Nearly 300 Scholars Declare They Will Not Engage With the University of Illinois

Layman, the logical consequence of your observation is that we need employment safeguards for non-academics to be extended. Perhaps an Employee’s Bill Of Rights. Managerial abuse by employers is rampant: it is not necessary to good business any more than sexual abuse is.

Pointing out that academics have it better than others can be taken as implying that academics should have less, when instead everybody else could have more.

Note that in a number of states, employees have statutory protection for certain outside-of-work activities:

New York Labor Law § 201-d( 2):

Unless otherwise provided by law, it shall be unlawful for any employer or employment agency to refuse to hire, employ or license, or to discharge from employment or otherwise discriminate against an individual in compensation, promotion or terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of:
a. an individual’s political activities [defined elsewhere] outside of working hours, off of the employer’s premises and without use of the employer’s equipment or other property, if such activities are legal …;
b. an individual’s legal use of consumable products prior to the beginning or after the conclusion of the employee’s work hours, and off of the employer’s premises and without use of the employer’s equipment or other property;
c. an individual’s legal recreational activities outside work hours, off of the employer’s premises and without use of the employer’s equipment or other property …

California Labor Code § 1101:

No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:
(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.
(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-402.5(1):

It shall be a discriminatory or unfair employment practice for an employer to terminate the employment of any employee due to that employee’s engaging in any lawful activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours unless such a restriction:
(a) Relates to a bona fide occupational requirement or is reasonably and rationally related to the employment activities and responsibilities of a particular employee or a particular group of employees, rather than to all employees of the employer; or
(b) Is necessary to avoid a conflict of interest with any responsibilities to the employer or the appearance of such a conflict of interest.

@2 & 3

Indeed I think everyone else could have more. And in fact, my livelihood is quite dependent on my speech, to the extent that it enhances / detracts from my credibility; or creates opportunities for or obstacles to good relationships with co-workers and industry peers. I’m sure that’s true of lots of people. Why should burger-slingers be afraid of professing political views in public, while university professors are free to say what they will? This particular example is especially pointed, because burger-slingers are arguably much less able to defend what rights they do have than are university professors, and of course much more at risk economically.

And not just their livelihood (as in their income), their contribution to society. One of the key reasons we even hire professors in the first place is to comment on society and challenge orthodoxy from a position of expertise.

Have you read Salaita’s Twitter messages?

The notion that posting something off-the-cuff, vulgar, and vicious on Twitter is a breach of social decorum … well, maybe I’m just following the wrong peeps, but I find it laughable, as I do anyone arguing that notion.

It’s possible to go too far – had Salaita been posting personal, harassing attacks on female students, say, this story might be less egregious – but the general notion of “fuck Israel and every Jew who supports it,” which not one I personally concur with, is not particularly shocking.

The notion that posting something off-the-cuff, vulgar, and vicious on Twitter is a breach of social decorum

Well, I’ll suggest an experiment. Try posting about African-Americans in the same way (frequently, hostilely, with heavy reference to historic racist tropes) as Salaita posted about Jews, and let me know how that works out for you.

People do it all the time, Sam.

But I will follow with interest links to Salaita’s attacking Jews qua Jews, without any context limiting his ire to Israel and its policies.

SamChevre’s equivalence could work only if there was a country in which A) African-Americans were in power and B) they violated the rights of and/or committed atrocities against non-African-Americans, and C) criticisms of African-American rule were routinely met with accusations of anti-African American racism.

I suppose one could argue Liberia at times has met conditions A and B, although not C. A statement along the lines of “If objecting to Charles Taylor’s rule makes me a racist, I’m proud to be a racist” would get you some funny looks, but I think you’d be able to get by OK.

Actually, I was thinking of something along these lines; or these; or these; or these.

18: Uh, wait – I thought we were talking about Salaita?

Regardless: judges have a canon of judicial conduct, and NBA owners sign a contract obliging them to meet certain arbitrary standards.

But now I see that you were simply changing the subject.

“There are multiple grave questions about responsibility that this raises …”

That is not, I thought, the subject of Robin’s post. The subject of the post is advocacy for the professor’s having been done wrong by the university.

I’m not so sure Salaita acted in “reasonable reliance” on the offer as expressed. Essentially Dorf seems to be claiming that Salaita was told that Board approval is a “rubber stamp”, and that therefore Salaita reasonably quit his job and prepared to move in reliance on the offer.

The idea that it’s reasonable to rely on such a statement is not as obvious to me as Dorf seems to think. And matters may become even more complicated in considering what Salaita is entitled to even if he did reasonably rely on what was, clearly, a false statement by someone (an authorized someone?) at Illinois. Incidentally, has Salaita attempted to rescind his resignation from Virginia Tech?

Even assuming that this is an instance where Salaita would be entitled to compensation under a promissory estoppel theory, it’s a true stretch to claim that the Board’s decision not to hire Salaita violated his First Amendment rights given the nature of some of those tweets.

In short, I’m unwilling to sign a petition in support of two dubious legal theories (which no one could verify as credible without a fair amount of research or pre-existing background in the applicable areas of Illinois and federal caselaw) applied to a set of facts of which key details appear to be unverified.

It’s a bit remarkable to me that so many others are willing to make such a leap of faith.

Andrew F. @23
Essentially Dorf seems to be claiming that Salaita was told that Board approval is a “rubber stamp”, and that therefore Salaita reasonably quit his job and prepared to move in reliance on the offer.

Well, his start date, as js. pointed out on a previous thread, was *before* the date of the Board mtg. Does that sound like the Bd approval might have been a rubber stamp or prof forma? In a word, yes.

In short, I’m unwilling to sign a petition in support of two dubious legal theories (which no one could verify as credible without a fair amount of research or pre-existing background in the applicable areas of Illinois and federal caselaw) applied to a set of facts of which key details appear to be unverified.

Who cares whether the rescission violated contract law or the First Amendment? I really don’t. Let’s stipulate purely for the sake of argument that it violated neither. The question then becomes, apart from legalities, whether it was justifiable to rescind the offer b.c of what he wrote on twitter. Though I haven’t read the whole twitter feed, I have seen what I believe are the most controversial tweets, and I am far from convinced that someone shd be ‘dehired’ for writing what he wrote on twitter. There is simply no good justification for it — a good justification wd have to be rooted in a claim that this affects his teaching and/or performance of his other academic duties. But presumably his entire prior record ie at VTech (or wherever he was) is a better indication of how he wd act than an intemperate twitter feed.

