My friend and colleague Steven Lubet has just published a short piece in the Chicago Tribune concerning the controversy over the University of Illinois's decision not to hire Prof. Steven Salaita:
Free speech and U. of I.'s Steven Salaita
Steven Lubet
Controversial scholar Steven Salaita who has
been most benignly described as "deeply critical of Israel" has
been fired or "non-hired" by the University of Illinois, depending on
which news source you believe. In either case, it appears Salaita's numerous
tweets, which have included venomous comments about Israelis and Jews, played a
role in his job loss. Thus, he is either an avatar of academic freedom or the
victim of his own extremism, again depending on your point of reference.
Needless to say, the situation is not quite that simple. There are actually
three distinct principles involved, and they do not necessarily lead to a
single neat conclusion.
To understand the Salaita contretemps, we must
separately consider academics, law and politics.
Salaita's strongest case can be made in the name of academic freedom. Ever
since the McCarthy era, when professors were required to sign loyalty oaths as
a condition of employment, it has been an article of faith among scholars that
political considerations should play no role in academic appointments. It was
therefore predictable that the Association of American University Professors
would issue a statement defending Salaita's right to tweet his "views
without fear of retaliation, even where such views are expressed in a manner
that others might find offensive or repugnant." I am among those who find
Salaita's tweets loathsome and incendiary, and not merely outspoken more on
that below but, like nearly all academics, I do not think his political
opinions should affect his job security at his university.
Salaita's legal position, however, is weaker than his academic freedom claims.
According to press reports, Salaita's appointment had never been endorsed by
the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign chancellor, Phyllis Wise, who
has declined to submit his name to the board of trustees for official approval.
Wise has great discretion when it comes to hiring professors as opposed to
firing them and there is no rule that prevents her from considering Salaita's
history of vulgar and intemperate outbursts. That may seem like a technicality,
but law is technical by its very nature. Whatever he might have been told
during the hiring process, it is virtually certain that Salaita was informed in
writing that no appointment was final without the approval of the chancellor
and trustees.
To date, both Salaita and the university have maintained absolute silence about
the case. It would be unusual for a university to comment publicly on a
personnel matter, but such reserve is uncharacteristic of Salaita, who has
never been known for reticence. This strongly suggests that a deal is in the
works, probably involving a buyout and mutual covenants of confidentiality and
non-disparagement. Whatever his appeals to scholarly high ground, Salaita's
legal position is shaky. So don't be surprised if he accepts the money and cuts
his losses.
That brings us to the political dimension, where Salaita's position is weakest
of all. Many of Salaita's supporters have been unfortunately eager to obscure
the true nature of his tweets, usually by calling him a passionate supporter of
Palestinian rights who reacted strongly to recent events in Gaza. That does not
begin to tell the whole story. Salaita's demeaning comments about Israelis and
Jews predate the current fighting, and they go far beyond the bounds of civil,
or even passionate, discourse. For example, Salaita celebrated the kidnapping
(and subsequent murder) of three Israeli teenagers and proudly called for more
such crimes to be committed: "You may be too refined to say it, but I'm
not: I wish all the (expletive) West Bank settlers would go missing." He
once retweeted a vile suggestion that journalist Jeffrey Goldberg ought to get
"the pointy end of a shiv."
Salaita also traffics in anti-Semitism, having tweeted: "Zionists:
transforming 'anti-semitism' from something horrible into something honorable
since 1948." It should go without saying that racism toward any group,
for any reason is never honorable, despite Salaita's own indulgence of
bigotry. Even bigots, of course, are entitled to academic freedom, but
Salaita's supporters have been regrettably disingenuous. A committee of the
Illinois AAUP, for example, argued that Salaita had merely made "an
impassioned plea to end the violence currently taking place in the Middle
East." This is manifestly untrue. Salaita has not called for an end to
violence against Israelis. Quite the contrary, he has reveled in it.
I worked with the American Civil Liberties Union on the Nazis-in-Skokie case in
the 1970s, and I would gladly do so again. It is always rewarding to defend
free speech, but it is also important to be candid about the speech we are
defending which is why the ACLU never soft-pedaled the Nazis as merely
passionate critics of international banking.
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.
Steven Lubet is a law professor at Northwestern University. His most recent
book is "John Brown's Spy: The Adventurous Life and Tragic Confession of
John E. Cook."