The Academe Blog

The blog of Academe Magazine. Opinions published here do not necessarily represent the policies of the AAUP.

Illinois AAUP Committee A Statement on Steven Salaita and UIUC

The following is a statement by the Illinois AAUP Committee A on the case of Steven Salaita at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign:

The Illinois Conference Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure of the American Association of University Professors supports the honoring of the appointment of Steven G. Salaita in the American Indian Studies program at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Reports that the university has voided a job offer, if accurate, due to tweets on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would be a clear violation of Professor Salaita’s academic freedom and an affront to free speech that we enjoy in this country.

Professor Salaita resigned his position at Virginia Tech and was about to assume his  new appointment at the University of Illinois. We stand by the appointment and by Professor Salaita and defend his right to engage in extramural utterances.

The AAUP 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure states in reference to extramural utterances: “When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline.” It affirms that “The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition.” While Professor’s Salaita’s tweets are construed as controversial, the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure affirms the virtue of controversial speech. While the Statement refers to classroom teaching, the virtual classroom today has no limits. In 1970 the 1940 Statement was revised with new “Interpretive Comments.”  The second Interpretive Comment would encompass Professor Salaita’s right to be controversial: “The intent of this statement is not to discourage what is ‘controversial.’ Controversy is at the heart of the free academic inquiry which the entire statement is designed to foster.”

Professor Salaita’s words while strident and vulgar were an impassioned plea to end the violence currently taking place in the Middle East. Issues of life and death during bombardment educes significant emotions and expressions of concern that reflect the tragedy that armed conflict confers on its victims. Speech that is deemed controversial should be challenged with further speech that may abhor and challenge a statement. Yet the University of Illinois cannot cancel an appointment based upon Twitter statements that are protected speech in the United States of America.

The AAUP 1940 Statement does require a professor to be “accurate, to exercise appropriate restraint, to show respect for the opinions of others….” However in the AAUP Committee A Statement on Extramural Utterances it states in reference to the 1940 Statement:

[An] administration may file charges in accordance with procedures outlined in the Statement if it feels that a faculty member has failed to observe the above admonitions and believes that the professor’s extramural utterances raise grave doubts concerning the professor’s fitness for continuing service.

We are unaware that the university has afforded Professor Salaita any due process. In the absence of due process, particularly if a contract was signed, any institutional action to reverse an offer of appointment would be a grave violation of academic due process. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Salaita statements about Israel or Zionism that would raise questions about his fitness to teach. These statements were not made in front of students, are not related to a course that is being taught, and do not reflect in any manner his quality of teaching. What one says out of class rarely, in the absence of peer review of teaching, confirms how one teaches. Passion about a topic even if emotionally expressed through social network does not allow one to draw inferences about teaching that could possibly rise to the voiding or reversal of a job appointment.

One must not conjecture about a link between extramural statements and the quality of classroom teaching, absent an unmistakable link that would raise issues of competence. None exist here. Indeed, we affirm that fitness to teach can be enhanced with conviction, commitment and an engagement with the outside world. As a professor who was proffered an appointment in American Indian Studies, we are particularly concerned if a university would void a contract of a professor exercising a right of citizenship in protesting actions of another country that much of the global community including the U.N. Secretary General and even the U.S. State Department have found “disgraceful.”

Peter N. Kirstein, Chair of Illinois Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure, Saint Xavier University

Iymen Chehade, Columbia College

Loretta Capeheart, Northeastern Illinois University

J. Walter Kendall III, John Marshall School of Law

John Wilson, editor, Illinois Academe

89 comments on “Illinois AAUP Committee A Statement on Steven Salaita and UIUC

  1. professor_at_large
    August 6, 2014

    As the letter from the administrator of the University of Texas Anderson Cancer Center cautions, special care should be taken by AAUP to familiarize itself with the governing documents of the university in question — the simple recitation of the 1940 Statement might not be sufficient / adequate to the situation at hand.