J Thomas,
This (your 28) is either intended to be taken somewhat tongue-in-cheek or, more likely, you’ve descended to the level of trolling reached by someone who is simply determined to have an argument b.c he thinks it’s fun, or something.

Salaita is not someone newly entering the academy. He has been a professor. He has a record. Is there evidence of his having discriminated, in terms of grading or otherwise, against students who disagree with him? Not that I’ve seen mentioned. That’s why I said his record is a better indication of how he would act than a Twitter feed. Nothing you’ve said persuades me otherwise.

After reading three posts here on this issue, I can no longer resist adding my anecdote, about the only time I tried to blackball a person interviewing for a job at General Electric.

The applicant had been interviewed by JW in the morning, and given a tour of the factory. My friend Mario and I were assigned to baby-sit him through lunch at a local restaurant, then deliver him back to a manager’s office in the plant. We didn’t consider ourselves a formal part of the interview process and just made casual conversation and answered any questions he had. Still there was a one-page assessment form which we had to fill out afterwards. Without conferring at all with each other, we both put down, “Don’t hire this guy!” and walked the form to the hiring manager’s office.

A couple weeks later, to our surprise, he showed up at work (and within about six months was subject to disciplinary action). Meanwhile, Mario and I had discussed our conclusions (we each noticed something different at the lunch) so I asked the manager why in the world he hired the guy. He replied, “JW had already given him an okay and we had made him an offer, before I saw your forms. We couldn’t take it back.”

Whether that was due to NYS law, GE policy, or just the right thing to do, I don’t know.

I don’t think Salaita should have been fired.

I do wish academics would elevate the social media discourse by avoiding “#f*ck…” whatever it is they’re angry about… that kind of social media activity does tend to get anyone in any other professional field fired. Israel/Hamas/Gaza is a very complicated issue; micro-blogging probably not the best way to communicate the nuances.

Bruce Wilder @ 17, that NR writer will likely be promoted, alas.

I don’t comment much on the political blogs I read anymore because the emotional sense of right and wrong always dominates and is really only consistent with the commenters’ own experiences and closely held ( learned?) beliefs , but some things are just obvious. Killing non-combatants at a ratio of easily 10 to 1 then telling the world it was their fault because “yada yada yada (supply some bullshit excuse)” is depraved, despicable and indefensible. This, quite apart from the occupation of Gaza to start with.
If the prof had expressed himself as I have instead of this less temperate and more directly emotional tweets, I don’t think the U of Ill would have thought they could rescind w/o consequences. However… he was mad as hell and hit the send button so what would have once been the kind of thing he would have exclaimed to whoever was at hand and not a out-to-the-world pronouncement has put him in hot water. Happens to athletes all the time.
I believe he is absolutely right in sentiments about Israel but he is teacher ,and I think a teacher is a better teacher if he is temperate and deliberate in his passion. It is less easy for truth to siderailed by arguments that really are about delivery.
(And I, once an Obama supporter, remember commenting all over the place “Fuck Obama!!” after his reversible on FISA, so , it happens …)

Corey, yes, I see what you mean about my original comment. I wrote it thinking about both Dorf’s arguments and the legal issues surrounding the Board’s action generally, and at best I did not clearly communicate my thoughts. Fair enough. So let me clarify that I’m unwilling to sign a petition which relies on a legal characterization of facts when both the merits of any legal theories in support of that characterization, and certain key facts themselves, are unclear. And I continue to find it remarkable that many would make such a leap.

LFC re: “pro forma” in this case though may really mean “usually the Board approves, but they have the final word.” And in that case, Board approval isn’t “just a formality.” Nor am I trying to misconstrue any of the issues here; I’m merely attempting to explain my perspective.

@4: Thanks for posting those, as someone who supervises people in California I’m a bit embarrassed to say I didn’t know we had protections for politics in state law. (Most people assume they are there in federal law, which is not the case.)

Layman @7: I’d disagree these are moot points in at will employment situations. If anything, that’s where they are most useful–they prevent you from signing away all protections and your employer from getting cases dismissed out of hand. In larger corporations, these exceptions to “at will” makes senior people realize some mid-level manager with delusions of grandeur could cost them money by firing on a whim, and leads to formal termination policies.

What Main Street Muse said.

Andrew F.@44: As several people have been pointing out, academic hiring has some special issues. The schedule of the board of trustees doesn’t match up with the academic schedule. If a university hires someone, it generally needs them to be there at the beginning of the academic year in order to start teaching. They can’t generally wait for one of the board’s infrequent meetings. That’s why board approval is considered pro forma. The board isn’t tied to the day to day schedule of the university, and in return they keep their hands out of day to day keep-the-university-running issues.

#48 Andrew F.

But I haven’t seen a persuasive (to me) argument that the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor should not consider Salaita’s tweets; nor have I seen a persuasive argument that the nature of the tweets doesn’t furnish acceptable grounds for not hiring someone as a tenured professor

Ah. Well, basicly, he should have academic freedom and he didn’t say anything wrong or anything he shouldn’t say.

How’s that?

@Consum: See University of Illinois Board of Trustees Schedule for specifics. In general, apparently, the Board of Trustees meets every other month, generally on a Thursday, at one of the three University of Illinois campuses, according to the Board’s website.

@51, So why did whoever made the decision here wait until August to decide they weren’t going to recommend Salaita to the meeting in September, when apparently the Board met plenty of times before that? This makes UI look worse, not better.

These norms are what Phyllis Wise violated, and why folks are signing on to various statements – this is not a gray area. In particular it’s unbelievable to hire a tenured person away from another institution, and then change your mind shortly before the start date and nine months after the formal offer. You don’t do that to people.

But they did.

Probably the Chancellor got rattled because she was suddenly up against a strong Zionist presence that would call her an antisemite if she didn’t retract the offer.

Here’s the link: http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/10/02/alan-dershowitz-takes-stand/rNOTHf630guTQBrMTuUSNO/story.html.

Most academics I know are very careful before they get tenure and are holding their breath until the last t is crossed — usually by the Board or President. And then they act like they have tenure. I’m not a mind reader, but Salaita acted like he had tenure when, at least from UIUC’s perspective, he didn’t. People assume stuff all the time. Is there some implicit agreement that once he had signed the offer letter that the execution by the Board was pro forma? A lot of people on the thread think so. You do. But we’ll have to wait and see what the courts say if this isn’t settled outside of court. I do think once the Board had signed off, he’d be hard to touch. And the U probably thinks so too.

