Salaita Legal Team Stands Tall as They Fight for Justice in US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

I would like to add a few items to John Wilson’s fine summary of the law suit filed in US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of Steven Salaita. The Center for Constitutional Law and the Chicago civil rights law firm Loevy and Loevy have been providing legal counsel to Professor Salaita.

The press call attracted many reporters from prominent media outlets. The ones I heard asking questions were Michelle Manchir from The Chicago Tribune, Peter Schmidt, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Colleen Flaherty, Inside Higher Ed, WILL radio, Peter Weiss, Mondoweiss website and John Wilson, Academe Blog.

Several seemed surprised that donors were named as one of the defendants in the law suit. The complaint creatively refers to them as “John Doe Unknown Donors to the University of Illinois.” This is essential. On so many campuses, external pressure from donors and other “interested parties” have hijacked the shared governance autonomy that belongs to a university community.

It is time that donors are held accountable if they participate in the denial of a professor’s civil rights and academic freedom. Pay-to-play might be an Illinois tradition in politics: in higher education the barricades must be erected to prevent unwarranted influence from those who wish to deploy their money to determine how students are taught and what is permissible speech for the professoriate. They need to be deterred and hopefully this federal law suit will resonate on other campuses.

The following is the text of the Center for Constitutional Rights opening statement at the press teleconference. At the end is a link to the complaint filed today seeking justice for Steven Salaita:

Professor Sues University of Illinois Over Firing for “Uncivil” Gaza Tweets

Trustees, Chancellor, President, and Donors Targets of Suit

January 29, 2015, Chicago, IL — A professor who was fired from a tenured position at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign because of his tweets criticizing the Israeli government’s bombing of Gaza last year has filed a civil rights suit against the University and its top officials, saying that his firing violated his First Amendment right to free speech and other constitutional rights, and basic principles of academic freedom.

Dr. Steven Salaita, a Palestinian-American professor of indigenous studies, filed the lawsuit today in a U.S. federal court in the Northern District of Illinois, in Chicago, represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights and the law firm of Loevy & Loevy. The suit alleges that university officials, including the Chancellor and University trustees, violated Salaita’s constitutional rights to free speech and due process of law, and breached its employment contract with him. The suit is also against University donors who, based on emails made public, unlawfully threatened future donations to the University if it did not fire Professor Salaita on account of his political views. Those donors are not currently identified by name.

“Like any American citizen, I have the right to express my opinion on pressing human rights concerns, including Israeli government actions, without fear of censorship or punishment. The University’s actions have cost me the pinnacle of academic achievement – a tenured professorship, with the opportunity to write and think freely.  What makes this worse is that in my case the University abandoned fundamental principles of academic freedom and shared governance, crucial to fostering critical thought, that should be at the core of the university mission,” said Professor Salaita.

After a national search and interview process, Professor Salaita had been offered a tenured faculty position in the American Indian Studies program at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and was due to start working in two weeks when he received a letter from Chancellor Phyllis Wise and Vice President Christophe Pierre terminating his appointment, without notice or explanation. Salaita and his wife had already quit their jobs at Virginia Tech University, where he was tenured.  University officials have since acknowledged that their decision was based on Salaita’s tweets about Israel’s military assault on Gaza, which they viewed as “uncivil.”

Last month, the University’s Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure concluded that Salaita’s termination was improper and called for the University to reconsider its decision and renounce its statement that the action was taken because Salaita’s speech lacked “civility.” Two weeks ago, the University’s board rejected the committee’s recommendation to reconsider its decision after allowing qualified academic experts to weigh in, calling its decision final.

“The use of ‘civility’ as cover for violating Professor Salaita’s rights must be challenged, as it threatens the very notion of a University as a place for free inquiry and open debate.  There is neither a ‘civility’ exception nor a ‘Palestine’ exception to the First Amendment,” said Maria LaHood, a senior attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights. “Professor Salaita’s termination violated the University’s contractual commitment to him, its own policies and procedures, accepted principles of shared governance and academic freedom, and the United States Constitution.”

The lawsuit seeks Salaita’s reinstatement and monetary relief that includes compensation for the economic hardship and reputational damage he suffered as a result of the University’s actions.