    Therefore, it is useful to examine Article X of the University of Illinois’ Board of Trustees Policies on academic freedom and to see what comparisons may be drawn for the case of this candidate for a faculty position:

    “Section 2. Academic Freedom

    a. It is the policy of the University to maintain and encourage full freedom within the law of inquiry, discourse, teaching, research, and publication and to protect any member of the academic staff against influences, from within or without the University, which would restrict the member’s exercise of these freedoms in the member’s area of scholarly interest. The right to the protection of the University shall not, however, include any right to the services of the university counsel or the counsel’s assistants in any governmental or judicial proceedings in which the academic freedom of the staff member may be in issue.

    b. As a citizen, a faculty member may exercise the same freedoms as other citizens without institutional censorship or discipline. A faculty member should be mindful, however, that accuracy, forthrightness, and dignity befit association with the University and a person of learning and that the public may judge that person’s profession and the University by the individual’s conduct and utterances.

    c. If, in the president’s judgment, a faculty member exercises freedom of expression as a citizen and fails to heed the admonitions of Article X, Section 2b, the president may publicly disassociate the Board of Trustees and the University from and express their disapproval of such objectionable expressions.

    d. A staff member who believes that he or she does not enjoy the academic freedom which it is the policy of the University to maintain and encourage shall be entitled to a hearing on written request before the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure of the appropriate campus senate. Such hearing shall be conducted in accordance with established rules of procedure. The committee shall make findings of facts and recommendations to the president and, at its discretion, may make an appropriate report to the senate. The several committees may from time to time establish their own rules of procedure.”

    http://www.bot.uillinois.edu/statutes

    It would appear that subsection (b) may be of concern to the university of administration and, further, that only if one is truly “a staff member” does one have access to the review process.

    Personally, this reader has never understood why academics choose to vent what might easily be deemed unprofessional feelings in public forums when they know that there is a special responsibility which comes with academic freedom. The earlier 1915 AAUP Declaration of Principles which preceded the 1940 version was much clearer on this and consonant in spirit with subsection (b) of the Illinois statute. Indeed the 1915 Declaration begins with an analysis of “authority” and the public trust which the University of Texas and the University of Illiniois administration might well consider or be considering in their respective situations.

    • professor_at_large
      August 6, 2014
    • John Protevi
      August 6, 2014

      Of course the AAUP should consult local documents, but it should never be bound by them; indeed, the whole purpose of a national organization is to have a set of principles that the documents and actions of local administrators can be judged against, rather than vice versa.

      • professor_at_large
        August 7, 2014

        Of course, AAUP is not bound by local documents and the AAUP principles are the core of its work. Would that AAUP leaders would actually care about their enforcement in AAUP-affiliated unions, as well. There are reasons why the membership has dwindled during the past several decades.

        However, by doing this kind of background homework and foregrounding it in the media, AAUP leaders would better identify and combat the actual source of the problem and the target for the solution. In Illinois it is the Board of Trustees and the state statutes which are at issue in this case.

      • John Protevi
        August 7, 2014

        “However, by doing this kind of background homework and foregrounding it in the media, AAUP leaders would better identify and combat the actual source of the problem and the target for the solution. In Illinois it is the Board of Trustees and the state statutes which are at issue in this case.”

        I assume you will be volunteering your services to the AAUP then so that they might benefit from your experience and judgment in these matters?

        In any case, it is not the legality of Wise’s decision that we should be concerned about, but its violation of the principles of academic freedom. Assume Wise is sufficiently lawyered-up to have her decision withstand a suit by Salaita. That means nothing when it comes to our condemnation of her for violating principles. As you no doubt realize, what is legal is not always ethical.

    • freespeechlover
      August 6, 2014

      Do you use twitter? If you don’t, then you do not know the medium, and your judgment about “professional feelings” is based on ignorance.

      • professor_at_large
        August 7, 2014

        In hindsight, I would change “unprofessional feelings” to “unprofessional outbursts” — which is what borderline or actual profanity would be considered in most professions. There is no need for a faculty member to eschew social media, but a sense of professional dignity at all times before the public is not a bad aspiration for academics.

