Rejected Professor Salaita Wants U. of I. Job or Else He'll Sue

[Hissyspit]

Source: Chicago Tribune

Rejected professor Salaita wants U. of I. job or else he'll sue

By Jodi S. Cohen,
Tribune reporter

URBANA — Controversial professor Steven Salaita, whose job was revoked just before he was to start at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, appeared on campus today to urge officials to give him his job back.

His first public comments since his job offer was rescinded come two days before the board of trustees is to meet and a day after the chancellor said there is “no possibility” that he will teach on campus.

Salaita’s attorney said today that if he is not reinstated, he will pursue legal action.

- snip -

Supporters in the back of the room shouted: "What do we want? Reinstate. When do we want it? Now.”

- snip -

“Even worse, the administration’s actions threaten the principles of free speech, academic freedom and critical thought that should be the foundation of any university,” he said.

Read more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-steven-salaita-illinois-protest-20140909-story.html

[azurnoir]

1. His job offer was rescinded after he criticized Israel during Protective Edge this summer

Salaita, who had planned to join the American Indian studies faculty Aug. 16 in a tenured position, posted numerous tweets criticizing Israel in the weeks before his job was rescinded.

In June and July, Salaita posted prolifically about the situation in Gaza, particularly about the children killed in the conflict. In one post, he wrote: “If (Israel President Benjamin) Netanyahu appeared on TV with a necklace made from the teeth of Palestinian children, would anybody be surprised?”
cComments

In another, on June 20, soon after three Israelis were kidnapped and killed, he wrote: “You may be too refined to say it, but I’m not: I wish all the (expletive) West Bank settlers would go missing.”

U. of I. Chancellor Phyllis Wise informed him in an emailed letter Aug. 1 that he would not have the job after all.

In the letter to Salaita, Wise wrote that his appointment was subject to approval by the university’s board of trustees, and, because board approval was “unlikely,” it would not be submitted.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-steven-salaita-illinois-protest-20140909-story.html?dssReturn&z=55117

[yeoman6987]

6. He must have missed the warning that

Twitter and Facebook are reviewed by employee now a days. Heck he was just hired. Let me say that I just was hired to a University from another one and I was quiet throughout the Summer. Why jeopardize a good job. Had he waited for the first paycheck at least, he probably would have been ok. Employment 101 gets lost on some.

[azurnoir]

21. I think the Bill of Rights first amendment comes into play here

and if Chancellor Wise was so very sure that the board would reject himm why not submit it to them ?

[dbackjon]

28. First Amendment has nothing to do with this.

[azurnoir]

47. It has everything to do with this

he did not advocate anything illegal certainly not murder as some here predictably claim
and again why if Chancellor Wise is oh so sure he would not be approved did she act as she did?

[dbackjon]

50. Then you do not stand the point of the First Amendment or what it protects

[azurnoir]

51. why did Wise refuse to allow his hiring before the trustees if she was sure he'd be refused?

why has been offered a financial settlement to drop his case? as stated by Amy Goodman in the DemocracyNow link

the first amendment protects freedom of speech

Salaita’s job, a tenured position in the American Indian studies program, was set to begin Aug. 16. But Wise sent him an emailed letter Aug. 1 saying that he would not have the job after all because it was “unlikely” trustees would approve his appointment and therefore she would not submit it for their consideration.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-steven-salaita-illinois-protest-20140909-story.html#page=1

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/9/9/university_of_illinois_urged_to_reinstate

[dbackjon]

70. Again, that has ZERO to do with the First Amendment

it may have been a bad decision, and may have violated employment laws, but ZERO to do with the First Amendment.

[azurnoir]

71. well you're entitled to your opinion but Salaita's lawyers and

the Center for Constitutional Rights disagree

http://ccrjustice.org/ccr-sends-letter-university-of-illinois-chancellor-phyllis-m.-wise-regarding-firing-of-professor-sev

[dbackjon]

73. And they are wrong

They can claim it all they want. Doesn't make it so.


When you advocate massacring thousands of women and children, you need to accept the consequences of your actions.

[azurnoir]

74. so you know better than the Center for Constitutional Rights?

who advocated massacring women and children? I took Salaita's comment as wishing the settlers gonefrom the West Bank not dead, nor did he say dead

[dbackjon]

80. Just because someone claims to be an expert doesn't make it so

Just look at Scalia/Thomas/Alito.



And how else can you interpret it? 3 Israelis went missing, found dead. He says he wants ALL the West Bank settlers to "go missing" as well. Pretty clear to anyone that looks at it objectively.

[azurnoir]

81. well somethings are pretty clear here I'll give you that :)

[dbackjon]

82. I teed that one up for you - as I was typing that I figured that would be your response ;)

[Adrahil]

77. We have to be VERY careful here.....

Creationists also like to claim the first amendment protects their desire to teach science as they see it.

I think the man should have his job, but this is NOT a first amendment issue.

If I were , for example, to express support for, say, ISIL, I should not expect to go to jail (first amendment), but I shouldn't expect to get a Top Secret clearance either.

[azurnoir]

79. His lawyers seem to differ on that n/t

[azurnoir]

49. More over

according to Amy Goodman and DemocracyNow he's been offered a financial settlement

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/9/9/university_of_illinois_urged_to_reinstate

[Bad Wolf]

34. Nope.

The first amendment of the US Constitution allows for you to speak freely and not be arrested or killed for your words. It does not protect against people firing, or in this case, not doing business with you, for speaking out about something, or just being an A-hole.

[Shivering Jemmy]

35. State school. Governmental entity.

Not clear that first amendment doesn't apply.

[yeoman6987]

36. He didn't even start yet

I don't feel for him at all. Everyone knows the rules of hiring. At least wait until the first paycheck to cause trouble. And besides first 90 days you can be fired for any reason at all.

[alcibiades_mystery]

42. Not if you're hired with tenure

This isn't a normal human resources issue because academic institutions have odd contractual arrangements. He was sought out, recruited, and hired by normal faculty processes - hired in with tenure. In terms of the Chancellor's case, there were still some pro forma hoops to clear, but I'd be willing to bet that no Chancellor-level or BoT level rejection of a recruited tenure hire has ever happened in this manner at UIUC or indeed at any school of that stature at all, with perhaps an exception during the worst of the 1940-s - 1950's blacklists. It's highly irregular, as they say, and that's putting it mildly. The dude was on the damn schedule for Fall courses. He had a reasonable expectation that he'd been hired for a tenured position at UIUC.

Now, I should say, I am a tenured professor, and there's no way in hell I would quit one tenured job unless I knew for a dead legal certainty that my other tenured job was ink-dried, no question. Salaita looks somewhat foolish among academics for having done that. But this isn't a "90-day" or "right to work" operation. Getting hired in with tenure is a big deal.

[happyslug]

43. The 90 day rule depends on the contract.

Any employer can terminated any employee for any or no reason at any time. There is NO 90 day period after which you can not be fired. The 90 day "Probationary" period is a product of Unemployment Insurance taxes NOT anything else.

When Unemployment Insurance was introduced in the 1930s we were still in the age of mechanical punch card readers of data. It was determined that given that technology there was no way you could get anywhere close to accurate data UNLESS you give people 90 days to process the data.

Now, employers must pay Unemployment tax, but it is reduced for those companies that have a history of NOT laying people off without good cause. Thus if you quit or terminated for Good Cause (what is "Good Cause" varies by state), you are NOT entitled to unemployment, but if you are unemployed for other reasons (Which also varies by state) you get unemployment.

Please remember Unemployment is a joint State-Federal program. The Federal Government sets up the basic system, but the States runs them with money collected by the Federal Government and the State. Employers MUST pay the Federal Unemployment Taxes but they can reduce to Zero the State portion if such Employer can show that the Employer has never laid people off except for good cause.

Now, do to the fact that in the 1930s it would take 90 days to process the data (including Social Security Taxes and Unemployment taxes), the Unemployment benefits was NOT based on the one year prior to you becoming unemployed, but one year prior to the 90 day period before your were terminated.

That also was how Unemployment set the unemployment tax rate, it was NOT based on who an employer laid off if that employee only worked for the employer for 90 days, but on the employer who employed that employee in the one year period before the 90 days prior to the employee becoming unemployed.

