2700 Scholars Boycott UI; Trustees to Meet Tomorrow; Salaita’s Teaching Evaluations Superb; Philosopher Cancels Prestigious Lecture (Updated) (Updated Again)

It’s nice that you give the student evaluations of prof. Salaita.

But – when has the opinions of students meant anything at all to administrators?

In fact, when has a faculty member’s teaching skills mean anything to administrators?

JzB

[aeiou] I don’ t think Western Civilization should be required to kill itself; Salaita is a gross hater of the West and white people–that’s the fundamental truth–hide it if you like but white people are waking up.

white people are waking up

Good to know that Klansman Daniel Carver from The Howard Stern Show “wack pack” is a Crooke Timber commenter.

[aeiou] The “shiv” is coming, but Salaita will be surprised by what he has awoken; the vast superiority of Israel over Arab armies is not accidental, but civilizational

Are we living in the end times? If so, when’s the new beginning get started?

I notice a couple of references to the international reaction to Salaita’s situation but you don’t mention it specifically—have professors from other countries signed the petitions you mention?

Some of you may be familiar with this, but political view also affect graduate recruitment:

http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/i-was-denied-admission-to-a-social-psychology-program-because-of-my-political-views

I’m finding this story compelling. As September approaches, I’m wondering where Salaita and his family are living. They sold their house, he gave up his job, he expected to be preparing to teach in a very few weeks. Really hope today’s meeting brings results.

It is hilarious that people scream about free speech and then disemvowel people.

University of Illinois–government agency

Crooked Timber blog–not government agency.

the general claim of the University of Illinois is that Salaita is racist, and who are you to disagree with that?

And what’s with the second phrase?

As Ben A. says, there is no ‘general claim of racism’ from the U of I, but there is now this ridiculous, flan-like temporizing, via Abu N.

@Jthomas 14.
They might lose a lawsuit and have to pay Salaita some money. But if they reinstate him, various donors will tell them about money that *would have been* given to them that won’t be.

That is the trade-off, right? When you’ve gone on the record defending your “employee’s” tweets, as they’ve done in the past w/r/t Salaita and then rescind the accepted tenured offer after that “employee” has resigned from their prior position as a tenured professor, then you’d think you’d be incurring significant legal liability on contractual and First Amendment ground. And in light of that significant liability (as well as reputational costs), to continue to maintain your position . . . man, they must be getting ridiculous fundraising pressures.

Nearly 3,000 professors (including some self-described Zionists) have said they’ll boycott UIUC. And the Chancellor issues an incredibly tone-deaf statement in which she invokes the importance of civility on no less than 3 occasions. I’m so embarrassed for the students and faculty.

Anyone know what Illinois’s sunshine laws look like? I’d love to see the e-mails on Salaita leading up to the August 1 decision as well as those covering the period between August 1 and today, when UIUC finally issued an official statement on the matter.

As I have stated before, I do not think Salaita should have been fired. But there are three things I’d like to point out…

First of all, teaching is not valued in higher ed. Some may say it is, but that adjuncts get paid $2500 a course to teach showcases how little value teaching has for those in higher ed. That his teaching scores are high means nothing to higher ed administrators.

Second, this is a weird statement by Corey Robin: “One of the issues that comes up frequently among the University of Illinois’s defenders is that Salaita’s tweets suggest he might create a hostile environment for students, that he’s not fit for the classroom. It’s a strange claim to make under any circumstance—how I am on Twitter bears little relationship to how I am in the classroom or in my interactions with students.”

How you are on Twitter is a very loud broadcast of who you are. When academics use a very visible, very public channel to communicate rage, poor command of language, a propensity to use swear words, this reflects poorly on the academic. In the private sector, Salaita’s tweets would have gotten him fired – NOT because of his political beliefs, but because he acted very immaturely in many of those very public tweets – he failed to present a thoughtful, intelligent argument, but gave into hysteria and rage. I for one wonder if he got fired for his position on Hamas/Israel or if he got fired for presenting overly-emotional, un-academic rants.

To use academic freedom to protect the right to say “Fuck Israel” or “You may be too refined to say it, but I’m not: I wish all the (expletive) West Bank settlers would go missing” or whatever it is a professor wants “fucked” or “gone missing” is wrong. Academic freedom is the right to make thoughtful, intelligent arguments for or against a hot topic. It should NEVER be used to defend the right to swear with impunity in a public forum and to act worse than a Fox News ideologue.

From a Northwestern University law professor who worked with the ACLU on the Nazi march in Skokie: “Some of Salaita’s tweets have been inexcusably violent and racist. That may not disqualify him from teaching college students, but let’s not be naive about his hateful message.” http://trib.in/1nkHfjW

Third, I cannot believe he had only 3o students a semester. Tenured professors have quite the gig…

#23

The fact that you describe those who do not agree with you – in this case by pointing out the bleeding obvious, that Salaita was fired for his politics – as mentally ill says a lot about you, Bloix.