        Again, both the AAUP 1915 Principles and the Illinois Board of Trustees statutes have a concern about responsibility in the context of academic freedom. The search for controlling legal documents sometimes yields clauses and concepts comparable to those in the AAUP arsenal, in part because the influence of AAUP documents was involved in their creation.

    • freespeechlover
      August 6, 2014

      If a contract was signed, I’m not sure whether it is within the University of Illinois’ right to simply fire a faculty member, but whether it is the “right” of the President or Chancellor to do so, it’s poor judgment to do so. She should stand back from the fray.

    • Teepu Siddique, MD
      August 7, 2014

      Here is my opinion:
      I agree with the AAUP’s position on academic freedoms. All truth and new discoveries begin as a minority view or opinion. Censorship is death knell for innovation, new knowledge and search for the truth.
      As an Illinoian I think this is all the more shameful that the paid employee of an academic institution that profits from my tax payers money should act to negate one of the most cherished values of academic and American life. Freedom of speech , free of economic, political or social censorship.
      The University president should resign from her position. In my opinion she is unfit to lead an institution with a history far more glorious then her petty, provincial and prejudiced view point allows and she appears to support a barbarous and terrorist foreign regime.
      A better and more courageous action on her part would have been to debate
      Professor Salaita, or initiate a debate in the University newspaper. I believe she has misused her office in the interest of a foreign government and should be registered as such with the Stare Department. If she has been pressurized to do so, then as a public officer, she must reveal those pressures and names of individuals who forced to act in this outrageous manner, or take responsibility and resign.

    • Wsokol
      August 25, 2014

      Section 2d of Article X establishes due process to investigate alleged cases of misconduct. Apparently, Salaita was not given that due process, he was simply judged guilty and terminated without having a chance to defend himself. This is the main point in the AAUP statement.

  2. Pingback: University Diaries » Mistweetment

  3. Nurit Baytch
    August 6, 2014

    Steven Salaita wished for the kidnapping of all West Bank settlers in the aftermath of the Israeli teens’ abduction:

    I regard this as incitement to violence and beyond the pale of appropriate discourse.

    • John K. Wilson
      August 6, 2014

      Actually, there are two interpretations possible. The first is that this is a wish for the West Bank settlers to disappear from the West Bank. That’s obviously not violent, it’s a call for a political solution that removes the settlements. The second interpretation is that this is a wish to see all West Bank settlers kidnapped; that could be regarded as violent, but it should be noted that at the time of this tweet, the three teens were missing, but not confirmed dead. Still, let’s assume the very worst, that Salaita was wishing for the death of Israeli settlers. As deplorable as that idea is, it is not an incitement to violence. And consider what kind of standard you would be demanding if you called for the firing of every professor who wished for the death of someone. Suppose a supporter of Israel wished for more attacks on Hamas like the ones that killed innocent children. Or suppose someone endorsed the killing of Osama bin Laden (for example, I did). Wishing for the deaths of others is not a crime, it is generally not incitement to violence, and it should be condemned by counterspeech, not by an attempt to fire anyone who might seem to be endorsing violence. So, even the worst possible interpretation of Salaita’s worst tweet cannot justify his firing, unless you intended to dismiss the 99% of professors who are not committed pacifists.

      • Nurit Baytch
        August 6, 2014

        I think it strains credulity to claim that Salaita was merely arguing for the removal of the West Bank settlements. Salaita wished for all West Bank settlers to “go missing” in the aftermath of the kidnapping of three Israeli teens. It is clear he meant “go missing” like those three Israeli teens. Had he said, “I wish all the West Bank settlers would go back to Israel proper,” that would be another matter entirely.

        Perhaps Salaita’s statement does not legally constitute “incitement to violence,” but I would argue that Salaita’s defenders at The Electronic Intifada have used a similarly broad definition of incitement to violence in regard to violent anti-Palestinian rhetoric.

