BY DAVID PALUMBO-LIU, STANFORD UNIVERSITY
The punishment of John Cheney-Lippold, a University of Michigan professor who declined to write a letter of recommendation for a student who wished to study in Israel, has grown in a particularly ugly and disturbing manner.
Cheney-Lippold is a supporter of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS) that argues these actions be taken against Israel until it restores full human rights to Palestinians living in Israel, those living in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and those who were driven from their homes in Palestine in 1948. BDS has been targeted by the State of Israel as a “strategic threat.” Israel is particularly nervous about the gains BDS is making on college campuses.
As I noted in The Washington Post, at the time of Cheney-Lippold’s refusal, the University of Michigan had no rule mandating professors write such letters. I argued that Cheney-Lippold was actually being punished for upholding the non-discrimination policies of his university; it is indeed the case that Israel discriminates against Palestinians and others—among other things, they are refused admission to the kinds of Study Abroad programs Cheney-Lippold’s student wished to attend. This professor’s act of conscience, consistent with not only the University of Michigan’s non-discrimination policies but also with the right to education as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and his exercise of free speech, which is what the Supreme Court has determined a boycott to be, is nonetheless being attacked in the most outrageous and clumsy manners possible.
To begin with, in order to legitimize their punishment of Cheney-Lippold (he was denied sabbaticals and a merit raise in pay, and is subject to his classrooms being monitored), the University of Michigan mischaracterized policies recommended by the AAUP. The AAUP protested this misrepresentation in a letter to the President of the University of Michigan. They also criticized UM’s lack of due process.
The situation gets even more Kafkaesque.
Seeking the cover of a policy, the UM administration has now convened a committee to invent a policy—while at the very same moment declaring the outcome. Part of its charge is to “recommend how to clarify current policy or create new policy that clearly articulates institutional principles and expectations at the intersection of faculty members’ responsibilities to students and their own personal views.” But if the “principles and expectations” have already been established, why go through the charade of “gather[ing] and review[ing] relevant policy statements of peer institutions, and “gather[ing] input from stakeholders across the university”? The administration has already decided in advance that refusing to write a recommendation is “not a matter of free speech,” that it is categorically wrong, and that it is punishable. All the administration is doing is trying to create the illusion of faculty governance.
Unfortunately the heavy-handed repression of Cheney-Lippold, and anyone who dares to follow suit, is spreading beyond his home institution. An invitation extended to him to speak on his specialty, digital media, has been retracted by Colgate University. It seems that the parent of a Colgate undergraduate got wind of Cheney-Lippold’s lecture (one wonders how he discovered this) and wrote the University to protest.
In another depressingly transparent and ham-fisted instance of bureaucratic mendacity, the chair of the department that invited him issued this contrite statement: “We’ve realized that in order to ensure that Professor Cheney-Lippold’s visit is as productive as possible for our students, we need to take a bit more time to have open discussions about his scholarship, as well as what Colgate’s commitment to academic freedom means in a situation like this,” director of the Film and Media Studies program Mary Simonson said. This from a person who in the same article states: “The invitation was extended to Professor Cheney-Lippold after he published a much acclaimed book in 2017 with NYU Press titled ‘We Are Data: Algorithms and the Making of our Digital Selves.’”
So if this is the case, why now the need to “have a bit more time to have open discussions about his scholarship”? I believe it means, “think of a way to backtrack, deny the value of the scholarship we evaluated with our own eyes, and contrive another narrative to fall in line with the administration.” I have rarely witnessed such a craven act of submission before an administration. It puts the lie to the Program’s attested mission: “We will challenge our students to engage in the critical study of film and visual mass media. We will examine how these media serve as powerful determinants of ideology, identity, and historical consciousness.”
It is clear that Colgate has bought into the notion that criticism of Israel is the same as anti-Semitism. This false equation has been employed cynically. In the same article, senior and CJU/ Hillel President Emily Kahn is quoted as saying, “Chenney [sic]-Lippold’s actions and Saturday’s shooting [at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pa.] respectively show the continual rise of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism in America.” How did the principled decision not to write a letter of recommendation become equal to the murder of 11 people?
The article ends: “Colgate aspires to a shared commitment to learning, inquiry, and community that encourages individuals to listen and speak with care, so that all voices among us are heard.” Apparently “all voices” do not include those who use their voices to draw attention to Israel’s declared goal of being an ethno-nationalist state, one based on discrimination and unequal rights. That is not a message that the administrators of Colgate University and the University of Michigan want to hear.
In following this course of action against Prof. John Cheney-Lippold, the University of Michigan administration is taking the institution back to the dark days of the 1950s. This is when faculty and students were intimidated from speaking and acting according to their ideals and convictions for fear of being punished in the manner of Mark Nickerson, H. Chandler Davis, Clement Markert, and others. Supporting the international solidarity movement of BDS is controversial today, just as a refusal to “name names” and co-operate with the McCarthyite witch-hunt was back then. Let’s hope our colleagues can come together, whether or not they agree with BDS, and call a halt to this development before the reputation of our institution is besmirched as it was at that time. A faculty member should not be forced to write a letter to break the boycott any more than a faculty member who supports Israeli state policy should be forced to write a letter to help a student intern with BDS. Moreover, those of us who believe that anti-Semitism is synonymous with unthinkable evil must not allow the term to be weaponized to attack those like Cheney-Lippold, activists who feel they must join a boycott with the goal of creating pressure so that citizens in Israel/Palestine will one day live in a democratic and just system.