> That’s probably because you don’t know a lot about the structure of your legal system: promissory estoppal is as central and as clear a part of the law as the concept of going to court to get someone to carry out their obligations under a contract.

Are you a lawyer? I’m not, but have always thought that promissory estoppal was far less entrenched in time (since the 30’s, maybe), jurisdiction (i.e. not even all U.S), and interpretation (what’s a promise? When is reliance significant enough?). And to be entrenched as the basic idea of getting a court to enforce performance under a contract?!? I’d defer to a real lawyer’s opinion but this sounds astoundingly just-made-up to me.

Is there some implicit agreement that once he had signed the offer letter that the execution by the Board was pro forma?

Oh my. Look, I get that arguing with someone being as deliberately obtuse as you is certainly an exercise in futility, but which part of the scheduled start date was before the Board meeting are you having so much difficulty with? Or to put the point another way, how many times in your life have you started working someplace before you actually had a job there? CR’s @59 more than covers this, of course, but that seems to have whizzed right by you (as I imagine this will too).

Corey, I’m not sure what the University of Illinois’s procedures are for such cases. Presumably he’s given an interim appointment, receiving compensation in accordance with the terms. If he did not receive tenure while there, then I would guess that his employment would end at the close of the year. But these are all questions someone should ask in those circumstances, rather than merely assuming that he will be granted tenure.

I’d add that nothing was “overturned.” That phrasing indicates that an effective decision was made to grant tenure, and that the decision was then later reversed. But in fact that’s not what happened.

The continued use of phrasing like that, and Colin Danby’s comment, indicate to me that outrage about this affair hinges on a conception of events in which Salaita was effectively hired, and then fired; that a deal was struck, and then was by the University broken.

But none of these things is the case here. The tenure process seems to vary by institution – I wonder if Virginia Tech has a different process, which may have contributed to Salaita’s misunderstanding – but the process at the University of Illinois seems clear enough to be understood by anyone who reads the relevant material.

We’re going around in circles. The question is whether the offer is contingent on Board approval and whether that approval is pro forma. Board approval is required as stated in the letter. Board approval for tenure is not pro forma. It remains an open question for new hires, esp. w/tenure. whether Board approval is pro forma. Unless someone shows up with a definitive legal interpretation, the legal status of the offer is an open question.

As to whether people move and accept jobs without final approval, the answer is yes, all the time, at least back in the day. Federal gov’t agencies and commissions often made offers for temp positions with the understanding that they would become permanent but the hire was w/o guarantees. (This is NOT the fed one year tenure requirement for permanent employees — there’s that too.) These were positions for PhDs. People took these jobs all the time.

This is no doubt an awful situation for Salaita since he already had tenure before he resigned his position. But he thought he had a job he may not have had. And my guess is that AAUP will work very hard to make sure this doesn’t happen again or at least the membership is aware that hiring decisions can be like tenure decisions.

A lot of the discussion on the thread involves the conflict between Salaita and the UIUC administration which is not a surprise given the academic nature of the hosts. I think you need to go beyond that in the context of a flagship public university. And not just some general Zionist blah blah blah, but the relationship of the school and regents to the governor, legislature, alumni, parents, etc. As noted, above, the norms are in flux.

Colin Danby @61:

That’s a great piece — thanks.

js.

The last sentence of the first paragraph of the Salaita letter states:

“This recommendation for appointment is subject to approval by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois.”

I guess UIUC just threw that whole “recommendation for appointment” thing in there for color. Obviously doesn’t mean a thing. Just sounded kind of snappy. How many job offers have you received that say you’ve been recommended rather than hired?

So hold your breath until you turn blue, disparage the integrity of those you disagree with, and wallow in your own self-righteousness. Cause, of course, that’s the appropriate response to an unsettled legal question in Illinois labor law. I’m sure AAUP will be making the best legal arguments on behalf of Salaita if it gets that far. I’m sure that the UIUC will do the same. My guess is that it settles.

how many times in your life have you [or for that matter, anyone you know] started working someplace before you [or they] actually had a job there?

I did.

I was at loose ends, and a friend who was working on her doctorate found it wouldn’t be ready in time for the start of the school year. She asked me to take her teaching job at a small college for a year while she finished up. The job would start almost immediately. I interviewed with them, and they wanted me, but the president was out of town. The first day of school their brand-new department chairman did not show up. He had taken a better-paying job somewhere else and did not tell them until they called and asked. So without me there were only two teachers in the whole department. I started teaching, and after a week or so the president arrived and signed the contract. I wasn’t particularly worried that he wouldn’t. I wouldn’t have minded that much either — it wasn’t all that much money and I might have done better to look for something different.

And, back in the day, I took a temp job at the gov’t with with assurances but no guarantee of a permanent position.

Not the same thing. You knew you had a temp job, and you knew you might or might not get a “permanent” job. (Which usually doesn’t mean that much any more.)

In my case the college president could theoretically have decided not to hire me, and had campus security escort me off the property with the warning never to come back, without paying me for the week of teaching I’d already done. Of course he wouldn’t, but probably legally he *could* have. And that did happen to Salaita, though he didn’t actually start teaching first. But if it worked the way everybody (probably) expected it to when they offered him the job, he would have.

On the other hand it’s possible that he was offered the job with no actual intention that he would get it, entirely so he would lose the job he already had at Virginia Tech. To make sure people know they can’t get away with criticizing Israel.

Obviously doesn’t mean a thing.

It may well not, you know. There’s lots of stuff that people put into contracts that the courts — for various reasons — simply ignore.

Bianca @71: I would guess that they want the potential hire’s agreement on the terms before it’s presented to the Board for approval.

That may be so. It may even be the case that there are other industries where it’s usual to send people letters that say they’ve been offered a position, when in fact the offer hasn’t yet happened. In my experience, an offer will not be made until everyone from HR to Legal to the CEO has signed off, if it’s felt that’s necessary. Contingent on a reference check, in some places, maybe, where credit checks and so on are becoming customary–I could see that, you wouldn’t want to do credit checks until the very last minute. But if there’s a gap of months between the offer and when he was supposed to start work, this wasn’t a last-minute situation like @76, anyone would expect the university to plan to have the offer considered in that time. But in this case they waited almost a year, until only a few weeks before classes were to start (and apparently if the board had considered the offer, it would have been several weeks after classes started). Presumably they printed a course catalog, assigned a classroom, and let students register. Presumably there was correspondence between Salaita and his department in the past year, discussing his courses and administrative matters. Presumably he got budget line-items and an office and a mailbox. Was all of that activity unauthorized by the Board and thus not actually done by the University? (No matter how disorganized the university is, there’s a limit to how much they can decline to solidify once students are actually on campus.)

