Having a judge who believes in the Constitution and the rule of law resulted in a win for the First Amendment. In the wacky world that we live in, a Muslim student claimed the Islamic terrorism portion of a world politics class violated his Constitutional rights. Yes, really!
The course is offered at Scottsdale Community College (SCC) in Arizona, which is part of the Maricopa County Community College District. It is taught by Nicholas Damask, a veteran professor who organizes the course into six modules that cover world politics. One is dedicated to defining and analyzing Islamic terrorism.
If Islamic terrorists are ever to be able to take over America, they need to suppress any and all information that casts them in a negative light. The wild accusations in the suit filed by one Mohamed Sabra included condemnation of Islam, forcing the student to disavow his religion and punishing the student when he refused to do so. All of this was just BS.
However, this did not prevent the college from caving into the demands of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR has long been known to be associated with terror-financing having been named as a co-conspirator involving Hamas in the past.
The college apologized and tried to pressure the professor into issuing an apology letter of his own. Damask refused. The Maricopa County Community College District then caved in, launching an investigation and warning that the content of Damask’s course would be reviewed for “insensitivities.”
A federal judge has now settled the issue, dismissing the lawsuit.
In the ruling Judge Susan Brnovich writes that a curriculum that “merely conflicts with a student’s religious beliefs does not violate the Free Exercise Clause.” She also writes that the Muslim student was not required to adopt the views expressed by the professor or the course’s required reading, but only to demonstrate an understanding of the material taught. “Mr. Sabra was simply exposed to attitudes and outlooks at odds with his own religious perspective,” the ruling states. “Examining the course as a whole, a reasonable, objective observer would conclude that the teaching’s primary purpose was not the inhibition of religion. Only in picking select quotes from the course can one describe the module as anti-Islam.”
This is certainly a win for the First Amendment.