Scottsdale Community College professor Nicholas Damask has won in federal court after being sued by a student who claimed the Islamic terrorism portion of a world politics class violated his Constitutional rights. According to Judicial Watch, Damask has taught the course for over 20 years. He organizes the class into six modules that cover world politics. One of the modules spends time analyzing and defining Islamic terrorism. Students are also required to read excerpts from a book called “Future Jihad” written by Wahlid Phares, a Lebanese-born Middle East expert. Phares has worked with the U.S. departments of Justice, Defense, and State.
Mohammed Sabra sued the professor and the Maricopa County Community College District in June for violating his First Amendment right by claiming the course condemned his religion. In the complaint, filed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Sabra asked that Damask stop teaching the materials in question until they “do not have the primary effect of disapproving of Islam.” CAIR is a Muslim advocacy group that some argue have connections to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
In May Sabra posted quiz questions on social media and they were quickly shared among influencers. The quiz, according to AZ Central included statements such as “Contemporary terrorism is Islamic” and “Terrorism is justified within the context of Jihad in Islam.” Questions on the quiz included ones stating, “Where is terrorism encouraged in Islamic doctrine and law?” and “Who do Islamic terrorists strive to emulate?” The answer to the last question: the Prophet Muhammed. Sabra claims when he answered the questions according to his knowledge and belief of Islam, the answers were marked as incorrect. Damask defended the quiz saying that the purpose of the quiz was to discuss the motivation of terrorists, not whether something was right or wrong under Islamic doctrine.
When the initial lawsuit was brought up, Scottsdale Community College issued an apology. Chris Haines, SCC interim president, stated, “SCC senior leadership has reviewed the quiz questions and agrees with the student that the content was inaccurate, inappropriate, and not reflective of the inclusive nature of our college. SCC deeply apologizes to the student and to anyone in the broader community who was offended by the material.”
However, Damask refused to sign a prewritten apology and contacted a group called FIRE. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is a nonprofit group dedicated to defending rights such as freedom of speech and religion, due process, and legal equality at America’s colleges and universities. According to their website, FIRE’s mission is to “defend and sustain the individual rights of students and faculty members at America’s colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience—the essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates students, faculty, alumni, trustees, and the public about the threats to these rights on our campuses, and provides the means to preserve them.”
FIRE defended Damask and argued that the college was violating the professor’s rights to freedom of expression and academic freedom under both the First Amendment and Arizona law when they demanded he remove the content of his course and apologize. In a letter to SCC’s president, FIRE pointed out the school’s demands were inconsistent with the college’s First Amendment obligations and the basic tenets of academic freedom. “Further, the implication that Damask is being investigated by the college’s governing board will have an impermissible chilling effect on faculty expression and teaching,” FIRE argued.
Judge Susan Brnovich dismissed the lawsuit against the professor and the school. In the ruling Judge Brnovich stated that a curriculum that “merely conflicts with a student’s religious beliefs does not violate the Free Exercise Clause.” The ruling also states, “Examing the course as a whole, a reasonable, objective observer would conclude that the teaching’s primary purpose was not the inhibition of religion. The offending component was only a part of one-sixth of the course and taught in the context of explaining terrorism. One aspect of terrorism is Islamic terrorism. Only in picking select quotes from the course can one describe the module as anti-Muslim. Dr. Damask also quotes Peter Bergen for the view that the terrorist threat comes from radical terrorist groups that represent a “twisted” variant of Islam as a whole. Thus, the court finds that the primary effect of Dr. Damask’s course is not the inhibition of the practice of Islam.”