        Finally, I find it astonishing that you would compare endorsing the assassination of Osama bin Laden to endorsing the kidnapping of 350,000 civilians, many of whom are children. I’m not intimately familiar with UIUC’s hiring policies, so I’m not advocating that UIUC stand by its decision to revoke Salaita’s offer. If the tweet I referenced, along with Salaita’s other inflammatory and offensive statements, do not violate UIUC policy, then I wouldn’t oppose his reinstatement. But I think people should be aware that Salaita advocated the kidnapping of 350,000 civilians, as this is beyond the pale of appropriate discourse. I regard Illinois AAUP Committee A’s claim that “Professor Salaita’s words while strident and vulgar were an impassioned plea to end the violence currently taking place in the Middle East” to be whitewashing his record, which includes a call for violence.

      • Nurit Baytch
        August 6, 2014

        I’d also like to add that while it’s unclear whether Salaita was wishing for the death of Israeli settlers, kidnapping is classified as a violent crime by the FBI:

        http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/cac/non-family-abductions

      • John K. Wilson
        August 6, 2014

        I think it strains credulity to assume, without the slightest evidence, that Salaita is calling for the mass murder of 350,000 people rather than stating his wish that they would simply disappear. This is the problem with demanding censorship, you must start playing a guessing game about what people really mean. If wishing mass death is to be a banned idea, does that mean that anyone who tweets we should bomb Iran back to the Stone Age must be fired? Does that mean anyone who supports the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which killed more than 350,000 innocent civilians if you include the long-term effects) can be deemed guilty of a thought crime?

      • Nurit Baytch
        August 6, 2014

        I never once claimed Salaita is calling for the mass murder of 350,000 people. In fact, I explicitly stated, “it’s unclear whether Salaita was wishing for the death of Israeli settlers.” I also said that I would not oppose Salaita’s reinstatement if his statements do not violate UIUC policy, so please stop distorting my positions.

      • Elevate the discourse
        August 25, 2014

        “You may be too refined to say it, but I’m not: I wish all the fucking West Bank settlers would go missing.”

        It is pathetic that academia is reduced to arguing what is meant by Salaita’s inappropriate, immature and crass tweet. Is this the best academics can do? One hopes for more…

    • freespeechlover
      August 6, 2014

      I disagree. It’s a strong statement, but I don’t think it’s suggesting that I should go and take out “all the West Bank settlers.” The reason it doesn’t is because of the forum in which the statement was made which is twitter and the context is one where people often say things in a confrontational style, particularly during a war in which civilians in Gaza were being massacred.

      • Nurit Baytch
        August 6, 2014

        Salaita wished for the kidnapping of all West Bank settlers on June 19th, ~3 weeks before the start of Operation Protective Edge.

      • freespeechlover
        August 6, 2014

        I disagree that he wished for the kidnapping. The statement was hyperbole, which means it was not to be taken literally. Hyperbole is the art of overstatement. You read it as incitement to kidnap. I don’t, mainly because I am a strong civil liberties advocate and believe that in a court of law, Salaita’s tweet would not rise to “crying fire in a crowded theater,” largely because of the circumstances under which he made the statement.

      • Nurit Baytch
        August 6, 2014

        As I said in a previous comment, perhaps Salaita’s statement does not legally constitute “incitement to violence,” but I would argue that Salaita’s defenders at The Electronic Intifada have used a similarly broad definition of incitement to violence in regard to violent anti-Palestinian rhetoric.

      • freespeechlover
        August 6, 2014

        They may have, and I might disagree or agree with them. But the question here is whether someone who was hired should be fired over hyperbole on twitter. I don’t think so. I strongly disagree with the law professor who wrote an op ed for the Wall St. Journal defending Israel’s actions in Gaza. I don’t call for his firing, but if I did, university administrators should not decide that his extramural speech calls for firing.

      • John Protevi
        August 7, 2014

        “I would argue that Salaita’s defenders at The Electronic Intifada have used a similarly broad definition of incitement to violence in regard to violent anti-Palestinian rhetoric.”

