University of Houston defends academic freedom amid controversy over Hinduism course

WASHINGTON: The University of Houston (UH) has reaffirmed its commitment to academic freedom after a student complained about a course titled ‘Lived Hindu Religion’.

“The University of Houston values academic freedom, which includes allowing 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”, according to the official statement.

In response to a student complaint about a course titled ‘Lived Hindu Religion’, the university’s dean and the director of religious studies reviewed the concerns and discussed them with the instructor, following the university’s process for responding to complaints.

“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”, the statement added.

Further, the university emphasised that “these academic terms can carry different meanings from how they are used in public or political discourse, which sometimes leads to misunderstandings”.

In a statement, the university explained, “In religious studies, fundamentalism refers to a movement that claims to preserve the ‘true’ or original version of a religion — asserting a strict, ahistorical, literal interpretation of scripture, dogmas or ideologies — often in reaction to modern changes. Studying fundamentalism is not an act of judgment or bias but a way to understand how religions evolve and identify through discourse analysis”.

“The course applies academic frameworks to analyze how Hinduism, the religion of those who revere Hindu gods, like other world religions, has developed in historical, social and political contexts. Professors are encouraged to connect course content to current events when appropriate, as long as it is done in a balanced way that improves understanding of course content. For example, discussing the political rise of Hindu nationalism in India is part of understanding how religion and religious discourse function in the modern world, but it is not a critique of Hinduism as a whole”, it added.

The use of fundamentalism in religious studies is an academic concept and not controversial. Outside of academia the term can be perceived as politically charged or pejorative. Fundamentalism is ahistorical, but religious studies adopt historical perspectives. The conflict between ahistorical claims and historical claims, or even prescriptive vs. descriptive truth claims, is the essence of many conflicts in religious studies classrooms.

Ahistorical: Lacking historical context or ignoring historical development; treating something as if it has always been the same, regardless of time or place.

Historical: Related to or based on history; something that takes into account the context, time period, or development over time.

Additional background material: “What is the Academic Study of Religion” by Russell T. McCutcheon

The university statement, in which Professor Aaron Michael Ullrey stated, ‘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.’

Further, Aaron Michael Ullrey claimed that, the quotes that have been referenced in the media were taken out of context and do not accurately reflect the content or intent of the course. “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,” he said.

“I did not say anything like this. I never refer to Hinduism as anything essential. Ullrey explained that there are many Hinduisms, and there is no essential and ahistorical Hinduism”. “To note another line from my syllabus”, Ullrey stated, “Those many answers suggest Hinduism is no unified entity, and straightforward definitions are impossible. Hinduism is defined in many ways: the original religion of India, a spiritual path, a perfectly balanced way of life, a philosophical psychology, worship of Hindu gods, the path to liberation, a method for generating personal prosperity, rituals for good luck and warding of the inauspicious, caste and life-stages, the philosophy of yoga, temple actions, family ideology, and more. Privileging any of these declarations has profound implications.”

There is no essential Hinduism proposed in the course, for Hinduism is so vast that now version could encompass its richness. “The word “Hindu” is not found in the Vedas, or the Mahabharata, or the Puranas, which is surprising considering the prevalence of the term now. The specific term “Hindu” is not found in the inscriptional record, in which patrons declare affiliation with a specific deity (Saiva) or religious authority (Bauddha) and a king who might be considered Hindu by modern standards could call himself Son of the Gods (devaputra), but kings and patrons did not use the term Hindu to mark their identities.

“Linguistically, the term Hindu is derived from a Persian word to the people living around the river Sindh. The term Indus refers to those living in the Indus river regions. Both are geographic terms. One of the oldest and most complete dictionaries lists the word Hindu only three times, connects the word Hindu to the Persian Sindhu, and while Hindu-dharma and Hindu-sthana (place of the Hindus) are not from Sanskrit literary sources. Earlier Sanskrit dictionaries assert even less information. The definition of Hinduism that operates in the course and my work is “the religions of those who revere the Hindu gods.”

“In philological analysis, the term “Hindu” is not found widely in Sanskrit sources until the twentieth century, when it becomes an accepted term for a religious identity. While the term “Hindu” as a religious identity may not be ancient, the religion that worships the gods of Hinduism is undeniably ancient, belongs to South Asia, and organizes the lives of over a billion people worldwide”. Ullrey affirmed.

“The term “hindutva,” meaning Hindu-ness, was coined in 1922 by Vinayak Damodar Sarvarkar, a fascinating Hindu figure worth studying on his own in his own rich context, and it is used widely in contemporary political contexts. Arguing the Hindu religion is not a lived religion is against the very title of the course, “Lived Hindu Religion,” let alone the contents of this course, which focuses on the many ways Hindus live out and enact their ever-evolving Hinduisms.

“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. (ANI)