Bloix didn’t say that, though it’s understandable it would look that way.

He says that no matter how completely obvious it is that they fired him for his politics, still for a lawsuit it would have to be proven by evidence that goes beyond the completely obvious. Evidence that a super-competent lawyer could not dissemble about.

It isn’t enough for it to be completely obvious, it requires basicly a confession.

Like, if the president of AIPAC sent Wise an email saying that unless she fired Salaita he’d get her fired and her house repossessed and her children put in foster care, and she wrote back to say she’d obey, that would probably do it. But if she just wrote back and said she personally agreed with him but if she didn’t agreed she wouldn’t give in to pressure, then it isn’t proof.

[…] the UIUC has now staked out the legal position that it must take in order to defeat Salaita’s First Amendment claim. [….] Whether the evidence will support the UIUC remains to be seen (and no, “it must be because he’s anti-Israel because the voices in my head tell me so” is not admissible evidence).

I think Bloix is discussing the legal matter. He’s talking about a lawsuit, and saying what they have to do to win. He’s saying that our plain obvious recognition that it was political does not matter, it will require evidence that will stand up in court.

I’m not sure he’s right. It’s possible that a judge or a jury will see that it’s political the same way we see it. On the other hand, it’s also possible that a judge or jury will decide that Salaiti is wrong because he’s against Israel and Israel is right. They might privately decide that it’s OK for it to be political this time, because they think it is the right result. And then look for a way to say it so it doesn’t look like they’re biased.

It’s possible that Bloix thinks Salaita should not teach at UIUC or anywhere, and he is talking about the lawsuit from that mindset. But what I see him doing, is talking about how the lawsuit would go.

As it so happens, I’m in a somewhat similar position to Salaita. I just left an academic job for a new one, and my offer letter — like all such letters — includes language about the appointment being contingent on approval by the Board of Trustees. But at no point has that even been mentioned to me as part of the process, not even in a pro forma way. Nor has it ever been suggested that anything I might do between now and the board meeting would invalidate my hire. Earlier today I was at the orientation for new faculty members. There was the usual explanation of pension and health benefits, and warnings about avoiding anything that could be construed as sexual harassment. But the possibility that our appointments might be revoked by an administrator was not raised. Strange as it may seem, our personal use of social media was never even mentioned. So when Chancellor Wise tries to pass off what was done to Salaita as the routine application of some kind of inclusiveness policy, instead of the extraordinary intervention it was — well, I wonder who she thinks she is fooling. This is addressed to UIUC faculty and staff after all, all of whom have presumably been through this same process.

Anyway, if you were a new hire at UIUC, here are some things you might be wondering:

– Was Salaita fired purely on the basis of his tweets, or are there other “words and actions” involved?

– Is it now the policy of UIUC that untenured faculty members may be fired at any time, without warning or due process, if the administration finds their words “disrespectful”?

– Are the twitter feeds of other faculty members being reviewed for “personal and disrespectful words or actions that demean and abuse either viewpoints themselves or those who express them”? Should we expect a large number of junior faculty at UIUC to be fired in coming months under this new policy?

– Is there a written policy describing what kinds of tweets are firing offenses? Was this policy distributed to faculty and other employees?

– Who in the administration made the determination that Salaita was disrespectful, etc.?

– Was there any formal disciplinary process leading up to Salaita’s dismissal? Did he have any opportunity to dispute the charges against him? If not, should we assume that any untenured faculty member at UIUC can also be summarily fired by (someone in) the administration?

– When was the policy that faculty members can be summarily dismissed if an administrator finds their public statements “disrespectful” adopted? Has this policy been applied in the past?

– Given that Chancellor Wise believes that “civility” is a condition for tenure, will she be reviewing social media in all future tenure cases and denying tenure to any faculty member deemed insufficiently respectful, regardless of support from their department? Are there any guidelines for faculty members indicating what standards for social media Chancellor Wise is now requiring for tenure at UIUC?

Spot on, JW Mason. I have worked in the math departments both at UIUC and UIC, and I can tell you that (quoting the trustees’ statement) “civility as much as scholarship” has not been the policy in the past. Rude and abrasive behavior, sexism, homophobia and racism (anti-Arab racism and Islamophobia being the most prevalent) from the subconscious to blatant hate speech – all that is incredibly common in academia in my experience, and this includes colleagues who have thankfully not been fired from the University of Illinois . (This btw is one thing that stuns me about this – what Salaita posted was, in its context, very mild and barely rises to the level of intemperate, compared to either online discourse [cf. comments on this very blog] or private utterances of academics.)

Obviously anyone thinking about applying at the place should think very carefully about this.