        As none of the EI folks are candidates for jobs at the University of Illinois, I think this is a red herring.

    • Mik Stokely
      August 7, 2014

      I actually read this tweet a bit differently….wishing Israeli settlers on lands claimed by others could be understood as simply a desire that they leave, go back to Israel, exit the landscape, and remove themselves from occupied territory. I did not read this as a wish for them to be “kidnapped”. Similarly, many Native Americans often say they wish Euro-Americans would go back to their homes in Europe, but this does not signify an incitement to violence, merely a hope to reclaim indigenous territory.

  4. freespeechlover
    August 6, 2014

    Regardless of the tweets and what any of us think is or is not “beyond the pale” “incivil,” etc. the hiring process should not try to arbitrate what is essentially the content of speech in a forum that does not gate keep in the same manner as peer reviewed publications. My understanding is that the academic program or department that wanted to hire Salaita already vetted him. The Chancellor should stand down and back from entering the fray, with the exception of saying that she disagrees with him but supports his right to make disagreeable statements.

    • Elevate the discourse
      August 25, 2014

      Twitter does not act as a gatekeeper. But academics should seriously try to elevate their rhetoric above that used by Twitter trolls. In the private sector, he would likely be fired – NOT for his opinions on Israel – but for using swear words and language in a very unprofessional manner.

      Yes he has every right to tweet in ways that are immature and intemperate. But here’s to hoping for better from our professors. It is quite sad that academic freedom debates often center around professors who choose to use language on social media that is utterly unacceptable in the classroom – or any other professional venue. There are better ways to present information and opinion about the terrible tragedy happening now in the Middle East than how Salaita chose to do on Twitter.

      • freespeechlover
        August 25, 2014

        Given the revelations today in Inside Higher Education, it’s clear that swearing on twitter isn’t really at issue. I have no doubts that none of those who organized behind closed doors to insist that Salaita would not be hired would have blinked an eye, if he used the word, fuck, and

        As for academic freedom debates being often centered around professors who choose to use language on social media that is utterly unacceptable in the classroom, I think this case and the David Guth case in Kansas in Dec. 2013, are the only two examples I can think of where language on social media has been at issue.

        Are there others?

  5. Abbas Al-Tonsi
    August 7, 2014

    Just a question according to international law and UN resolutions are west bank or Gaza an Israeli territory or an occupied territory?Are the settlements in west bank legal or not ?

    • freespeechlover
      August 9, 2014

      They are illegal under international law.

      • Lee
        August 27, 2014

        Uh, no.

        To being with, Israel withdrew COMPLETELY from Gaza in 2005.

        And while some argument could be made that Israel was the aggressor in 1967 against Egypt because of the preemptive strike, (a weak argument), they were definitely NOT the aggressor against Jordan, a country that had indeed illegally occupied the West Bank from 1948 until they attacked Israel in 1967. As the West Bank was treated internationally as part of Jordan, it became de facto part of Jordan. When Jordan attacked Israel in 1967, Jordan was the belligerent, and Israel responded defensively, as she had a right to under the UN Charter, Article 51. Israel has the right, under international law, to set the conditions for withdrawal.

        You might want to brush up some actual facts before mindlessly typing.

  6. anonymous
    August 7, 2014

    either salaita’s PUBLIC statements on twitter constitute an unlawful incitement to violence (they do not), or they are protected first amendment speech (they are). those supporting U of I’s decision are basically saying that an academic has LESSER first amendment rights than those outside of academe. what a shameful, and dangerous, position to take.

    • professor_at_large
      August 7, 2014

      No, actually it isn’t the UIUC which has taken away the free speech rights of public employee academics in many contexts, but rather a series of SCOTUS decisions which included the NYU Leonard Jeffries case back in the 90s. For example, cf. the rulings in Waters v. Churchill (not Ward Churchill) and Garcetti v. Ceballos.

