Not at all. Recognizing that any claimed religious objection is a valid one and worthy of being treated as such, does not mean that raising a religious objection allows a student to automatically pass an assignment, or a class. It means a good-faith effort to accomodate the objection. We had a recent thread that raised these issues that we both posted in, in that case, the university’s policy was as follows:
That is a fine policy. Applying it to the case at hand in this thread, we can surely agree that the student’s beliefs are sincere. I’d say it’s almost self-evident that the student not writing those exact words would not interfere with the other students’ experience, or harm the course’s academic integrity. Would you agree? If not, why?
Establishing the criteria for which religious objections are valid and which are not cannot be religiously neutral. How could it possibly be? If a student’s religious belief is that any denial of their God in any form is unacceptable, then a policy that an objection to writing “God is dead” is not a valid objection isn’t religiously neutral, is it?
Are you referring to the FAU stomp-on-Jesus incident as the real-world case? The facts of that are in dispute, but they strongly suggest that the student who refused to step on the peice of paper wasn’t punished for refusing (for example, the professor’s lesson plan indicated that discussion was to follow the activity, with no pass/fail or grading involved as to whether a student stepped on the paper; the plan anticipated that some would decline to do so.)
I don’t object at all to the FAU assignment. The bright-line distinction between it and the movie scenario is that in the former, no one was punished for declining to state a particular view.
It’s simply baffling to me that you don’t understand that allowing the professor to dismiss a religious objection as “spurious” is allowing the professor to decide which religious views are true, or should be taken seriously, and which are not.
Refer to the model policy I suggest above. In that case, certainly, the student can’t pass the class, because their religious objection to practicing medicine obviously harms the academic integrity of a class on medicine. It’s simply not possible to learn medicine without performing medical work, and no reasonable accomodation is possible.
None of this is applicable to the scenario in the OP. If the value to be had from the exercise is a discussion of the power of symbols, as Left Hand of Dorkness noted above, and as the FAU professor anticipated, having one or more students refuse serves the exercise, it doesn’t undermine it. Even if it didn’t, if a reasonable alternative assignment can be found, it should be assigned. Proving god exists is not a reasonable alternative to writing three words, any more than inventing cold fusion is a reasonable alternative to shaking hands.
And the little Jehovah’s Witness kids could have just said the pledge of allegience. No skin off their nose. But, luckily, in this country, we enjoy freedom of religion, so they didn’t have to violate their beliefs for no reason.
Well, that’s such a fundamental difference of understanding that I doubt we’ll ever see eye-to-eye on this. Religious objections are always valid, and should always be accomodated when it’s reasonable to do so, regardless of what class it is. Certainly, sometime reasonable accomodation is impossible, like your med student example, or a student who insists that only males be allowed to speak in class, or that he be allowed to sacrifice a goat before every exam. The scenario in the OP isn’t one of those times.
Again, the objection is always valid. The questions are whether it can reasonably be accommodated, and whether the assignment was itself disciminatory. In this case, the question would be: would a student writing an essay on why God exists, as opposed to one on why one doesn’t exist, harm the academic integrity of the course? I can see how it could, if the point is to defend other viewpoints. Is there another reasonable alternative available? Yes: write an essay defending some other belief the student doesn’t hold, of which there are plenty to choose from.
If the professor is willing to formally state that he’s grading his college level students on their physical ability to write three words that he gives them to write, then he’s a joke of a teacher. If the actual value comes from the discussion around the activity, (because surely you’re not willing to state that an assignment to write three words given by the professor, followed by nothing else, was of any academic value to a college class) then it’d have to be shown that the religious objection harmed the class, and couldn’t reasonably be accomodated (which would still leave the issue of the punitive assignment, of course).
As to the hypothetical QP professor: I’m not objecting because the assignment triggered a religious objection, but rather in how that objection was handled (though, that the nature of the “assignment” looks like a litmus test is troubling, of course).
Keeping things grounded in the specifics of this classroom:
How does the student objecting to writing those words alter what the professor can teach the student? Whatever lesson on symbols or what-have-you that you had in mind can still easily be conveyed; arguably all the stronger for the demonstration of the power of symbols.
My goal is religious freedom; it’s a human right, and as an atheist, it’s in my best interest.
I spoke to this above, but a quick recap: You’re making no distinction between accepting that an objection is valid, and how (or whether) it can be accomodated. All objections that can be reasonably accomodated should be. Anything less is giving the professor the power to decree which religious views are legitimate.
So, to your examples, the method is clear: can the objection be reasonably accomodated? In those cases, if the objection was to being taught, then no. If it’s a matter of a student perfectly grasping biology or geology, and able to pass every test, their religious beliefs shouldn’t factor in at all.
Understood, but that’s a scary world to live in, especially for atheists. I’m very glad the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
It matters, because if you permit a practice that’s indistinguishable from religious discrimination, you are de facto permitting religious discrimination. You can’t count the conscience of the professors, you need rules in place to prevent all types of discrimination.
A Jehovah’s Witness might disagree: eating the pork is trivial, writing the statement is terribly wrong.
Why do you, or the professor, get to tell him his religion has it wrong? Who gets to make these criteria?