“What we cannot and will not tolerate at the University of Illinois are personal and disrespectful words or actions that demean and abuse either viewpoints themselves or those who express them.

… it seems to me difficult to make progress in knowledge if you can’t determine that some “knowledge” is false, and it seems to me difficult to determine whether a particular piece of “knowledge” is false if you’re not allowed to “demean” “viewpoints” [by for example suggesting that they might be false].

Got myself needlessly tangled with that Godwin reference – but anyway, trying to disentangle, hopefully without making it worse –

It seems that both the Israelis and the Palestinians believe the other side wants to destroy them as a people. Based on the evidence of deaths, however, it seems the Palestinians are more justified in this belief at present. In those circumstances, someone who identifies strongly with the Palestinians may well feel that strong language is justified.

Many people have died. Many children died. There is something worrying about people arguing about swear words, can you see that?

“I don’t want to do a Godwin on this, but in a general sense if you thought the actions of a nation were tending towards the genocidal, then using immoderate and disrespectful language might seem like just a way to make people wake up.”

Words have an unquestionable power to change the political landscape. If only MLK had peppered his speeches with the language favored by Salaita, I’m sure our racial problems would be solved….

From a Northwestern University law professor who worked with the ACLU on the Nazi march in Skokie: “Some of Salaita’s tweets have been inexcusably violent and racist. That may not disqualify him from teaching college students, but let’s not be naive about his hateful message.”

—-

That law professor was Steven Lubet. As it turns out, Lubet did have a dog in this race. He is a founding member of “The Third Narrative”, a group that represents itself as being for a two-state solution but adds that “We reject all attempts to undermine or diminish academic freedom and open intellectual exchange, including those cases associated with the Israel-Palestine debate.” Other founding members include Eric Alterman, Michael Walzer, Todd Gitlin and –you guessed it—Cary Nelson.

In his brilliant exposé of Cary Nelson, Phan Nguyen delivered the goods on “The Third Narrative”:

Although ostensibly described as taking a middle ground between “two competing narratives on the Middle East—Israeli and Palestinian,” TTN was launched a year ago and designed to “counter anti-Israel bias on the far left.” Thus TTN is geared primarily toward attacking the pro-BDS left and rarely critiques the pro-Israeli right. TTN even distributes a booklet called “Progressive Answers To The Far Left’s Critiques of Israel.”

This is a common anti-BDS tactic that I discuss elsewhere, where the goal is to drive “a wedge between progressive values and the BDS movement,” in the words of a guidebook from the Israel Action Network (another organization that Nelson has worked with).

” One needs to look at context, which people don’t really seem to be doing here.”

Val, thank you. Given the civilian casualties the week in question a lot of people were probably frantic, and he sounded it. Context matters.

MSM, what a high bar you set for posting on the internet. The only thing you say that I agree with is that people will have to think twice about what they tweet, because of this case. Is this a good thing?

Novakant, it’s worth noting that “private” is being used in two senses. As you point out, social media are public, not private. But people also distinguish their working, professional lives from their private lives and in that sense their participation in social media can be spoken of as private.

Because of the public nature of social media and of the internet in general, the relationship between professional and private lives is in flux. It seems to me that however tricky to sort out, it is worth preserving the distinction—employers would have way too much power, otherwise. If Salaita had expressed misogynist opinions about date rape, that would clearly have reflected on his professional life. I don’t think comments about the Israeli-Gaza situation, however heated, do that. And the fact that they were heated seems a ludicrous, even incredible reason for him to be fired.

#39 Main Street Muse

I am not diminishing the terrible crisis in the Middle-East. I am not supporting Israel. I don’t even think Salaita should have been fired.

In that case, what are you arguing about?

Salaita did nothing wrong, certainly nothing to be fired over. But he did get fired, because he spoke against Israel.

Don’t we need to create some sort of balance? Perhaps a strong BDS movement would help.

#45 J. Thomas

“But he did get fired, because he spoke against Israel.”

Salaita’s defenders like to portray his conduct as mere criticism of Israel (as if Israel is not criticized, by academics and others, all the time). But when he characterized anti-semitism as “honorable,” he did a little more than just criticize Israel, did he not? Indeed, according to Salaita, anti-semitism became honorable just three years after the Holocaust. Nice, right?

Shouldn’t the boycott be extended to all of UI, given that the chancellors of the Chicago and Springfield campuses also signed the Board of Trustees letter? http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/salaitas-illinois-declarations.html

He did not characterize anti-semitism as honorable. That is a straight-up lie.

Yes, but it’s important to note that Gator90 is probably not lying. He only believed the lies. It’s easy to do that when they are repeated so much.

It’s good to notice when you’ve been lied to. “Fool me twice….”

And I want to point out that there is a kind of truth to the claim that Salaita did not make. When people criticize Israel which is perfectly proper OK to do, and Zionists call them anti-semites for it, the result is to dilute the effect of the word. It doesn’t mean as much to use it against real anti-semitism. This is bad. They shouldn’t do that.