      This is not to say that UIUC is making claims in this case relying upon those rulings, but one should not be surprised if it or more likely the Board of Trustees did make such a claim. I believe it was the Kansas Board of Trustees which first adopted (and is now reviewing) a policy concerning employee use of social media which explicitly relied upon these legal concepts from Supreme Court rulings.

      • John Protevi
        August 7, 2014

        “No, actually it isn’t the UIUC which has taken away the free speech rights of public employee academics in many contexts, but rather a series of SCOTUS decisions”

        But we are discussing the violation of the principles of academic freedom by Wise’s decision in the Salaita case, not its putative legality following SCOTUS decisions. It may or may not be true that Wise’s decision is legal, but we are discussing the professional ethics of the case here, are we not? What is legal is not always ethical.

      • freespeechlover
        August 7, 2014

        The Kansas Board of Regents did institute a social media policy, however, it wasn’t clear to their own attorneys that case law was on their side in terms of whether they can effectively fire a faculty member for social media use deemed “not in the interests” of the university. I’m in the Kansas system and attended meetings about this policy when it was under review by a working committee the Regents set up in response to protest from faculty back in December 2013, when they first announced the policy. At least there was discussion that even legally it case law had some ambiguities built into it regarding how academia was handled vis a vis other places of employment.

  7. Pingback: Thursday Links! | Gerry Canavan

  8. Joerg Tiede
    August 7, 2014

    The most relevant AAUP policy statement here appears to be Ensuring Academic Freedom in Politically Controversial Academic Personnel Decisions, which notes specifically:

    Discrimination by a public college or university against prospective appointees based on political views or affiliations unrelated to their professional responsibilities may well be found unlawful. It is certainly at odds with principles of academic freedom. Such discrimination in academic hiring practices by a private university or college, even if lawful, would similarly run afoul of academic freedom. To conclude otherwise would open the door not only to politically rather than academically based appointments but also, as in the 1950s, to political blacklists and similarly unacceptable employment practices.

    • professor_at_large
      August 7, 2014

      The problem with these “policies” of the AAUP which were produced solely ad hoc by presidentially-appointed hand-picked committees, such as the one named above, is that neither the Council nor the Annual Meeting has approved them and they are thus in a real sense more political than policy statements, subject to change with the next administration, as it were — unlike such standard documents as the 1915 Declaration and the 1940 Statement which were formally approved by the AAUP membership and/or the Council in accordance with the AAUP Constitution.

      And as for the Kansas BOT and their hesitations on a social media policy based on perceived ambiguities with respect to academic environments in the case law, it must be acknowledged that, for example, the much-touted “Garcetti exception” which has been used to defend a special exemption for academic public employee speech was not in the ruling itself but in the dicta. The rulings of SCOTUS remain as they were written until the divergence in the Circuits (some enforcing the “Garcetti exception” and others not) is confronted by the Supreme Court directly in a cert case.

      • Teepu Siddique, MD
        August 7, 2014

        I believe pro Israeli academics are trying to restrict academic freedoms to quash rising anger against Israeli atrocities. As is clear from the exchange here we have an anonymous professor- at-large arguing for executive order determination of academic freedom
        of speech. Who is this person? It makes one suspect that an insidious web of influentials is strangulating these freedoms in the interest of a foreign regime.

      • Joerg Tiede
        August 7, 2014

        Not to get into the depths of AAUP policy making, but subcommittees charged with writing policy statements are, to my knowledge, never appointed by the president, but by the chair of the relevant committee in consultation with staff. Although Council did not vote to endorse the statement I cited, it did vote to include the statement in the next edition of the Redbook.

  9. Peter N. Kirstein
    August 7, 2014

    The statement speaks for itself. Yet two points that speak for myself and not for the committee that I chair. First: Administrators and faculty need to separate their personal biases, that we all have, from their assessment of colleagues. It is not always easy but that is what leadership and integrity demand. Second: Universities, particularly during times of war, need to remember the McCarthy Era when cold war politics led to perhaps five-hundred dismissals of university faculty in the United States.