Alan Wald, H. Chandler Davis Collegiate Professor Emeritus, University of Michigan
Professor Palumbo-Liu properly cites AAUP’s concern regarding the failure of the University of Michigan to afford due process to professor John Cheney-Lippold, but he ignores AAUP’s official policy opposing academic boycotts. Specifically, the Association states: “In view of the Association’s long-standing commitment to the free exchange of ideas, we oppose academic boycotts. On the same grounds, we recommend that other academic associations oppose academic boycotts. We urge that they seek alternative means, less inimical to the principle of academic freedom, to pursue their concerns.” Professor Cheney-Lippold is certainly free to disagree with AAUP and advocate BDS, including the academic boycott, but he is not free to impose his views on his students.
Furthermore, in 1967 The Association along with several other higher education organizations issued a “Joint Statement on the Rights and Freedoms of Students” which expressly mandates: “Student performance should be evaluated solely on an academic basis, not on opinions or conduct in matters unrelated to academic standards.” This does not mean faculty have to write recommendations, but it does mean that faculty recommendations should be based on the student’s performance not their political preferences. Surely it is obvious that a professor could not announce a policy of recommending students who want to intern with the Republicans/Democrats but not the Democrats/Republicans, etc. The further argument that academic boycotts are uniquely justified by Israeli discrimination also conditions academic freedom on political opinions. I deplore the Israeli occupation but political discrimination is hardly unique to Israel.
Finally, grounding the decision to write a student recommendation on ones approval or disapproval of their political choices, however well intended, as it seems to me Professor Wald has urged , would legitimize, not combat, McCarthyism. Would it have been OK to refuse to write recommendations for students who wanted to study with Chandler Davis because one opposed his politics? Or to write recommendations for students who wanted to go to Canada to protest/avoid the Viet Nam War?
If I were a student I would certainly want to know if the faculty being asked for a letter of reference had any kind of objections to or problems with the place I was intending to study or work. Among other things, a letter written under duress is likely to be inferior to one written by someone who is enthusiastic. Moreover, I would be outraged to learn by some other means that the faculty had ethical problems with my plans but was intimidated from telling me because the Dean might freeze his or her salary, cancel a scheduled sabbatical (a direct interference with a scholar’s freedom to pursue research), and threaten to take action to strip tenure.
Prof. Cheney-Lippold did the true and honest thing. He did not want to violate a social justice boycott, so he candidly informed the student so that the student understood that it was not a question of his personal sympathy for her or a judgment on her abilities. She was lucky to have such a forthright professor. Since a student at U-M studies with around 8 different faculty every year, the chance of getting a more whole-heartedly enthusiastic letter was increased.
I think most people would find that being forced by an institution that employs one to do something one finds abhorrent, and to conceal your real feelings from others involved, is closer to McCarthyism than acting individually in a forthright and honest manner.
Dr. Cheney-Lippold did not “impose” his views on anyone; he told the student what he honestly thought and liberated her to seek out a letter of genuine (not forced) support.
Alan Wald
Should a faculty member be required to write a letter of recommendation for any reason? I can think of times when it would be bad form, as in, if you’re their dissertation director. Or if you have promised, it’s bad. But what is the point of a letter that is coerced?
The particular reported behavior of this particular university is probably not a primary variable in discrimination. The behavior is likely not organic but rather synthetic; that is, it is coerced by external special interests. The Israel lobby extends deeply into the academy and university governance. In that regard there may be a cause of action against such parties, under several legal arguments including several constitutional articles of course but also in tort and possibly criminal law. This is otherwise largely a litigation opportunity. As for policy it resides primarily with the university Trustees, Regents or other governing bodies as they are the appropriate corporate-level body of secondary but possibly co-equal primary liability. Robust litigation could otherwise likely resolve the reported discrimination rather promptly as it may also invoke certain Articles of the CRA and because it is a public institution, crimes against the State. Because it also involves non-US territorial parties it may also invoke aiding and abetting, and possibly the FCPA, among others. The University is otherwise in a very deep state of complex liability, if reports are accurate.
I have never heard that any “Jewish Lobby” has a connection with U-M. It is likely that some donors to the university, and some regents and parents (outraged by distorted versions of what happened with Cheney-Lippold), expressed their anger and put pressure on the university. Whether or not any were Jewish I don’t know and don’t care because it is clear that the vast majority of the public at present goes along with Israeli state policy for a variety of reasons. Most obviously there is our president, Donald Trump, very much in bed with the leadership of the Israeli state. At the same time this growing pro-Israeli Right Wing turns a blind eye to the real anti-Semitism in the US, reactionary white nationalists and those who spread memes about George Soros financing a border invasion, etc. We should use our academic skills and knowledge where possible to win over ordinary citizens to an understanding that a democratic and non-ethnically privileged society in what is now Israel/Palestine is best for all inhabitants. Cheney-Lippold is correct that a non-violent international solidarity movement that puts pressure on the current Israeli state is our best hope. Conspiracy theories about Jews are among those things we should oppose.
One might start with University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer’s “The Israel Lobby.” It is no theory, merely a statement in fact. As for conspiracies they are definded as two or more people sharing a common objective. That would make the whole world pretty much a “conspiracy.” Like other accusations meant to marginalize critical, rational inquiry or criticism, it no longer has accusatorial authority. As for the BDS, it is interesting to note U.Chicago’s coordination behavior with the State of Illinois to legislate sanctions among corporations engaging in sympathetic boycott. That is, the anti BDS initiative was written into law in Illinois by the current Governor (his first act). Michigan and other states may have similar initiatives expressed or implied.