Bloix , I will find out your real name and report to your employer that you go around the internet telling those who disagree with you they are hearing voices.

Christian_h, that sounded like a direct threat. I found it shocking.

After seeing this sort of thing, like MSM’s claim that people are often fired for their entirely off-the-job comments, I thought I should change my name to something less recognizable. But when I did every comment got moderated. [sigh]

I try to imagine being in a high enough management position to decide to fire some low-level person over their tweets or blog comments, and I imagine what would get me to do it.

It seems like if I would fire somebody for that at all, I would probably do it if they got either the attention of somebody important, or of too many other people who complain. One complaint from a nobody I would shrug off. Three I would probably ignore. When it got to ten or twenty they would be a nuisance in my inbox. If my time was limited I would not try to decide which side had justice, I would try to get the issue settled so I didn’t keep getting bothered.

On the other hand I could get somebody to screen my email and discard complaints like that, unless they were from somebody important.

So your threat sounds serious. If you can find out his name and where he works, you might get him fired with only a dozen or so aliases to send complaints from. You could practice and find the best timing. Maybe two the first day, three the day after, then one, then skip a day and five the day after. Make it look like this minor employee will be a continuing irritant. He could get squashed like a bug, and he doesn’t even have to say anything out of line online, it probably won’t even get checked at all.

On the other hand if it doesn’t work, the complaints may get forwarded to your enemy. He can try to track down your name and employer and return the favor.

So maybe this is a game that’s best played by unemployed internet trolls who have nothing better to do.

I was being sarcastic.

Good! Sometimes sarcasm isn’t completely clear online.

Of course Bloix could not complain – he supports firing people for being “uncivil” online, after all.

I had that impression too, but I’d have to look carefully to find evidence. What I definitely see him doing is arguing about who would win in court. You can argue about which football team will win without necessarily supporting the team you think will be the winners. People tend to do it that way, but not always.

If he’s trying to have a technical discussion about what evidence would stand up in court and you keep interrupting talking about what’s true, he might get a bit snippy about it. He shouldn’t since his job may be at stake, but it’s understandable that he might. It happened to Salaita, after all.

@christian_h #47

Salaita’s exact words were “Zionists: transforming ‘anti-Semitism’ from something horrible into something honorable since 1948.”

I’m pretty sure the adjective “honorable” is modifying the noun “anti-Semitism” in that statement. No? Indeed, it has been honorable since 1948. Call me a liar if you like, but he said what he said.

If Salaita had expressed misogynist opinions about date rape, that would clearly have reflected on his professional life. I don’t think comments about the Israeli-Gaza situation, however heated, do that.

He has written books about ME issues and they are the subject of discussion in his class – how can his Twitter comments not affect his ability to teach if prospective students who might hold opposing views are characterized in this manner, e.g.:

It’s simple: either condemn #Israel’s actions or embrace your identity as someone who’s okay with the wholesale slaughter of children.

#Israel’s supporters: -Zionist fanatics -CEOs -Christian Zios -Governments -Chickenshits #Palestine’s supporters: -Everyone else

“If you’re defending Israel right now you’re an awful human being”

@christian h:

I’m aware that some of Salaita’s supporters have explained that he meant something very different from what he actually said. If such an explanation came from Salaita himself, accompanied by a heartfelt expression of regret for his incredibly stupid choice of words, I might be persuaded to add my tiny voice to those calling for his reinstatement. But absent that, I’ll probably continue to be distracted by the fairly plain meaning of the words actually used.

@ 58:

It was already cited, but here it is again:

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/reading-salaita-illinois-1.html#tweet1

Read the section titled “Tweet 1”.

It’s your idea of “fairly plain meaning of words actually used” that is at fault here. There is no reading without interpretation.

Gator90, your refusal to actually read is surprising to me (since I know you to be a careful person from other online comments of yours). If you did, it would be plain to you that Salaita did NOT describe anti-Semitism as honorable. Rather, he was bemoaning that anti-semitism – a very serious and real issue – was cheapened by applying the term to beliefs and advocacy that are plainly honorable. That’s just clear from the context of the conversation. Do you think if I were allowed to take one sentence out of all your online interaction, I could not find one that sounded bad in isolation? If so, congratulations.

Yes, it seems Gator90’s confused, for ‘A-S’ was mentioned, not used. With commas (inverted), it’s: ‘Zionists perverted the term’ (and they’re aptly accused).

Good! Sometimes sarcasm isn’t completely clear online.

Similarly understatement.

Colin Danby:

“Viewpoints, apparently, cannot be abused. Yes, viewpoints.” Yes, I noticed that too. Unbelievable.

Novakant, I don’t see how Salaita could have got those stellar student reviews if he had demeaned students who disagreed with him.

