly not by merely using the software's apparent rules. – ErikE Nov 10 '15 at 21:27
  • The embedded and incorrect assumption here: "If you're going to start compromising the quality of your teaching to avoid offending someone's belief..." That isn't always the case. There are often accommodations which can be made which do not compromise the quality of the teaching, and the thought put into considering an accommodation might sometimes increase the quality of the teaching, sometimes even for all the students in the class. "There is no sane middle ground" is just plain wrong, unless you put waaaay too much stock in that false assumption. – WBT Apr 22 '19 at 15:44
6

You really cannot expect that the assignment should be counted as done just because of your religion. However, if you are a student,

  • Try to ask the professor to adapt the assignment. If picturing humans is not allowed, maybe picturing geometric figures is ok.
  • Ask representative of your religion if the activity is really disallowed in your context. Most of religious restrictions are about actions, not about studying (may be exceptions of course).
  • If you know you should drop studies but are too weak to do this, the representative of your religion may just forgive you.

If you are the person teaching, you may think about adapting course (is the disallowed activity essential?) and still check with representative of religion if the students do not interpret restrictions unnecessarily broadly. Additionally, you may discuss with your administration the possibility to suggest the alternative but equally serious and difficult course for such students. Some universities like Zurich ETH allow to choose between many alternative courses, with only small percent being mandatory.

Still, if there are many assignments contradicting the religion, this probably shows that it may be lots more problems at work later. If you are not allowed to kill, that is the point of attempting the carrier of the jet fighter pilot? Even if you can actually study, saying nobody is killed in flight simulator or during bombing tests, this may not make much sense.

algorithmic_fungus
  • 3,791
  • 15
  • 24
  • 8
    While this is a nice answer, it answers a somewhat different question than the one asked, since the question here is from the point of view of the person teaching. – Tobias Kildetoft Mar 06 '14 at 13:07
  • The person teaching can take first two actions as well (change the assignment or clarify with the representative of the confession). He may also ask the student how one is going to work later if cannot even study. – algorithmic_fungus Mar 06 '14 at 13:33
  • 9
    check with representative of religion - Do not do this. Unless you're teaching religion, it's not up to you to tell the student that his interpretation of religious requirements are incorrect. – ff524 Mar 07 '14 at 19:48
  • 2
    You mean, it is up to the student to decide if certain assignment contradicts some very specific religion he may have? Like "my religion disallows me to learn this type if differential equation, that also seems too difficult for me"? Impressive. – algorithmic_fungus Mar 07 '14 at 20:19
  • 6
    Most religions exist in many variations and interpretations, and if you find a representative of the religion who says "This is permitted" the student can still say (legitimately) "That is not the interpretation I follow." (Evaluating whether the student is making his claim in good faith or trying to avoid doing work is another issue entirely, which I don't think the OP is asking about.) – ff524 Mar 07 '14 at 20:24
  • 1
    I disagree with adapting the course. There's a difference in adapting a course to be accessible for students with disabilities/illnesses/religious observance regarding the style of assessment task (exam/essays etc) and missing class, and changing the course content. Don't change the course content because someone finds it confronting, the purpose of Academia is to challenge and confront. – awsoci Feb 17 '15 at 01:36
6

If the student chooses, or sucumbs to parental directives to refuse some components of education, then the student or their parents have to accept that they can't achieve so much in that realm. One day the student will have to make A PERSONAL CHOICE as to their direction. Offering them a free ride is not appropriate to that choice. If they persist with their choice, to not participate in some aspects of the multicultural society they live in, then they surely will be happy that they are not 'infected' with whatever perceived ill they deem to spring from the offensive activities.

Why do they want to be seen as masters (ie high grade scorers) of a system they partially or wholly reject? Do we really want to teach children to lie to themselves and others like this?

Make your choices (yes, even as a child) and take the consequences.