OTOH the only issue I see that’s affected by whether or not he was “hired”–other than whether he can sue, like a normal person–is whether he had tenure at UIUC before all this happened.

@80 & @81
I think that he can sue and let the courts decide if he was hired with tenure. My guess is that both parties will want to settle. The language in the letter looks pretty strong and the need for final Board approval might be in the charter or by-laws of the U. On the other hand, the timing of the decision may cut against the U. The circumstances of this case were idiosyncratic to say the least. However, I’m not sanguine that VT will rehire Salaita given both the school and state politics. That’s the rub.

I was being sarcastic in @74. Upon rereading @75, it seems that the the sarcasm was lost on js. Just to be clear, the letter plainly said that the offer was contingent on Board approval, that language was not there for “color”, it obviously meant something, i.e. what it said, and it wasn’t included to be snappy. So much for sarcasm on the internet. I should have known better…

bianca @81 and T@83:

bianca, if there were additional communications between Salaita and the University that would change a reasonable person’s beliefs as to whether Board approval was required, then Salaita might have a case for compensation in some form.

I’d be curious to know when he sent in the various forms required for processing, and any additional communications he had with the University regarding the upcoming year.

I’d also be curious to know if the University of Illinois actually allows someone to join the faculty at all, interim basis or not, without Board approval. Depending on that answer, the “effective date” of his hire would be contingent on Board action as well.

Obviously there’s a lot that we don’t know.

T, I’d think there would be a lot of pressure on VT to reinstate him. And actually that would be a petition I’d be willing to sign (which I’m sure makes all the difference to VT).

bianca, if there were additional communications between Salaita and the University that would change a reasonable person’s beliefs as to whether Board approval was required, then Salaita might have a case for compensation in some form.

Prevailing academic norms (which might alter what it’s reasonable for Salaita to expect or rely on), UI’s status as a public university, and the timing might also give Salaita a legal case for compensation. Maybe.

Of course, if that legal case is never brought forward or fails, that would have nothing to do with the question of whether this is the way a school should act, and how other members of the community should treat this school for acting this way. A T said, “norms are in flux” (when aren’t they?), and that’s exactly the time to fight hardest for what the norms should be.

Prevailing academic norms (which might alter what it’s reasonable for Salaita to expect or rely on), UI’s status as a public university, and the timing might also give Salaita a legal case for compensation. Maybe.

Andrew F has it arse-backwards. http://www.hg.org/agency-law.html Random google [but this is pretty standard and uncontroversial]

If the principal either knowingly or mistakenly, authorizes the agent or others to assume that the agent holds authority to carry out specific actions when such authority does not exist, this is known as apparent authority. If other persons believe in good faith that such right exists, the principal remains liable for the agent’s actions and is unable to rely on the defense that no actual authority was established. […] If it so happens that the agent exceeded his or her authority by entering into the contract, the agent is then financially responsible to the principal for failing to uphold the fiduciary duty.

For extra irony I looked for the equivalent page on uni of illinois website, but it took longer than 30sec so I got bored.

@89 You might be right that those things make the norms weaker, and the prevailing norms might not actually prevail in this case, but I don’t think any of those things can actually change the content of the norm. The norm of Academic Freedom still is what it is, it’s just a question of whether enough people follow it or not. It doesn’t make logical sense to say “professors are lefties now, therefore it’s okay to send them (conditional) offer letters then dismiss them weeks before the term starts”.

I do concede that that might be exactly what ends up happening, de jure. However, whatever UI ultimately does the norm is already somewhat reinforced by all the scholars signing non-engagement letters–other schools now have to consider whether they want to find themselves in a situation like UI finds itself in.

Collin Street: I linked to the correspondence between Salaita and the University @45, and I then further quoted the relevant part of the Illinois statute @49. You may want to take a look at those.

The problem they pose isn’t that the Dean didn’t have actual authority. The problem is that the need for Board approval is stated in:

(1) the letter itself,
(2) the excerpts of the general terms that were enclosed with the letter, and
(3) the statutes that those general terms explicitly direct the potential employee to.

They all clearly state that the Board of Trustees must approve any appointment. They were all communicated to Salaita, and he further indicated by signature that he agreed with them.

So to the extent Salaita entered into any contract at all, he entered into one with those terms – which would make this an option contract (again, assuming a contract was formed at all, which for various reasons I doubt).

J Thomas@85: The pressure would largely be out of sympathy for Salaita’s situation. If he did resign over a misunderstanding of the terms of Illinois’s proposed appointment, and if Illinois’s handling exacerbated the consequences of that misunderstanding, then the decent thing to do would be to allow him to be reinstated. It would be a terrible thing for him and his family were he to lose a tenured position over this.

I’m someone who thinks Salaita’s tweets were sometimes childish and sometimes disgusting; and I think Israel’s military actions against Hamas probably were within the bounds of proportionality. But I’d also encourage VT to reinstate him, and I suspect that if I feel that way, I’m not alone.

T @89: I agree re politics, but I also think there would be a lot of sympathy for Salaita at all levels of the administration. My hunch is that they would want to reinstate him. No idea as to what the politics of this would be to the governor or members of the board of visitors, but it may be an issue of little importance.

It may be best that the whole thing happen quietly, or that, perhaps, VT were to just discover that Salaita’s resignation wasn’t “fully finalized.” Perhaps a key individual or entity hasn’t yet had a chance to review and acknowledge the resignation (there being so many other pressing matters, of course), giving Salaita time to rescind it. No one need stick his neck out for him, in that case. No one need take responsibility for reinstating him. Just a bureaucratic quirk, a strange but implacable result of lots of rules and procedures. These things happen. Nothing anyone can do I’m afraid. Oh well.

(And they see academics themselves only selectively supporting academic freedom — see BDS and the reaction of the AUPP (and the like of Stanley Fish) who saw the slippery slope.)

I would agree with most of your post, but it’s certainly not a matter of logic that because a norm permits boycotting an institution because of the politics of the country the university resides in, it must also permit an institution to fire (or to do what UI did) to a professor because of political statements the professor made. (Ultimately, how exactly is academia supposed to uphold these norms, when they extend beyond law, other than by disengagement with those who violate them?)