I do think, though, that many students are shy about speaking out in class, and if their professor comes across so strongly on social media that might make them even less likely to speak. I don’t know how common it is for professors to tweet or blog or otherwise post so strongly but surely if they do they risk making shy students more shy.

MSM, or shorter defender of status quo ever: the real problem is not massacring people. The REAL problem is reacting to it in an intemperate way. Whether it’s using four-letter words on twitter (oh no!) or throwing a bottle at the police in Ferguson (violence never solves anything!) – it’s not flattening the open-air prison of Gaza ,or gunning down black teens in the street that is the problem – it is the uncivil reaction to it. Sigh.

@the various people above who think I can’t or won’t read:

Corey Robin himself has said that Salaita’s tweet about Zionists making anti-semitism honorable has people “understandably” upset. (This was part of a blog post in which it took Robin 5 or 6 paragraphs to try to explain what Salaita allegedly actually meant.) So I don’t think I’m way out in left field in being a bit upset about it.

Having further considered the offending tweet in the context of some of his other tweets, I grant it is possible that Salaita intended to say, more or less, that accusations of anti-semitism should be worn as a badge of honor when leveled by Zionists who equate any criticism of Israel to anti-semitism. But if that was his intent, lordy what a crap job of expressing it. His actual words could as easily be taken to mean “anti-semitism is cool because Israel.” Maybe he’s too stupid to be a university professor.

I note, for example, that he said Zionists have been making anti-semitism honorable “since 1948.” Hmmmm, what happened that year? Was that the year Zionists began accusing Israel’s critics of anti-semitism? Can Salaita cite instances of that phenomenon occurring in 1948? If I could talk to Salaita, I’d ask him about that.

I’d also ask him about his assertion that “If you’re defending Israel right now you’re an awful human being.” I began my participation here today by questioning the contention that Salaita got in trouble merely for “criticizing Israel.” The quoted statement is not a criticism of Israel; it is a condemnation of people who disagree with him as “awful human beings.”

I know people who have defended Israel during the recent Gaza campaign, and love a few of them dearly. They are, in my opinion, profoundly wrong about Israel’s inexcusable savagery in Gaza. But that does not make them awful human beings (on the contrary, they are some of the finest human beings I have ever known); it just makes them wrong. Perhaps if Salaita troubled himself with that sort of distinction rather than spewing incoherent 140-character invective, he wouldn’t be in his present predicament.

So people who have defended the massacre of thousands, including hundreds of children, are awesome. But a person who maybe was intemperate about this on twitter should lose his livelihood. Got it. I take my apology back then. You actually are worse than a liar, Gator90. You are in fact, an awful human being.

@christian h #69: Apology accepted.

@christian h: I had not read #74 when I accepted what I took to be a classy apology. I suppose I must revoke my acceptance, if that is possible. Oh well. You take care now.

What academic uses inflammatory language in scholarly work?

Well, some do, sometimes. But leave that aside. The more pertinent question is: What form of scholarly publication has a hard limit of 140 or however many characters? You are in effect arguing that academics should treat their tweets as if they were scholarly publications. (Not just publications, note. After all, everything posted on the internet is technically published. You want a higher standard for tweets.)

The point is, this is totally unworkable. You might as well argue that academics shouldn’t use Twitter. Which is what your argument effectively comes to anyway, since Twitter isn’t a medium that’s always going to be suited to the kind of discourse you seem to want from it. (Again, 140 characters. Or something, I don’t actual use it.) Which, fine. But then, make _that_ argument.

The “awful human being” bit was cheeky. I just think you are – wrong. Yet you refuse to at the least extend the same courtesy to Salaita. Or, alternatively, you think that being wrong on twitter should be grounds for dismissal from your job. Unless what you are wrong about is the killing of large numbers of civilians – that to you is a minor infraction. Being upset by it and expressing that upset and frustration on twitter seems a much worse issue for you. So yeah, I think you are wrong in that you have a – to me – utterly twisted sense of what is important, or “civil” or “disrespectful”. To me a notion – say of civility – that makes it possible to civilly endorse mass murder but also allows taking people livelihood away for opposing that mass murder is – an awful notion. (Now I’ve done it – I have demeaned a concept, I guess U of I won’t hire me!)

#72 Gator90

I’d also ask him about his assertion that “If you’re defending Israel right now you’re an awful human being.” I began my participation here today by questioning the contention that Salaita got in trouble merely for “criticizing Israel.” The quoted statement is not a criticism of Israel; it is a condemnation of people who disagree with him as “awful human beings.”

It appears you believe his saying that means he is such an awful human being that he doesn’t deserve to keep his job.

So what does that make you?

Would you please reveal your real name and employer’s address so that anybody who objects to your statement can try to get you fired?