  • 5
    I think most people choose not to participate in some aspects of the multicultural society they live in. For example, I choose not to participate in misogyny, racism, homophobia, which are all aspects of the society I live in. You choose not to participate in religion, which is (probably) a part of the society you live in, and I respect that choice. Recognizing that other people's choices can be valid (even if they're not the same as your own and you don't understand the reason for them) is part of living in a multicultural society. – ff524 Mar 07 '14 at 20:06
  • 3
    @ff524: I think you just (unintentionally?) compared religion to racism, etc. – user541686 Mar 09 '14 at 11:10
  • 1
    @Mehrdad Both are in the category of "things that exist in society," that's as far as my 'comparison' goes. – ff524 Mar 09 '14 at 14:01
  • 1
    @aclarke just that rejection of one part of society (on religious, moral, legal, medical, or other grounds) need not mean that an individual should be excluded from other parts of that society (e.g. the rest of the educational system). Hence my view that a reasonable accommodation can be offered, if possible. – ff524 Apr 23 '14 at 02:49
  • Who said anything about parents and children? This is Academia.SE: by default, our students are adults, and their decisions are their own, not their parents'. – Nate Eldredge Sep 24 '14 at 16:03
6

I think this depends on what level you are teaching at. Below college-level I think you may need to find an alternative (but just as difficult or more difficult) assignment.

It is a slippery-slope when people institute their private beliefs on a teacher's assignment. It is not like the assignment was for them to go to a Sunday mass. If the assignment was hitting a lot of religious notes, you as the teacher should have a plan. Have the students/parents sign-off on the topics/assignments or offer them another assignment to do.

If we are talking college level courses the assignments and tests should be on your syllabus. If they don't want to do them then they can drop out of your class or they can get an F on the assignment.

As a teacher you are trying to teach them a skillset. If that includes something that is against their beliefs they shouldn't get to pass the class because they don't have the knowledge/skill. There is just too much grey area here and obviously the students could tell you whatever they want and it allows for animosity from students that have to do the assignments.

blankip
  • 4,915
  • 1
  • 23
  • 28
5

As an educator, the most appropriate response is to immediately escalate the matter in a neutral way - present only the facts. The educational institution has staff and lawyers to interpret scenarios like this and provide recommendations to the teacher. I would not recommend making any immediate compromises or snap-judgements with the student. Educating students is stressful enough. Let those who specialize in this type of issue resolve it, and you can focus on the education of your students.

user171212
  • 59
  • 1
  • 6
    In my six years in secular institutes of higher education, no professor has ever escalated to the dean responsible for such matters. We've always been able to settle the issue ourselves in a friendly and amicable way. – ff524 Mar 07 '14 at 19:50
  • 3
    The question was not what is currently done by some educators, but what the proper course of action is. Most organizations have strict policies now around these topics due to the rising frequency of lawsuits over the slightest misunderstanding. Know your organization's policies and follow them. If your organization does not have any on these issues, good luck. Some teachers are not charismatic enough to resolve the issue, and some students aren't looking for a compromise. It's probably best to follow policy to protect yourself in the event of a litigious student (or parents). – user171212 Mar 07 '14 at 23:39
  • I agree that escalating at the slightest hint of a possible conflict between student and teacher is wise. However, it isn't necessary as a first resort (unless of course school policy requires it.) – ff524 Mar 09 '14 at 00:35
  • Note that the dean or whoever this is escalated to may have more of an incentive to cater to the student than to the teacher's workload. – Thomas Mar 21 '16 at 13:16
5

I'm going to have to disagree with the majority on this post that you should adapt your assessment for the student if this is a college level or university level course.

Absolutely students who miss exams/class/need extensions due to religious observance should be accommodated. But at a college or university level, if a student disagrees or does not feel they can complete a particular assessment due to religious observance they shouldn't take the class. Assessments and topics are laid out in the beginning of the course, plenty of time for that student to switch classes. There's a difference regarding the style of assessment which can be altered (i.e. an exam to an essay) and the content being assessed, which is generally what would be the controversial subject.

I teach a number of controversial subjects because I'm situated in gender studies/sociology. A number of the courses I teach have controversial material and assessment tasks that are not well-suited for everyone. Many students find the material confronting, and yes, I have absolutely encountered students who find it too uncomfortable. My response? I am sympathetic to their issues, but their only option is to drop the class. A subject such as gender studies is a controversial subject, and when we delve into critical examinations of things like women and pornography, or men's aggression and violence, I cannot 'water it down' so it's accessible for those who find said material confronting. Otherwise, there's no point in teaching it.