A good way to weaken a norm is to let Stanley Fish define it. I don’t know what Fish has to say about Salaita, but it seems by the logic of this piece back in 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/opinion/23fish.html , firing Salaita for offensive tweets would have nothing to do with academic freedom, whether or not Salaita had tenure.

@94

I will take issue with with the notion that an academic boycott as opposed to an economic boycott is consistent with the past norm of “academic freedom.” I thought, for example, the South African boycott excluded an academic boycott. (I recall from reading AAUP materials about BDS)

Fish’s discussion regarding academic freedom is linked below. He is a very strong defender of the norm and worries that that BDS is yet another problem undermining the norm in the public’s eye. (I did not give it a very close reading but one his main points is that nothing is more important to a professor qua professor than the norm of academic freedom.)

I don’t want to turn this thread into a BDS discussion and my parenthetical reference was one point among several. But I think it contributes to the changing context of how the public views “academic freedom” who who receives the benefits. And it’s not good.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/28/academic-freedom-against-itself-boycotting-israeli-universities/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/opinion/fish-boycotting-israeli-universities-part-two.html?pagewanted=all

Ultimately, how exactly is academia supposed to uphold these norms, when they extend
beyond law, other than by disengagement with those who violate them?

That is the question, isn’t it? Shouldn’t disengagement be a last resort, especially in the context of the broader society? Ultimately, it’s society’s support that’s needed to uphold a norm that extends beyond the law. And in an era where primary school teachers are being striped of tenure, getting the public’s support is key. First they came for the kindergarten teachers…

And while I know the philosopher’s, poly sci, etc. boycott of UIUC is to put pressure on the UIUC administration to hire Salaita, boycotting the innocents in the targeted UIUC departments has some awful parallels.

I was being sarcastic in @74. Upon rereading @75, it seems that the the sarcasm was lost on js.

The sarcasm’s fine. It’s the fact that your argument is question-begging that’s the problem.

Oh, I don’t doubt that lots of professors use their academic freedom in ways that make the academy less popular. But it doesn’t make sense to give up academic freedom in order to preserve academic freedom.

When groups of academics collectively use their power to limit others academic freedom that invites forces outside the academy to do the same.

Well, no. Academics basicly have a union, and they want their employers not to limit the freedom of members of the union. Their unions have a right to take a stand on international relations if they can agree enough to do that. It does not violate anybody’s academic freedom when universities do BDS against Israel.

If a union takes a stand on a political issue, does that invite people who aren’t part of the union to attack the union? I guess maybe. I guess people who disagree with the unions’ politics will try to get unions shut down, change the laws so unions can’t function. If it becomes illegal for academics to take any collective action, that would certainly affect their relations with administration.

It changes the norm of what academic freedom means. Academic boycotts can do that I think the reaction of AAUP to the BDS academic boycott reflects that fact.

I dunno.

And AAUP seems to be is doing everything it can to help Salaita.

What I’ve seen, is Cary Nelson has done everything he personally can do against BDS, and he’s done everything he personally can do against Salaita. AAUP looks like it’s breaking against him on Salaita, and it probably hasn’t made up its mind about BDS one way or another.

UIUC might be on more solid ground if they actually do present Salaita’s appointment to the Board and then watch the Board vote it down. But that would give them even more bad publicity. At this point anything they do is wrong. If they change their minds and accept Salaita, it will outrage zionists. But if they don’t it will enrage everybody else who’s paying attention. So their obvious goal is to try to get fewer people to pay attention.

#104 – “Academics basicly have a union, and they want their employers not to limit the freedom of members of the union.”

No union of professors could ever be powerful enough to impose the norm of academic freedom on any university.

AF is a norm because there’s a broad consensus among elites that it’s a social good. We believe that more AF means more knowledge. So when professors act like juvenile hotheads in a way that contributes nothing to the dissemination of knowledge, they erode support for AF.

The AAUP used to recognize this, as in the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure (still the bedrock document on AF):

“College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.”

Did Salaita “remember” these things? He didn’t come close. He ranted without restraint in a way that showed no respect for the opinions of others. He embarrassed the hell out his new institution and caused it no end of difficulty.

And for what? Did he discover Michael Mann’s hockey stick? Did he make an important and controversial contribution to our historical understanding of Israel/Palestine, like Segev’s One Palestine, Complete or Shlaim’s The Iron Wall? No, he spent 10 seconds tweeting some stuff that’s no different from what thousands of other people are tweeting. Society gets plenty of this level of debate without the need to give academics special protection for it.

But what about tenure? Unlike AF, tenure is a contractual right. Which is why this debate is turning on whether Salaita had a job or only the prospect of a job. If I had to bet based on what I know now, I’d bet he will lose – courts are extremely deferential to written disclaimers even when faced with sympathetic plaintiffs, and he isn’t one. I think a court will look at Salaita and say (1) he had no contract, and (2) thank God the university got rid of this hothead.

And then there’s the 1st A issue. Because UI is a public university, the 1st A protects its employees. So Salaita can claim that the withdrawal of the offer – even if he didn’t have a job yet – is illegal retribution for his exercise of free speech. I expect he’ll lose this argument, too – the court will decide the tweets demonstrate his unfitness for teaching and evaluating the work of students (his “awful human being” tweet will sink him) and that he is not being punished for his views but due to a decision that he is not qualified for the job.

It’s a shame that Salaita has become the poster boy for AF. True scholars like Mann could not do their brilliant work without it. Fools like Salaita are hurting AF and helping its enemies.

I agree that the norms of academic freedom make it impossible to prevent academics from undermining the norms of academic freedom.

Linus Pauling was free to make chemists look like idiots with his vitamin C quackery. Michael Levin is free to argue that African-Americans are genetically inferior. Etc. But the point of academic freedom is not to protect stupidity, racism, and boorishness.

AF is a supremely important social norm. There are a lot of academics whose work wouldn’t be possible if it weren’t for AF’s protections from powerful forces – people working in climate change, and in fields like the effectiveness of drugs and medical devices; health insurance and health care delivery; primary and secondary education and testing; and, without doubt, Israel/Palestine (e.g., Juan Cole).

And sometimes a norm requires you to protect an undeserving person for the greater good. But every time that happens, the norm is weakened, and at some point people will say, this norm is not working.