I’ve long held that if ever I were to witness a (classy) apology being tendered and then rescinded with prejudice anon, only to be subsequently accepted by the party for whom it had been intended and then nigh immediately (under the apprehension that said expression of regret had, in fact, been yanked bank with far sterner authority than that with which it were cast) thrown back into the water of exchange (somewhat [and understandably] in sheepish manner), it would transpire within a thread directly or tangentially involving the interminable Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

@christian h:

So I am neither a liar nor an awful human being. Whew, what a relief.

It never occurred to me to compare Salaita’s tweets to, say, my father’s support of Operation Protective Edge, and then decide which is “worse.” Seems like a pointless exercise as they are totally different things. But if dear old dad, using his own name, publicly stated that dead Palestinian children delight him, I wouldn’t blame his employer for deciding that he was an embarrassment and no longer welcome.

I’m not saying Salaita is a bad person. Maybe he’s a beautiful guy. In my opinion, he made a bit of an ass of himself in public, and sometimes that can have consequences. (There’s a reason why the blog commenter who regularly makes an ass of himself as “Gator90” does so under that name.) Did Salaita “deserve” to be fired/unhired? I dunno. At this point, if I were king of the University of Illinois, I’d consider hiring him back if he (a) publicly acknowledged that some of his statements were out of line, and (b) promised to stay the hell off Twitter for the duration of his employment.

@Layman: I am definitely too stupid to be posting my ideas in public, but I’m at least smart enough to do it anonymously.

@Tyrone Slothrop: Hilarious. Bless you. I needed a good laugh after being called a liar, an awful human being, and — worst of all — “churlish.”

Gator90 —

Well the thread has you figured out. You are a liar, an awful person, and now that “Collin Street” has finally arrived, autistic, too. He likes to type “autistic” in italics.

Leiter’s article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-leiter/university-of-illinois-re_1_b_5703038.html

Main Street Muse@24:

“Third, I cannot believe he had only 3o students a semester. Tenured professors have quite the gig…”

It’s good that you can’t believe it, because the text of the post makes eminently clear that it isn’t true; he was teaching at least two groups of 30 students in one term. It’s a very rare tenured professor who teaches one class a term (without some sort of partial leave), as anyone who is familiar with what tenured professors do would know.

Ah, I was just about to link to Burke’s post!

I must say, I have found many of the comments here disheartening. Let me put it this way. A culture of freedom of expression, of the free exchange of ideas, must be cultivated. It is the product not simply of legalistic distinctions but of habitus. Tocqueville was right about Americans, I think (sadly). Even before the industrial revolution, we were primed to be cogs.

#99 T

The thread can now proceed to call me a liar and an awful person. Because, you know, what’s going on is obvious and there really is only one side to each and every issue surrounding the contingent offer letter and the chancellor’s and board’s decision.

The problem I see is that there isn’t one single over-riding principle involved.

People care about their own kind.

So, it looks to me like Salaita did nothing wrong and he is getting persecuted for his politics. Basicly for being a Palestinian. They shouldn’t do that.

But I can imagine how it must look to a Zionist. Like, one of his tweets could be read like he was advocating murder of Israeli settlers. A Zionist might believe the settlers are fundamentally misguided, that they are standing in the way of peace, etc. But still they have the right to live peacefully in their own homes without being murdered.

The same people might believe that Israel has the perfect right to bomb palestinians who have committed acts of terrorism, and if other palestinians object to that then it’s proper to bomb them too, that they basicly have no rights because they hate Israel. There is no contraction between those two views unless you believe that Palestinians and Israeli settlers have some sort of equal right to life, and they don’t believe that.

Imagine that Salaita had said that it was OK to kill homosexuals for being homosexuals? What if he said it was OK to rape and kill women? I don’t think I’d be arguing so hard for his right to academic freedom. He’s being persecuted by a political group that has more power than it ought to. But if he was saying things that got reasonable normal people like me upset, that would be different.

In this particular case, they’re wrong to fire him. He got public opposition because he hates Israel. He’s a Palestinian, forgodssake, he has a perfect right to hate Israel! If you were in his place you’d hate Israel too. So fire him for that? “The beatings will continue until morale improves.”

But if he’d actually done something seriously wrong, then they should fire him whether there was a pressure group trying to make them do it or not.

What if Salaita had been a conservative who said it would be a good thing if a lot of liberals “disappeared” like they did in Chile? Should he have tenure then?

I predict that Sailata will not be reinstated and he will lose his lawsuit, because the Zionists are still too strong. Reasonable people ought to make the best showing they can opposing it, because it’s wrong, but he is going to be yet another victim.

But the Zionists were slipping before 9/11. And while that got them a great big boost, they’ve been slipping again ever since. Unless something like another 9/11 gives them another reprieve they’ll keep on slipping and someday they’ll be weak enough to start losing in cases where it’s completely clear that they are being crazy and vindictive and they really have no case.