Any student who does have a particular religious observance needs to take the time to review the course syllabus and get in contact with the unit coordinator before the start of the course. If the syllabus is not available prior to enrolling, they should still get in contact to discuss their concerns and determine whether or not the course is a valid option for them.

At some point, students have to take responsibility for their own choices regarding what classes they will take. They cannot expect to be accommodated to the point of completing a completely different assessment task to everyone else because the material is too confronting or is in direct violation to their religious observance. While the style of assessment can change (i.e. a student with a disability might prefer a take-home exam over a traditional sit-in exam) the content needs to remain the same.

Your example of an art class is a tricky one though. It would depend as to whether figure drawing is the main purpose of the course (in which perhaps the drawing of a naked figure makes up a huge portion of the assessment task/overall grade?) or if it's a relatively small component (like 5-10%?). If relatively small, they can skip it and forfeit the grade if they are able to complete everything else.

awsoci
  • 1,608
  • 12
  • 17
3

I think the solution depends on wether the method used to reach the education objective is problematic or if it's the actual education objective itself.

I have observed this kind of situation as fellow student. We have here a religious branch that forbids watching television. On a course about topic A, we had an exercise where we were supposed to watch several episodes from a TV series and observe topic A related things from characters. In this kind of case where the topic A itself has nothing to do with the problematic method, I think it's reasonable to accommodate student, if possible. In this case student was allowed to do the exercise from book instead of TV-series, and observe topic A related things from those characters.

Had the course topic been related to media or cinematography, and the method (watching TV-series) itself would have been important to reach the education objective (such as observing how lights or cuts or positioning was done in the TV-series), then I don't think accommodation has to be made. It is up to the student to realize that the course topic itself causes problems and either decide not to take it, or just do the exercises anyway.

Mer
  • 121
  • 2
2

I really do not believe religious beliefs should be THAT much considered. Islam also suggests that you should not be in the same classroom with opposite sex (also haram). Then why is that student studying in university?

Another question is, what if I believe in HurdyGurdyism and the letter F is very much sin in my religion? Then should you not give me an F?

Every belief is of course deserve respect, but I don't believe the purpose of conducting science is much more holier. All and all, the place is where you conduct science, not a sanctuary.

padawan
  • 12,245
  • 8
  • 48
  • 83
1

Educational institutions are not there to reaffirm religious beliefs. Anyone with a drivers license has already violated this belief. My heartless opinion on the matter is you do the assignment (or come up with the closest possible alternative) or you fail. How is not doing it for religious reasons different than just not doing it? Its also an insult to all those that did do it, particularly the ones that struggled through it.

Oedhel Setren
  • 171
  • 3
  • This is not a comment on the substance of your response, but simply a comment on your drivers license example: there are exceptions for civic matters such as mugshots and drivers licenses. – Juan Sebastian Lozano Nov 26 '15 at 08:27
0

The most important thing first: it is not your job to know every religion, belief or variation of it, it is up to the student or his/her parents to tell you beforehand what they cannot accept in class. Even between two of the same religion, no one can tell how direct one rule is taken by the one or the other. That said, your responsibility however is to give your students and their parents enough time in advance to notify you of potential issues.

If you work with a class where this can be an issue, a good idea would be to write down the topics for the upcoming course and hand it over to your students, and then explain why you are doing this. Depending on the age of your students, they might misunderstand this as cheating away from class. In addition you should give your students the chance for a fair alternative. If such alternative is not obvious, you should talk to the student or the parents in question to find one. If drawing an animated object is considered a sin, you could hand out a picture of someone to draw. Whether or not this complies to the religion, I however cannot tell.

Religion is nothing you can come by with logic, people believe the strangest things. For some of them compromises can be found, for others probably not. It is a good thing to try to find a compromise but in strange cases also valid to refuse them. If one's religion for example expects that boys and girls are taught in separate rooms, the only thing you can offer to the parents is for their child to change school.

Also you need to keep in mind how the other students will treat a kid, which is the reason why they can't do something they want, cannot watch a certain movie or must skip topics they would have been interested in. Some things they can accept if it is explained properly, others probably not. And in the later case it might be for the better of the kid in question to not give into the believes, as the "torture" following that would be much worse.

TwoThe
  • 465
  • 2
  • 2