Salaita had the full protection of academic freedom for his academic work. His book “Israel’s Dead Soul” is incredibly provocative, and UI didn’t mind that. But the tweets are not academic work. They’re just ranting.

I feel the same way about the biology professor PZ Myers, who teaches at a public liberal arts university in Minnesota and spends a lot of time on atheism advocacy. He would probably lose his job if it weren’t for AF. I believe that his atheism work is a public good, but I think that sometimes when he’s intentionally offensive (for example when he gleefully destroyed a consecrated Roman Catholic host – a cracker, as he put it) he’s stepping over a line. Not one that should have consequences for him, but one that damages the norm of academic freedom.

If the Gaza events had happened three months from now, Salaita’s contract would have been final, his tweets would have been protected, and UI would have had to put up with him. But I expect what will happen is that they will manage to cut him loose. He will have destroyed his own career and damaged the norm of AF in the process. He’s a fool, and it’s a shame that the protection of his stupidity and arrogance is the focus of a protest in favor of academic freedom.

105/108/109

Yes to 109 where several commentators, including myself, have concluded that Salaita would be fine if he already had tenure.

No to 106. BDS as voted by the ASA prevents Israeli gov’t associated academics (deans, institute head, other scholar/administrators, cental bankers, etc.) from participating in ASA events, prevents joint conferences, etc. This is no small issue in the natural sciences and medicine where Nobel-winning and similar distinguished academics head gov’t sponsored institutes participate in research and speak at conferences. That can be a big deal and an academic burden for scholars in that area. From what I’ve seen, most of the sentiments in that community are strongly against an academic boycott as a matter of academic freedom. The ASA has added language that exempts the boycott against individual scholar-to-scholar research such ASA think their boycott is purely symbolic, with the ASA recognizing, in my view, that if it did involuntarily stop academic cooperation between members of the association and Israeli scholars it would be a restraint of academic freedom. Well it would do that and it is a restraint. So, I think there is a difference between an individual and collective boycott (where collective includes minority opposition.) And it appears that is recognized by the some of the folks that actually interact with Israeli scholars — scientists and doctors.

I would agree that a collective shouldn’t prohibit voluntary cooperation between any two individuals, but I don’t think that implies that the collective is obligated by AF to invite everyone to events, conference, etc. They shouldn’t block it, but they aren’t obligated to facilitate it.

An open letter to Phyllis Wise signed by a bunch of law professors.

An excerpt:

Even as a technical legal matter, Professor Salaita was already a de facto member of the University of Illinois faculty under the principle of promissory estoppel as articulated by the Illinois Supreme Court. Moreover, the timing and manner of Professor Salaita’s dismissal strongly indicate the sort of viewpoint discrimination that would violate the First Amendment even at the hiring stage.

(linked at Corey’s blog, for which, thanks.)

Law professors have an interest in expanding the protections afforded to professors. This is not to say that they’re wrong, just that the letter is advocacy, not impartial review.

On the substantive issues (as opposed to policy) the law professors make two substantive claims:

1) UIUC, as a government entity, cannot lawfully make hiring decisions based on political beliefs. I acknowledged this (see #106, 2d last para) and I predicted that the University will prevail in spite of it by arguing that the tweets show that Salaita can’t be trusted to be a fair teacher. The law professors don’t acknowledge the possibility that the U has an argument.

2) that Salaita was actually hired regardless of the formal need for trustee approval – see p. 4, n. 19. The only case they cite is the Newton Tractor promissory estoppel case, and I continue to feel that (based on the facts that we know) this argument has no legs. As I said in 106, courts take written disclaimers seriously. Salaita got one. The plaintiff in Newton Tractor didn’t.

A more credible source than an anonymous screen name on promissory estoppel may be:

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2014/08/steven-salaitas-promissory-estoppel-claim-is-weak.html

That post reviews the elements of a promissory estoppel claim under Newton Tractor and concludes that Salaita can’t show them. There’s some back-and-forth with a professor who takes the other side and a number of informed comments, for people who care about the legal issue.

Did he discover Michael Mann’s hockey stick? Did he make an important and controversial contribution to our historical understanding of Israel/Palestine, like Segev’s One Palestine, Complete or Shlaim’s The Iron Wall? No, he spent 10 seconds tweeting some stuff that’s no different from what thousands of other people are tweeting. Society gets plenty of this level of debate without the need to give academics special protection for it.

So, the other thousands of people lost their jobs over it? Is the Zionist lobby perhaps more powerful than it ought to be?

See, a whole lot of Americans said intemperate things about arabs on 9/11 and 9/12 and 9/13 etc. More than 3000 Americans were killed, and we were upset. So Salaita, a Palestinian, has less right to be upset when 2000 Palestinians get wrongly killed? A much bigger percentage….

Some people keep talking like Salaita did something wrong that got him fired. But where’s the argument that he actually did anything wrong at all? They just assume it, with no justification whatsoever. What did he say that’s so terrible?

He’s a Palestinian who has come out against Zionism, so people try to come up with some sort of argument why he does not deserve academic freedom. And failing at that, then they come up with semi-legal arguments why academic freedom doesn’t apply because he kinda-sorta wasn’t hired so it’s OK to fire him for talking against Zionism.

“Oh, we want to grant him his academic freedom to say whatever he wants to. It’s perfectly legal for him to speak out against Israel. It’s just that he said it the wrong *way*. He was too *intemperate*. If he just spoke out against Israel the right, way, the way we Zionists approve of, then we would have no objection at all.” Yeah, sure.

#110
BDS as voted by the ASA prevents Israeli gov’t associated academics (deans, institute head, other scholar/administrators, cental bankers, etc.) from participating in ASA events, prevents joint conferences, etc. This is no small issue in the natural sciences and medicine where Nobel-winning and similar distinguished academics head gov’t sponsored institutes participate in research and speak at conferences. That can be a big deal and an academic burden for scholars in that area.

So, do any Israeli universities have a de facto BDS against Palestinian universities, like the University of Palestine in Gaza? Do they object to the government of Israel restricting academic freedom by closing the university, bombing it, etc?

Sauce for the goose….

No one is determined to miss the point as much as Andrew F.

Would you like a prize, Andrew?
~

I’d also be curious to know if the University of Illinois actually allows someone to join the faculty at all, interim basis or not, without Board approval.

Good question. It appears that Salaita was scheduled to teach a class before the Board met. This would mean that if he hadn’t officially joined the faculty, and he grabbed a cup of coffee in the faculty lounge, he would be committing an act of larceny. They dodged a bullet by not hiring a thief.