But not yet.

@101 “So promotion and tenure should be decided by state wide elections?”

There are lots of types of governance. The citizens of Illinois understandably want oversight of state funds. Boards are typical forms of governance for public universities where board members require appointment and conformation from elected officials. While I don’t think the military analogy is very apt, the military is under civilian control of elected officials, elected directly — Commander in Chief — or indirectly by appointment and conformation — Sec. of Defense. In your world, state employees get to give each other state jobs for life without oversight. I think the electorate would have problems with your take. I understand why you think it’s great.

“If trustees want to be involved in managing day to day decisions involved in running the university then they will have to adjust their schedules to the university’s timetable. You can’t really have it both ways – micromanage department level decisions and only meet a few times a year.”

The State of Illinois (and many other states) through its elected officials, by statute, gave the board its responsibilities. The State doesn’t think the final say on hiring is micromanaging. As a practical matter, denial of tenure at the board level, whether internal promotion or lateral hire, is rare so that it calling it micromanaging is really a misnomer.

#193 Andrew F

So let’s face the problem: Salaita’s tweets affect how any student would feel in his classroom, and they do so in a very negative fashion.

Zionist students. Others should have no problem.

They affect how any faculty member would feel approaching him for a discussion, and they do so in a very negative fashion.

Zionist faculty members.

If I look up an economics faculty member before approaching him about something, and I see that he is a raging Austrian, then I know not to discuss anything connected to that with him. But he’ll probably be fine on things that don’t involve economics.

If I look up a a political science faculty member and see that he is a raving libertarian, then I will know not to discuss anything connected with government. I’ll probably be fine on anything else.

Zionist students who want to take a class about native americans from him, should be cautious about bringing up zionism. Probably better not to discuss with him the best way to suppress palestinians while avoiding any form of negotiated peace.

Also, Salaita wasn’t hired as just another Native American studies teacher, but because he compared the situation of Native Americans with that of the Palestinians:

” “What became compelling about his work is the comparative analysis of the experiences of American Indian people and Palestinian people, which is at the heart of his work,”

So his views about Gaza are not peripheral to his teaching, as you want to make it seem.

It’s not about feeling uncomfortable, it’s about pre-emptively shutting down discourse.

#109 – no, some people (including the chancellor of the university) have expressed a concern that a professor who says that such students are awful human beings might possibly be unable to grade them on the quality of their work without reference to their views. There is a pervasive failure on this thread to acknowledge that professors have power over students.

That’s actually the most charitable reading – it’s just as likely that there are commenters here who believe that professors should indeed grade their students on the basis of their political views.

What I mean by that is that there are commenters who think that universities should be inhospitable to supporters of Israel. Salaita’s hostility to students who hold such views is a feature not a bug.

#111, #113 – You’re making my point for me. J Thomas argues that support for Israel is like date rape, slavery, and homophobia — it is an abhorrent viewpoint that should not be accorded any respect. Academic Lurker argues that support for Israel is like young earth creationism – it is a belief in conflict with scientific facts. Just as a student who persists in denying evolution in a bio class will be failed, so a student who persists in supporting Israel should be failed.

So for at least these two, this dispute is not about academic freedom and open debate. It’s about who has the correct viewpoint. The prospect that Salaita might suppress a viewpoint that they disagree with is not a bug – it’s a feature.

J Thomas argues that support for Israel is like date rape, slavery, and homophobia — it is an abhorrent viewpoint that should not be accorded any respect.

I don’t see how you could possibly get that from my post. But then, I don’t see how you got what you did from Salaita’s tweets either, so it shouldn’t be surprising that you misread me just as easily.

I say that first, most people agree that there are some viewpoints that should be suppressed. We only allow so much academic freedom and so much free speech. I think that’s a bad thing, but it’s the way it is.

Zionists try to suppress anti-zionist speech and try to suppress anti-zionists, as if anti-zionists were as bad as date-rapists or racists or anti-semites.. It’s been going on for a long time. As opposed to Salaita who you think would make it hard for Zionist students, how many thousands of Zionist professors do we have who would make it hard for Palestinian or anti-zionist students? But Zionists think that’s perfectly OK, they just want to make sure it never ever happens the other way round.

If “intemporate statements” is the new standard, shouldn’t we go back and fire every professor who has ever made public intemperate statements about palestinians or arabs? Like, say, in 1973 when Israel was losing the war, or on 9/11….

Or perhaps your position is that students are entitled to have classes taught only by professors who agree with all of their personal beliefs wrt politics, religion & etc.?

Who is talking about disagreement? Students are entitled not to be called lesser human beings by professors inside or outside of class because of their views regarding the politics of Israel. Never mind Salaita’s evaluations, he has dragged the discourse to an unacceptable personal level that makes a respectful exchange of views impossible.

