By not being allowed alternative coursework, the professor is already infringing on the student's religious values and beliefs. Further, the professor also is not exercising the pursuit of academic freedom because he has put an institutional restriction on the student. Instead of using the student's belief to enhance the teaching by showing his students that the exercise of one's freedom is paramount in a true democracy, the professor has shown an authoritative to the point of being dictatorial in nature. The form and substance of what academic freedom and freedom of religion truly mean are lost because the professor forced the hand of the student where the latter ended up choosing to drop from the course rather than do a coursework against his beliefs. Between the professor and the student, it is the student who has demonstrated the true meaning and value of what academic freedom should stand for.
By choosing the bitter choice of quitting rather than perform a work that contravenes one's religious values and beliefs,...
The reason being is that the professor can be liable for the curtailment or infringement of the student's exercise not only of academic freedom but freedom of religion as well. This is not an individualistic or selfish endeavor by the student but an action necessary to ensure that the value and belief protected in the nation's Constitution should never be put asunder by those (i.e. The professor) who chose to restrict them. There could never have been any lack of alternative coursework for the student to do and the professor could have chosen this option to prove that he himself stands steadfast in respecting individual rights and freedoms. The academic institution to which the professor teaches may also be held liable for the professor's action if it chooses not to support the student's stance. Thus the situation will end up with a negative chain reaction that sees an individual infringing on another's right and freedom and an organization supporting such curtailment. If this becomes the case, the student would be
suffering from an institutional affront because the grievance would not be rectified. The only alternative then is to take the matters to court in order to prove the importance of the exercise of one's right and freedom. This is not being done only for the student's sake but for the sake of all those who value the fundamental beliefs contained in the nation's Constitution.