  10. Pingback: Shit and Curses, and Other Updates on the Steven Salaita Affair | Corey Robin

  11. professor_at_large
    August 7, 2014

    For some reason the blog software is not permitting a threaded reply to Joerg Tierde’s comment about the so-called “policies” generated by appointed rather than elected committees and subcommittees.

    Because the AAUP President appoints the entire committee composition for all of the committees, it makes no difference whether the AAUP President or the Chair of the Committee assigns a subcommittee to draft a report. The point is that the process is outside of the true representational structure and can only be “recuperated” back into the structure if Council first endorses and then sends an endorsed report to the floor of the Annual Meeting for adoption. Anything else is not democracy in action.

    The AAUP leadership is acting in internal governance exactly like the committees and subcommittees appointed by campus presidents outside of the elected committee structures established by university senates. In short, many is the time that it strikes this member that, were the AAUP a university, it would need to be investigated for governance violations. The elected Council has no formal role in the AAUP committee formation — they are purely the creation of the President of the AAUP. The fact that the AAUP Constitution permits such autocratic goings-on is no excuse, of course, for, as one commenter has noted above: just because it’s legal doesn’t make it truly ethical.

  12. Pingback: University Of Illinois Professor Apparently Loses Job Over Anti-Israel Tweets | The News On Time

  13. Pingback: University Of Illinois Professor Apparently Loses Job Over Anti-Israel Tweets | Irascible Musings

  14. Pingback: University Of Illinois Professor Apparently Loses Job Over Anti-Israel Tweets

  15. Pingback: University Of Illinois Professor Apparently Loses Job Over Anti-Israel Tweets | The Daily Float

  16. Pingback: University Of Illinois Professor Apparently Loses Job Over Anti-Israel Tweets — LiberalVoiceLiberalVoice — Your source for everything about liberals and progressives! — News and tweets about everything liberals and progressives

  17. Pingback: University Of Illinois Professor Apparently Loses Job Over Anti-Israel Tweets | Social Dashboard

  18. Max
    August 7, 2014

    “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”-Voltaire

  19. Susan
    August 7, 2014

    Apparently, this is not his first run in with anti-semitism

    http://socialfoundations.blogspot.com/2007/09/meet-steven-salaida-jihadist-english.html

    • John K. Wilson
      August 7, 2014

      This blog post that you link to concludes by declaring that Salaita was probably responsible for a mass murderer at Virginia Tech: “Did Steven Salaita teach Cho Seung-hui? If not, what contact did he have with him? It is hard to believe that this constant bashing of America would not have had an effect on him.” And,the evidence of Salaita’s anti-Semitism is equally unproven.

    • Teepu Siddique, MD
      August 7, 2014

      Sounds like rubbish. The greatest incitement to violence are the acts bid the Israeli regime. It has set a new low in human behavior , worse than the German SS, of leveling mosques, schools, UN asylums and hospitals, civilian residences and the handicapped, the elderly, pregnant women and children. For the Barbarous Israeli regime all of this is fair. I guess the world should look at this as the new standard and we should be prepared to reap the whirlwind. Unfortunately Israeli regime firsters want to drag the US down with them. This Israeli albatross has to go so we can reclaim our human values and be not tarnished by whimsical barbarity.

    • Mik Stokely
      August 7, 2014

      I don’t allow my students to use blog posts as data sources in research papers and generally remind them that just anyone can create a blog & post comments….doesn’t necessarily make the information accurate or even verifiable. I would recommend avoiding them in this conversation for the same reasons.