I also think that tweets are more like publications than water- cooler discussions. The audience for tweets is much larger and one has the opportunity to read what they tweet before pressing the button. One also has the option of deleting the tweet once out.
People have been fired based on their social media posts. You can argue that this is an invasion of privacy, but so far this has not been challenged successfully in the courts, as far as I know. So everyone understands that social media is public space.

Never mind Salaita’s evaluations

Evidence is irrelevant, got it.

Evidence is irrelevant, got it.

Here’s your evidence:

https://twitter.com/stevesalaita

Yes, very commendable, pity he seems unable to live up to his own standards; it’s almost comical actually, as berating and shaming is what he seems to do on Twitter almost exclusively.

AcademicLurker @117: My point was “Your beliefs conflict with mine. This makes me uncomfortable.” is not a legitimate student complaint unless there is some actual inappropriate behavior in the classroom or in the grading process that they can point to. There is none in Salaita’s case.

This is a characterization that avoids the problem.

Salaita’s public treatment of issues, particularly those relevant to his courses, affects the atmosphere of his classroom and the atmosphere of the community as a whole. Nor is it simply that he “disagrees” but rather that he literally views those with whom he disagrees as somehow immoral or otherwise lacking.

Perhaps Salaita behaves just as a perfect professor would within the classroom. That’s great. But his tweets undermine that. They make clear his judgment of what you are should you disagree with him on Israel and Gaza. Were that judgment to remain forever hidden, and somehow never affect his grading or treatment of students (rather remarkable given the heat of his feelings on the subject), then I agree that the judgment would be without consequence in evaluating him as a potential hire.

But it’s not hidden. So it has consequences.

When they come for Andrew F, there will not be any unseemly protest or struggle. He’ll cheerfully admit that he did indeed say a few things that the ruling corporation could object too, and will accept his sentence as a well-merited penance. His strong sense of civic duty will compel him to inform the authorities of erring family and friends.

Look: the Stanford Prison Experiment done without bars, guards or overseers. All in the mind!

Andrew F. is the perfect example of someone who’d be found unfit to do his job based on his Internet comments if he was ever brave enough to use his real name. If only Saliata could have been pseudonymous like courageous Andrew F.

Novakant: “Who is talking about disagreement? Students are entitled not to be called lesser human beings by professors inside or outside of class because of their views regarding the politics of Israel. Never mind Salaita’s evaluations, he has dragged the discourse to an unacceptable personal level that makes a respectful exchange of views impossible.”

Your second sentence has zero to do with the situation. Your third sentence singles out an anti-Zionist, but doesn’t have anything to say about Zionist professors.

Should Alan Dershowitz be fired?
Condoleeza Rice?
John Yoo?

@J Thomas: Were Salaita already hired with tenure, I’d be angry about his dismissal. It’s abundantly clear to me that he was not, so the question is rather whether the University was justified in not hiring him based on the tweets.

@Barry: The student evaluations were taken prior to his tweets, were they not? Even were they not, self-selection furnishes an alternative explanation for the opinions of the students in his classes. Is it really in question that his tweets would make someone, over whom he has power, uncomfortable in raising a disagreement with him on the I-P subject?

Re Yoo and Dershowitz – if they wrote along the lines of what Salaita did, I would certainly think twice about hiring them (leaving aside other reasons), and even if given those circumstances I were to ultimately hire them, I would also view a decision not to hire them as reasonable.

And to be perfectly clear, I also think it would have been reasonable for the University to have hired Salaita despite those tweets. How one weights them relative to other factors is a judgment call.

Rick @134: Mere ad hominem. I’ll let the Supreme Court answer you: Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

Andrew F: “@Barry: The student evaluations were taken prior to his tweets, were they not? Even were they not, self-selection furnishes an alternative explanation for the opinions of the students in his classes. Is it really in question that his tweets would make someone, over whom he has power, uncomfortable in raising a disagreement with him on the I-P subject?”

Gawd. So at this point positive evidence is excluded, and the question is phrased so as to require it.

“Re Yoo and Dershowitz – if they wrote along the lines of what Salaita did, I would certainly think twice about hiring them (leaving aside other reasons), and even if given those circumstances I were to ultimately hire them, I would also view a decision not to hire them as reasonable.”

In Yoo’s case it’s not expressing opinions, but of crimes. In Dershowitz’ case, I’m pulling the ‘makes people uncomfortable’ card.

#145 Andrew F

“Andrew F. is the perfect example of someone who’d be found unfit to do his job based on his Internet comments if he was ever brave enough to use his real name.”

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . .

Come on, when you argue that Salaita ought to be fired you at least ought to reveal who you are so everybody who despises you can try to get you fired. It’s hypocritical not to.

Unless you are a bot run by a committee or something. In that case I guess it doesn’t matter.