Chancellor Wise has stated that the decision to terminate Salaita was not influenced by pressure from wealthy donors. University documents obtained under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, however, include letters and emails from several donors to Wise openly stating that they would withdraw financial support from the University if it did not fire Salaita.  For example, Steven Miller is alleged to have met with Wise to “share his thoughts about the University’s hiring of Professor Salaita.” Miller is the owner of a Chicago-based venture capital firm and has endowed a professorship at the University in his name.  Salaita’s letter of termination was dated the same day Wise and Miller met.

“The University’s administration has repeatedly said one thing, and then done another. The administration keeps insisting that its decision was not influenced by donor pressure, but yet it has refused to comply with requests for emails from donors to University officials under Illinois government transparency laws. The Chancellor and Board keep saying they are committed to principles of academic freedom and shared governance, but they refuse to follow the recommendation of the University’s own Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure to allow academic experts on its faculty to weigh in. Prominent nationwide academic organizations and thousands of faculty have all condemned the administration’s actions and demanded it reconsider Salaita’s firing, but the University still refuses. Only donor pressure, or sheer pride, can explain the administration’s stubborn refusal to revisit a decision that has done so much harm to Dr. Salaita and to constitutional and other principles that academics hold dear. The administration has something to hide, and through this lawsuit we intend to expose it,” said Anand Swaminathan of Loevy & Loevy.

Since Salaita’s firing, the University’s leadership has faced increasing nationwide criticism from within the academic community. Sixteen academic departments of the university have voted no confidence in the University Administration, and prominent academic organizations, including the American Association of University Professors, the Modern Language Association, and the Society of American Law Teachers have publicly condemned the university’s actions. More than 5,000 academics from around the country have pledged to boycott the institution, resulting in the cancellation of more than three dozen scheduled talks and conferences at the school.

FOIA litigation lawsuit against the University seeking administrators’ email correspondence with donors and other documents remains pending in state court, and there will be hearing on the University’s motion to dismiss that case on February 13th.

To read the complaint, visit:

3 thoughts on “Salaita Legal Team Stands Tall as They Fight for Justice in US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

  1. It will be interesting to see if they settle out of court. If they do I hope that U of I has to pay a large chunk of change to Salaita, even though I know that would in no way, shape or form makes up for U of I went through. I hope everyone recognizes U of I for what it now “is,” as a result of the Board of Trustees and this overreaching donor, the Chancellor, and the faculty who simply do not yet “get” what is the definition of academic freedom as well as what the tradition of the First Amendment is in the US. If I could do anything to those faculty at U of I who seem to have the gift of “me too-now-please-favor-me-when-you-hand-out-resources-ism,” when it comes to their administration (but let’s face it-unfortunately, this occurs at a good deal of universities today), it would be to send them back to school-Political Science 101, where the Constitution is taught. Because amazingly there are faculty teaching at US universities, even flagships, who don’t seem to “get” the tradition of American basic freedoms. They don’t understand basic principles of American political liberalism, and they say things that reflect a basic ignorance of them.

  2. One wonders whether the status of UIUC as a public institution makes the tortious interference different from such an action at a private institution. For example, are there state public employee ethics law statutes that might apply to a quid pro quo action by the Chancellor as a public employee herself?

    Further, some public institutions, like SUNY, set up separate private foundations which actually receive the donations and can then be invoked as not subject to state public information laws for disclosure. This would seem to make the threat of interference in the state’s actions (for that is what is at stake when a Chancellor hires, a state action) in exchange for contributions to a private foundation even more “interesting” legally speaking. Just how are donations “managed” at UIUC: as direct contributions or to a private foundation?

    Additionally, how are the salaries of the Chancellor and other administrators handled? In SUNY, for example, the foundations are used to increase presidential compensation beyond the ordinary public employment limits of the positions. This would, of course, inject the element of potential personal gain (or loss) into the equation. Which would circle back to any ethics laws….

    It all gets curiouser and curiouser the more one contemplates the ramifications. Indeed, it would seem that CCR hasn’t been anywhere near as “creative” in this filing as they might have been.

  3. Salaita has been trying to settle this affair without a law suit and with one exception, the board has not had the humility to admit they made a mistake and rehire him.

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.