If we get to litigation it’s a sign of institutional failure.

Wait, what? Law professors think litigation is a mistake? Seriously, there’s a legal theory that incorporates a belief in social structure like that into what the law should be, prior to legislation and courtrooms and things, and expects that to be how society is actually run?

Anyway, it begs the question whether Salaita is part of the institution (the UIUC).

If he’s not, if he counted as at best a contingent temp like in the situation @76, same as the armies of adjuncts, then–I’d think there would be tons of defenders of this concept on CT, given past history–as Layman mentioned a couple of times–he’s at best an at-will employee. And as CT’ers like to remind us, the concept of “at-will” trumps, forever and always, all statutory, constitutional, or customary restrictions on the rights of employers to fire people. (Tenure, and for those below staff level, unions, being the only thing that can give employees rights.)

123

I found the Hoffman-Dorf exchange is a pretty good start at understanding the legal issues. It’s plain that both authors think that the issues are far from open and shut. Hoffman is very skeptical about Salaita (or anyone) wining a promissory estoppel claim and Doff thinks (at least from what he said a couple days ago) that the First Amendment argument is stronger than the promissory estoppel claim. The comments are generally excellent. More light, less heat. Contrast that discussion with the legal academics’ letter which, I’m afraid to say, is an embarrassment. If they wanted to make a general defense of academic freedom, they should have stayed far away from the particulars of this matter which seem more familiar to readers of this thread (off all persuasions and views) than to the distinguished legal authors.

I think the tenured professoriate should take solace that pretty much all commentators thought Salaita would be fine if he actually had tenure. That differs considerably from cases in the academics’ letter where tenured faculty were fired. So massive progress from the blacklist days but below the high points between then and now. And that might well track the regard the public has for the professoriate over the period, especially the humanities professoriate. Norms, again.

Also, while the Chancellor is the focal point of a lot of controversy, it would seem that word came may have down from the Trustees to pull the plug on Salaita. They are appointed by the governor for 6 year terms. http://www.bot.uillinois.edu/meet-the-trustees You’d have thought they ran this by the UIUC general counsel before acting.

You’d have thought they ran this by the UIUC general counsel before acting.

Probably when he was first approved it didn’t look important and the people who might have stopped it instead rubber-stamped it.

But then somebody noticed his tweets, and noticed he was at UIUC. They called the Trustees to tell them to fire him. All of a sudden it was important. Nobody was ready for it to all-of-a-sudden be important to do something fast, and they reacted without thinking out all the details ahead of time.

That’s just a guess, but it fits what I’ve heard so far.

@129 -@131

Just want to make sure I understand your position. So when an interim dean sends a offer letter subject to Board approval, the Board not only has no say over the potential hiring, but no say over lifetime tenure as well? Where in all other cases the Board must approve tenure decisions as mandated by statute? And occasionally they don’t approve tenure? That’s one powerful interim dean.

I agree that past practice matters as does the language of he letter, the relevant statute, and the relevant precedent. Both sides have arguments.

132

1. A senior hire is a hire with tenure. Those aren’t separable decisions. You would be right in saying that a senior hire has higher stakes than a junior hire. The analogy to turning back tenure is interesting, but you supply no examples. Plus there’s an added dimension of bad behavior in wooing someone away from a tenured job only to leave them at the altar.

2. “Interim” refers to the nature of the appointment, but doesn’t make you less Deanly. Already implicit in your position is that the Dean did the wrong thing.

3. I don’t think the argument is that the board has *no* say, only that their ability to intervene is a special power that ought not be abused. Using it because of a political disagreement is abuse. Hence the law profs letter’s focus on free inquiry and debate.

4. Again, “T,” I ask you: if it’s really standard practice for Boards to reject senior hires at this stage, give us examples.

“T” @ 135: This is a cloud of mischievous mis-characterizations.

Someone else may have patience for you; mine’s exhausted.

#134 – “I don’t think the argument is that the board has *no* say, only that their ability to intervene is a special power that ought not be abused.”

The argument is precisely that the board has *no* say. See #130. Our host on this blog believes that Salaita is an employee, that is, that the Dean hired him and that the board’s approval is not necessary.

#138 Bloix

The argument is precisely that the board has *no* say.

I don’t think that’s it.

Presumably the board at the last minute noticed that Salaita is a Palestinian who doesn’t like Zionists, and at least one of them sent an emotional message to the Chancellor saying not to bother sending in the appointment for confirmation because it would not be confirmed.

And the argument is that this is a bad thing, that the board has interfered with academic freedom to satisfy a narrow political interest. Whether or not they have the legal right to do it this time because of some loophole, they are wrong to do it.

By firing, “unhiring” whatever-they-call-it a researcher who has done nothing wrong, to satisfy bigots who want to interfere with academic research, the board is doing precisely what it should not do.

That’s the issue.

It’s like, if you argued that one particular time somebody committed armed robbery it was OK because of some technical details, I mostly wouldn’t have a lot of respect for the argument. Armed robbery is as wrong the day before Christmas as it is any other day, and if there’s a law that says you can get away with it sometimes, it’s still wrong.

“the University” didn’t say that. Robin Kaler, director of public affairs, said that.

And Kaler said that as the director of public affairs for the university, not as a private person, and so she said it on behalf of the university. But fine, Kaler said that. Now why might she say such a thing? Is she delusional? Is it just standard practice for directors of public affairs at universities to refer to candidates as “employees”? Did she just wish to have “the power to make it so by saying it”? I’m sure there must be other possibilities, but they seem to be escaping me just now. Perhaps you could enlighten us.

J Thomas @140
I said I was not going to comment further on this thread, but J Thomas’s comments along this line are bothering me:
Presumably the board at the last minute noticed that Salaita is a Palestinian who doesn’t like Zionists, and at least one of them sent an emotional message to the Chancellor saying not to bother sending in the appointment for confirmation because it would not be confirmed.

(1) “Presumably”?!! You’re presuming rather a lot. From what I’ve read about this, which is admittedly not a great deal, the Chancellor received some communications from persons and/or orgs. outside the university who were concerned and/or angry and/or horrified (or pick your word) about Salaita’s tweets. The Chancellor then did the “dehire.” The matter never formally reached the Board, and although I suppose members of the Board might have been in communication with the Chancellor, that, I think, is pure speculation on your part. So why even speculate along these lines?