  20. Pingback: University Of Illinois Professor Apparently Loses Job Over Anti-Israel Tweets | Go Education

  21. Pingback: University Of Illinois Professor Apparently Loses Job Over Anti-Israel Tweets | Times of News | Online breaking and Latest News From USA

  22. Pingback: Illinois AAUP Committee A Statement on Steven Salaita and UIUC | Labor for Palestine (U.S.)

  23. Pingback: University Of Illinois Professor Apparently Loses Job Over Anti-Israel Tweets | Higher Education Guide

  24. Pingback: University Of Illinois Professor Apparently Loses Job Over Anti-Israel Tweets | CauseHub

  25. Pingback: University Of Illinois Professor Apparently Loses Job Over Anti-Israel Tweets | Political Ration

  26. Allison Hodgkins
    August 8, 2014

    I dislike Salalita’s language, but the implications of this case are chilling. I am grateful for the position expressed in this post. How can there be a civil debate if scholars must fear their livelihood by challenging hegemonic perceptions of this or other conflicts?

  27. Pingback: University of Illinois Rejection of Anti-Israel Professor Shows How Faculty Power Is Eroding | The News On Time

  28. Pingback: University of Illinois Rejection of Anti-Israel Professor Shows How Faculty Power Is Eroding | Lennard Davis

  29. Pingback: University of Illinois Rejection of Anti-Israel Professor Shows How Faculty Power Is Eroding | The Daily Float

  30. Pingback: “Literally” Two-Thousand Fourteen Links | The Hyperarchival Parallax

  31. Pingback: Ethical? Steven Salaita denied post at University of Illinois over Palestine tweets

  32. Pingback: University of Illinois Rejection of Anti-Israel Professor Shows How Faculty Power Is Eroding | Omaha Sun Times

  33. Pingback: Joan Rivers: Palestinians Deserve Death, Professor Fired Israel Tweet | Global Grind

  34. Pingback: A Reply to Nathaniel Zelinsky: ‘Anti-Israel’ Professor Shouldn’t Have Been Fired | Omaha Sun Times

  35. Pingback: A Reply to Nathaniel Zelinsky: 'Anti-Israel' Professor Shouldn't Have Been Fired | David Palumbo-Liu

  36. Pingback: A Reply to Nathaniel Zelinsky: 'Anti-Israel' Professor Shouldn't Have Been Fired — LiberalVoiceLiberalVoice — Your source for everything about liberals and progressives! — News and tweets about everything liberals and prog

  37. Pingback: A Reply to Nathaniel Zelinsky: ‘Anti-Israel’ Professor Shouldn’t Have Been Fired | The News On Time

  38. Pingback: Hire Anti-Israel Professor Or Get Sued, Group Implies to UI Urbana-Champaign

  39. Pingback: A Reply to Nathaniel Zelinsky: ‘Anti-Israel’ Professor Shouldn’t Have Been Fired | LUYOL

  40. Pingback: Steven Saliata and Academic Freedom: A Call for Solidarity | Public Seminar

  41. Pingback: Academic Freedom in the Salaita Case | Michael C. Dorf | Verdict | Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia

  42. Pingback: UIUC termination of Steven Salaita: my open letter to the chancellor | Pauline Park

  43. Pingback: Academic Freedom in the Salaita Case

  44. Pingback: University of Illinois professor loses his job after anti-Israel tweets | Higher Education Guide

  45. Pingback: University of Illinois professor loses his job after anti-Israel tweets | Go Education

  46. Pingback: Reading Salaita in Illinois (part 2) - will be ready this afternoon

  47. Pingback: Reading Salaita in Illinois—by Way of Cary Nelson (part 1) | Mondoweiss

  48. Pingback: Reading Salaita in Illinois (part 2) – Cary Nelson, academic freedom’s agent provocateur |  SHOAH

  49. Pingback: A bright move to UCLA and a timely departure from Illinois | Safiya U. Noble, Ph.D.

  50. Pingback: Bombs in Gaza Wound Academic Freedom in Urbana-Champaign » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

Your comments are welcome. They must be relevant to the topic at hand and must not contain advertisements, degrade others, or violate laws or considerations of privacy. We encourage the use of your real name, but do not prohibit pseudonyms as long as you don't impersonate a real person.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Information

This entry was posted on August 6, 2014 by in AAUP, academic freedom and tagged , .
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,087 other followers

%d bloggers like this: