Shortly after a controversy erupted over the content of a University of Houston’s course on Hindu religion, the educational institute has responded and defended the course, saying that it values academic freedom.
This comes after a student of the University of Houston reportedly objected to the content of the course, calling it ‘Hinduphobic’, according to an India Today report.
The University of Houston has defended its course titled ‘Lived Hindu Religion’, saying that “the course is grounded in the academic discipline of religious studies, which uses specific terminology — such as ‘fundamentalism’ –as analytical tools to understand religious movements across traditions, including those rooted in Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism.”
Explaining what could have led to a misunderstanding, the university added that “these academic terms can carry different meanings from how they are used in public or political discourse, which sometimes leads to misunderstandings.”
The university also said in a statement that it doesn’t typically review individual lectures and allows faculty to explore complex and sometimes challenging topics in their teaching. “While UH does not typically review individual lectures, the university maintains oversight of the curriculum to ensure it meets established academic and pedagogical standards,” it said, according to a news agency ANI report.
The university’s statement comes in response to a student complaint against the course. Following the complaint, the university’s dean and the director of religious studies reviewed the concerns and discussed them with the instructor, the ANI report added.
What the professor said
The course which is in the center of the controversy, titled ‘Lived Hindu Religion’, is being taught by Professor Aaron Michael Ullrey. He has responded to the criticism of his teaching of the course through the statement accessed by ANI, which quotes him as saying, “The essence of this course’s methodology is to use descriptive anthropology rather than any prescriptive theology. Throughout the course, my goal is to show the sophistication, rationality, and historical complexity of the many religions deemed Hindu throughout the history of South Asia. I never declared anything to be the essence of Hinduism, which would not only contradict the course but would also contradict my own research and teaching over the last 25 years.”
He also added that his several statements were taken out of context and even debunked some reports that quoted him as saying – “Hinduism … was not an ancient, lived tradition but a colonial construct, a political tool weaponized by Hindu nationalists, and a system of oppression against minorities.”
To this, he said, “I did not say anything like this. I never refer to Hinduism as anything essential.”
Shedding more light on the course and how it focuses on the origin of the Hindu religion, the professor said, “the religions who worship the Hindu gods are ancient, which I note often in the class, and I treat ancient South Asia and its premodern Hinduisms for more than half the class; the course traces religions who revere Hindu gods back to the earliest scriptures in 1500 BCE, noting that these gods’ worship predates these ancient texts, and explores the development of rituals and mythologies from that ancient period into the present.”
“Any declaration that I say “Hinduism” is not ancient is false. In fact, the video that has been shared extracted a quote from a small section on political Hinduism, presented alongside 25 other aspects of Hinduism; all of this is to prove that any one declaration of Hinduism, as found in the quote starting “Hinduism…,” is not to be accepted,” he added.
