Salaita prompted donors' fury | News-Gazette.com
news-gazette.com/news/local/2014-09-02/salait...
news-gazette.comPosted Sep 3, 2014, 2:11 AM UTC
1418
news-gazette.comThe guy said some sick stuff on twitter; people trying to make this a case about academic freedom are delusional. For once I stand 100% behind the administration on something.
-5
people trying to make this a case about academic freedom are delusional
Yes, it would be a violation of academic freedom if he were prohibited from publishing anti-Israel publications. He had already published such articles before he was hired, and the university was aware of that, and still hired him - so it is clear that the university had no problems with him publishing such scholarly work. The offensive, vitriolic tweets are not academic and have nothing to do with academic freedom.
9
If his academic publications had the same tone, language, and reach as his tweets he would absolutely be fired.
4
Donors have the right to vote with their dollars.
Beyond that, this professor, no matter what the quality of his intellect, has definitely violated the quality of temperament necessary for a teacher. If I were an Israeli or Jewish student of differing views, I would feel threatened by this man's uncivil rhetoric. The real question that I would like answered is this: If a student wrote an essay in his class on the issue of Palestinians vs. Israel and they took an opposing view, yet wrote a top notch essay ... would he give it an A?
-6
Yes he would. His teaching evaluations from students have been exemplary, and he was rated highly in his ability to treat students respectfully in the classroom. Here are some letters from former students writing in Salaita's support.
In my mind, there's really no comparison between Salaita's 15-year undergraduate teaching record and the theoretical teaching record of the sort of professor one might imagine Salaita to be, based on a selective reading of his tweets.
19
Unfortunately he made some poor choices that make that teaching record irrelevant. Even if some of his more damning tweets are taken out of context (I have yet to be convinced that there is context where they are acceptable), putting such things on twitter where they are almost certainly going to be taken out of context is a huge liability for the University. I fully support pro-Palestinian dialogue at the University, just not delivered in such a careless manner.
-3
Salaita's teaching record is irrelevant in evaluating his teaching? Are you arguing that Salaita should have been dismissed, despite being a professor with a long record of fostering respectful dialogue within the classroom, because of the possibility that non-students might imagine that he's someone he isn't?
13
I think his comments bring a very negative vibe to the campus, and they affect a lot more people than those who are enrolled in his classes.
-1
Unfortunately he made some poor choices that make that teaching record irrelevant.
Right, being a good teacher or even a good scholar doesn't entitle a person to a job. Many people might not want to sign up for his classes if they know him from twitter. Many others might not feel comfortable in his class knowing his views. In any case, when he spews such vitriol on social media in such offensive language, he is representing UIUC poorly.
5
"Donors have the right to vote with their dollars." Uh, how about no. If institutions, especially educational institutions, allowed donors to have that kind of power, it would wreck academic freedom and stifle learning. Donations are meant to be given with the spirit that they'll go towards fostering education or improving conditions - not used as bribes to sway internal affairs. You also miss the point, which has been said many times, that Salaita, as a professor, has received wonderful reviews from his students which is a reason why he even got the job in the first place. Your question isn't a real question. It's illogical based on the fact that you're questioning his teaching before he's even taught with an assumption that frames him as terribly biased.
As quoted by Bruce Rosenstock, a UI religions professor, in the article, "If any donor told a faculty member in the Jewish Studies program that they will give money but they want veto power over who is hired, we would reject the money no matter how large a sum it is," he said. "I would hope that any university administrator would tell a donor who wishes to influence the university about a hiring decision it has made that it is inappropriate for that individual to attempt to influence in anyway whatever."
As for the emails sent, Rosenstock said he wishes Wise had responded to them all with something like, "It's inappropriate for donors to have any influence on hiring and dismissals. Respectfully, Phyllis Wise."
The fact that Wise already went out of her way to speak with an alumnus in Chicago is already ridiculous and highly questionable regarding academic ethics.
18
If the narrative is that Salaita had an unpopular anti-Zionist opinion, and Jewish (or any) donors are trying to suppress that opinion by preventing him from being hired, then I agree 100% with what you just said. However, I just don't see that narrative reflecting reality. It isn't the anti-Isreal views that got him in trouble, it is the offensive way in which they were delivered.
11
I said they have the right to "vote" with their dollars (i.e. choose what to support with their money). I didn't say they had the right to expect institutions to bend to their will.
I'm not questioning his ability to teach. From the few accounts I have seen he seems to have a good rapport with students. What I am questioning is how would he handle a student polar opposite views (which I am not at all sure he would be exposed to very often in his field). And, I am further questioning the appearance of himself that he projects as a teacher to said students -- how must they feel about the prospects of taking a class with him when he is SO over the top with his rhetoric.
Someone recently posted an article about his many book reviews and even in that venue he is calling other scholars "pricks" etc... over this issue.
He uses the language of hate liberally in contexts that should be relatively hate free IMO.
1
Its hard to say. His longer articles seems much more scholarly and thought out. I would give him the benefit of the doubt, but I dont know.
Its kind of sad. If he showed just a little bit more moderation in his tweets, this could all have been avoided.
13
So if people don't act like ignorant assholes, they won't be treated like ignorant assholes? Yeah, such a shame!
5
Donors have the right to vote with their dollars.
I don't believe Chancellor Wise was frightened by them withdrawing their financial support - she responded to the fact that they complained at all - and lots of people complained, including people who weren't donors (in fact, most weren't). If UIUC caved in to alumni donors' demands and tantrums, the Chief would have been reinstated long back.
7
If UIUC caved in to alumni donors' demands and tantrums, the Chief would have been reinstated long back.
Not when that would mean no more NCAA participation. Money DOES indeed talk.
4
[deleted]
1
I might feel threatened by Pro-Israel rhetoric. But I am white, not a special victim class, like Jews. We all absolutely must never, ever criticize jews, Zionists, or Israel because they are uncriticizable. Because The Holocaust. Know that any attempts to engage in critical discourse in regards to jews, Israel, Zionism, jewish behaviors, the acts of Israel, or acts of Zionists is ANTISEMITIC. because they say it is, and the accusation shuts down any conversation. /imout boing boing boing boing boing
1
I knew someone got to UIUC administration and strong-armed them! It was done for purely political reasons, rather than any practical necessity! Some donors threatened to turn other donors against UIUC, and Phyllis & the rest of the elites couched-out to their bullshit. Talk about lack of integrity! #f-phyllis