(2) I oppose the “dehire”/rescission/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, but the issue here is not that Salaita is, as you put it, “a Palestinian who doesn’t like Zionists.” The issue is how he chose to express that ‘dislike’ in a public medium, and what the consequences of that expression were. (That’s why the case has, at least according to some, a freedom-of-speech angle.) It’s mainly about what Salaita said, not mainly about, as your comment incorrectly suggests, who he is.

Corey —
Tenure seems to be turned down relatively rarely when recommended by the department so the faculty has an expectation that their work is not a waste of time. The department faculty sometimes recommend against tenure and they don’t consider that a waste of time. And higher levels of review within the faculty know less about the subject than the department itself. Nonetheless sometimes tenure is denied by the college, by the dean, or by the board. Academics seem to have more control of their future colleagues than almost any other profession except professional partnerships. And those guys have direct financial interests. In a public institution, you’re being paid (partly) by the public. Maybe I’m missing something…

# 146 – Jesus H. Christ. More.

1) He would have been an at-will employee entitled to be paid for services rendered. Of course, you are proposing a counterfactual. Perhaps alternatively he would have become a tenured professor as of mid-August. I doubt it, but so what? That didn’t happen.

2) The system works because most tenured professors who change jobs are not juvenile hotheads and know how to stay out of trouble for a few months. Some people manage to get themselves run over by running out into the street. That doesn’t mean that laws against jay-walking make it impossible to be a pedestrian.

3) Of course there’s no pattern of Board disapproval. That’s because it’s a rare person up for tenure who is stupid enough to fuck it up. The whole point of Board approval is that it’s for the special case. He was given a writing that he needed Board approval. You have been told over and over that past practice doesn’t trump a writing, but you refuse to understand.

Lastly, I am not a Board defender. I am trying to explain to you that the earth is round, and you keep saying, how awful that anyone could think that, what about the poor Australians who would fall off.

#141 – what the hell.

“Read the law.”
I am a commercial lawyer. I have been litigating contract disputes for 29 years. Don’t condescend to me.

+ agency: if someone working for you takes some action in your name, you are bound by the consequences unless you communicate beforehand that the action is unauthorized

Salaita was given a written statement that the agent (the Dean) could not bind the principal (the University) only the board could. There was no unauthorized action. The University is not bound. Next?

+ estoppel: if you communicate — words or silence, deeds or omissions — that something is the case, and someone acts in accordance with that something being the case to their detriment, you cannot later argue that you did not believe that that was the case.

The communication to Salaita was that the university was not bound and could not be bound except by the action of the board. Promissory estoppel by the statement of an agent does not apply where the counter-party was told in writing that the agent had no authority. Find a case to the contrary and I’ll read it. The law professors who sent that letter couldn’t find one.

Are we done here?

J Thomas @140

“Presumably the board at the last minute noticed that Salaita is a Palestinian who doesn’t like Zionists, and at least one of them sent an emotional message to the Chancellor saying not to bother sending in the appointment for confirmation because it would not be confirmed.”

(1) “Presumably”?!! You’re presuming rather a lot. From what I’ve read about this, which is admittedly not a great deal, the Chancellor received some communications from persons and/or orgs. outside the university who were concerned and/or angry and/or horrified (or pick your word) about Salaita’s tweets. The Chancellor then did the “dehire.”

Yes, I agree with you about these probably facts. I remember reading that Chancellor Wise sent Salaita a message that said she would not submit his appointment to the board because she was sure the board would not approve it. So I presume somebody on the board told her the board would not approve it, because otherwise she would be making a big presumption herself.

Would she dehire him entirely on her own authority? If that’s what’s going on, the authority of the board not to vote him in would be irrelevant. It’s her authority to fire him herself that’s at issue.

(2) I oppose the “dehire”/rescission/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, but the issue here is not that Salaita is, as you put it, “a Palestinian who doesn’t like Zionists.” The issue is how he chose to express that ‘dislike’ in a public medium, and what the consequences of that expression were.

No, that’s silly. What he did was entirely harmless. There is no excuse to make a big deal of it.

The issue is that there were “persons and/or orgs. outside the university who were concerned and/or angry and/or horrified”.

They pressured her to fire him, because they didn’t want him teaching.

(That’s why the case has, at least according to some, a freedom-of-speech angle.) It’s mainly about what Salaita said, not mainly about, as your comment incorrectly suggests, who he is.

#157 LFC

“So I presume somebody on the board told her the board would not approve it, because otherwise she would be making a big presumption herself.”

Maybe that’s what happened. Or maybe she decided she didn’t want to submit his name to the Board, and the univ’s general counsel told her she could send the letter saying “I will not submit your name.” (I don’t remember the precise wording of the letter or even if it’s been made public.) This is not an issue of all that much importance, ISTM, but I think one should be careful about presuming what happened and who said what to whom when one doesn’t know.

I pointed out that I was guessing about it.

But it could easily be an issue of great importance. People are continually arguing whether the board has the right to “dehire” a professor because they want to restrict his academic freedom, based on tweets that stirred up opposition from outsiders who object to academic freedom.

But it may be that the board was not involved at all. I haven’t heard any evidence yet that the board was involved at all. It might turn out that the argument is actually about whether the Chancellor has the right to de-hire new hires, entirely on her own judgement about whether it will be offensive to outsiders who object to academic freedom. The board was never given the opportunity to object, she did it entirely herself.

IANAL, so I don’t know whether that has any legal significance. But it would seem to say that the question about what the board has a right to do may have nothing to do with the case.

@161

Tenure: So you think the promissory estoppel claim would fail but a First Amendment claim or academic freedom claim might have grounds depending on discovery?

Teaching: I would think he would have a claim for damages given the timing of the letter and the fact he resigned his position. Would he have a further claim for compensation since he resigned w/tenure at VT and future tenure is not guaranteed?

It appears that you think the tenure offer and the teaching offer can be handled as separate issues. Is this novel or typical as a general matter?

#161 Andrew F.

But what about the real ethical question here: was Salaita not recommended because of his viewpoint (whether because the Chancellor disliked it or because enough of the Board disliked it that they indicated there’s no need for the application to even be raised to them), or was he not recommended because of how he expressed it?

Can you truly separate those? Can you say “Professors have the right to say what they want, but only if they say it in just the right way”?

If they have the right to free speech sometimes, but the administration gets to decide afterward which speech is protected and which is not, isn’t that the same thing exactly as no free speech?