David Palumbo-Liu

Chancellor Phyllis Wise, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Dear Chancellor Wise,

I know you have been besieged with letters in support of Professor Steven Salaita. I am sure you are more than familiar with the complaints literally thousands of his colleagues have raised regarding issues of due process, free speech, and academic freedom.  So I will not repeat those criticisms here.  What I do want to draw your attention to is the irreparable damage your action has done to the trust we place in our academic institutions.  Let me explain—I will try to be brief.

As the former elected chair of the Stanford University Faculty Senate, I am keenly interested in issues of governance and transparency.  While absolute transparency is often impossible, in cases like this even some indication of the reasons behind your actions would help set the record straight.  That you have not made any leads one to infer that the legal mess that has ensued is considerable.  Good.

Among the many truly awful things this action has produced is that it has made everyone, everyone, deeply suspicious that our normal institutional practices are now held hostage to outside forces, forces that operate in the shadows, override due process, trump faculty input.  Furthermore, and most destructively, they create a deadening, chilling effect on the very things we are supposed to be engaged in as educators—the free and open exchange of even unpopular ideas.  They muzzle us at a time of urgent historical crisis.  They make us feel that we must have our attorneys vet our language before we commit ourselves to print.  Yet that would be a futile endeavor since your “standards” are completely mystified, in the true spirit of an Inquisition (yes, I chose that word deliberately).  Two statements from the AAUP reflect just how abnormal your decision appears.

The Illinois Chapter of the AAUP states:

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’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 National AAUP has issued this statement:

While opinions differ among AAUP members on a wide range of issues, the AAUP is united in its commitment to defend academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas more broadly. On the basis of this commitment we have opposed efforts by some pro-Palestinian groups to endorse an “academic boycott” of Israel. This commitment has also led us to defend the rights of critics of Israel, including the right of faculty members such as Professor Salaita, to express their views without fear of retaliation, even where such views are expressed in a manner that others might find offensive or repugnant.

Recently we argued in a policy statement on “Academic Freedom and Electronic Communications,” that faculty comments made on social media, including Twitter, are largely extramural statements of personal views that should be protected by academic freedom. While Professor Salaita’s scholarship does appear to deal with the topic of Palestine, his posts were arguably not intended as scholarly statements but as expressions of personal viewpoint. Whether one finds these views attractive or repulsive is irrelevant to the right of a faculty member to express them. Moreover, the AAUP has long objected to using criteria of civility and collegiality in faculty evaluation because we view this as a threat to academic freedom. It stands to reason that this objection should extend as well to decisions about hiring, especially about hiring to a tenured position.

Rudy Fichtenbaum, President, AAUP
Henry Reichman, First Vice-President and Chair, Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure, AAUP

Those two documents set the norm that your action has strayed from, catastrophically.

Besides the moral degradation this action exhibits, your office has made a terrible strategic mistake—the last thing one does with an extortionist is to pay him off.  They will be back—what’s to prevent them?  You have shown your institution’s vulnerability.  Where will the blackmail stop? You have installed the expectation of submission.  What will be the next actionable offense? We don’t know—the rules are hidden.

I cannot help but contrast your action with the courage and dignity Salaita has displayed throughout this hideously public spectacle.  You need him more than he needs you. In any case, I think you owe him an open and transparent hearing.  Otherwise, this is no more than a witch hunt. You also owe him the honor of fulfilling your contract with him, in precisely the terms negotiated and agreed upon, with full assurance that there will be no retaliation now or in the future.

I close by saying that the views contained herein are mine and mine alone.  None reflect on Stanford University.  Two weeks ago I would not have had to add that phrase, sadly.

Sincerely,

David Palumbo-Liu

Louise Hewlett Nixon Professor

Stanford University