Dr. Renu Khator, President, University of Houston/Chancellor, U.H. System
Dr. Diane Z. Chase, Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost

Dear President Khator,

As an Emeritus Professor of Physics and former Dean of the College of Science, Engineering, and Technology, I write to you with both respect for the foundational principle of academic freedom and a deep concern about its possible misuse within your institution.

As you already know, the course Lived Hindu Religion, taught by Dr. Aaron Michael Ullrey, has raised serious concerns when a student complained about it to the College Dean. In my informed opinion, it is a case of scholarly overreach, religious misrepresentation, and the undermining of cultural sensitivity which was dismissed under the cover of academic freedom. While Dr. Ullrey identifies as a specialist in South Asian ritual and magic traditions, his application of this expertise to contemporary Indian politics, particularly labeling Prime Minister Narendra Modi a “Hindu fundamentalist,” is both analytically inappropriate and potentially inflammatory.

Religious studies, when taught responsibly, provide critical insight into diverse traditions. But when a course purporting to explore lived Hindu practice crosses into politicized interpretations and uncontextualized assertion, such as depicting Hinduism as a political tool for repression, it risks alienating an entire faith community globally and inappropriately educating students at the UH.

President Khator, no one knows better than you that the interdisciplinary nature of courses is commonplace in academia. However, the course in question is not. If the course is centered on political Hinduism or Hindutva, one must ask: does the instructor have the scholarly qualifications in political science to make such claims? If not, Dr. Ullery’s commentary on current Indian leadership falls outside the purview of his expertise.

Academic freedom does not give anyone a license to insert ideology under the guise of scholarship. The term “fundamentalism” may serve an analytical role, but when selectively applied to the elected leader of the world’s largest democracy—without historical or comparative context—it dangerously echoes prejudices and contributes to what many are now calling “Hinduphobia.”

President Khator, you are no stranger to the richness of Indian religious traditions or the political complexities of the subcontinent. More importantly, you know what Houston represents. This city hosted the historic Howdy Modi event. The then sitting U.S. President Trump welcomed India’s Prime Minister Modi before a stadium of over 50,000 people, many of them proud Indian Americans and Houstonians. That same community looks to the University of Houston not just as an academic center of excellence but a proud institution teaching civility and good citizenship.

For this reason, the perception—or reality—of Hinduphobia emerging from within UH is not a small matter. It touches the hearts and identities of thousands of students, faculty, and families. Decidedly, the matter has reached far beyond Houston, with print and social media making headlines in India and the U.S. UH must not become a place where Hinduism is misunderstood, mischaracterized, or politicized under the pretext of scholarly inquiry and dismissed as merely academic freedom.

Therefore, I respectfully urge the following measured actions with relative swiftness to minimize further erosion of UH's reputation:

Commission an external review of the course content by respected and independent scholars of Hinduism. Names such as Rajiv Malhotra, Kalyan Viswanathan, and Fred Stella come to mind as measured, credible voices.
Temporarily suspend or reassign the course until that review is completed to protect academic integrity and community trust.
Engage directly with the student(s) who raised concerns, honoring their cultural sensitivity rather than minimizing it.
Avoid the blanket invocation of “academic freedom” in place of real accountability. Freedom in academia must coexist with precision, transparency, and care.
In today’s climate under President Trump’s leadership, even a perceived act of antisemitism on campus is being met with strong and swift action. The same standard must apply to all faith traditions, including Hinduism. The appearance of cultural or religious bias—even unintended—requires honest reflection and meaningful steps forward. It is my informed view that the instructor in question displayed intentional bias toward Hinduism and India’s Prime Minister.

UH’s commitment to respecting the cultural and ethnic mix of students and global engagement must be reflected not only in celebration, but in pedagogy. Please consider this moment not as a challenge to academic inquiry but as an opportunity to lead with integrity and rebuild confidence among those who, like the student who raised the issue, feel unheard and uncared.

I would be looking forward to your response in this matter of serious concern in which academic freedom is claimed unjustifiably.

 

Respectfully,
Vijendra Agarwal, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of Physics
Former Dean, College of Science, Engineering, and Technology