Thus any employer can lay off anyone who has worked for them less then 90 days and such a termination will have NO affect on their unemployment Tax rate. Now the employer who the employee worked prior to that 90 day period would be held liable but such a former employer could get out of it by giving the employee his or her old job back.

On the other hand if no such offer was made, the employee is entitled to unemployment if he had been employed during that one year period (the actual test varies from state to state, some states want full employment, other states will accept off and on employment during that one year period).

Just pointing out the 90 day "Probationary" period employers give employees is a product of unemployment insurance taxes not a gift from the employer. An employer has terminate an employee at any time or any or no reason but after the 90 day "Probationary" period, unless the termination is for "Good Cause" if affects how much unemployment taxes they have to pay.

Furthermore, if you have an employment contract that forbids termination then such a contract is enforceable in the courts (Most people employment contract is "At will" thus can be terminated at any time for any or no reason). Actual employment contracts that sets dates of employment other then at will are rare, but there do exist and many high paid employees get such contracts and can NOT be withdrawn unless the rights of the employee is addressed. i.e. the employee with such a contract must be paid off.

Another complication is this sounds like a State Collage, if that is true then property rights kick in. All property rights are rights given to people by the Government. That grant of rights may have been centuries ago (as in the case of most land) but can be granted to this day. For example, when in comes to Public Housing, the Tenants have a right to remain in their rental units for their right to live in such public housing is a grant from the Government. Now the Government does NOT give such tenants of Public Housing anything more then the personal right to live in such housing subject to the terms of their lease, but the Courts have long ruled such grant of housing is a property right given by the Government and can NOT be taken away without due process of law (i.e. Public Housing tenants can NOT be kicked out EXCEPT if their violate their lease i.e can not be kicked out just because their landlord wants them out, which is the case when it comes to private landlord and tenant law).

I bring this up, for if a Contract of Employment was given in this case, that can be viewed as a Grant of Rights by the Government and can NOT be withdrawn without due process, i.e. the collage has to go to court OR buy out the rights of the person who holds that property right.

Notice this only applies to employment by a Governmental unit. Private employers can fire and hire for any or no reason (but not any illegal reason such as race, sex disability etc discrimination). A government unit can fire someone by eliminating the position that person is holding but not because they do NOT want someone to be their employee any longer.

I can go on about the legal issues when it comes to employment by Governmental unit, but it can be complicated for it is NOT like private employment and its "At will" doctrine, but it is also not something someone can sell to another like a piece of land even through the job is a grant of rights from the Government, just like your right to own a piece of land was a grant of right of ownership sold to someone else centuries ago.

All I want to say is this professor has a case, for if he was offered a CONTRACT that was NOT "At Will" he can demand that the contract be enforced. If the Contract was also a grant of the right to be an employee from a governmental unit the Professor can claim the withdraw of the Contract was a taking of his property rights without compensation. How the courts will handle this would require more facts, including the actual contract and its terms, and who had the right to offer the professor this contract (The article implies the head of the Collage made the offer but it was an offer subject to approval by others).

[alcibiades_mystery]

45. His contract was not "at will," but "indefinite tenure" (i.e., a tenured appointment)

Tenure arrangements differ from school-to-school, but tenure contracts are not "at will" contracts. There are specific conditions for termination, ranging from that ole moral turpitude to liquidation of departments due to severe economic hardship, and even there, faculty tend to be folded into other departments where possible, because it runs afoul of AAUP and accreditation agencies. There's also the thorny issue of faculty governance in most of these places: the contract is often governed by rules of a faculty-generated handbook, so BoT's overruling faculty on personnel issues also looks terrible, and is exceedingly rare.

In UIUC's case, they specifically have a 90 day probationary period for staff, but no such section for "academic" employees, which includes even graduate assistants. There's certainly not a 90 day probationary period of at will hiring for faculty hired in with tenure! I can only imagine a tenured full professor getting hired as, say, a tenured department chair at a new university, and then being "fired at will" "within a 90 day probationary period." The notion is so laughable that it's barely worth mentioning. That's simply not how academic employment works.

[azurnoir]

48. Thank you n/t

[happyslug]

67. I thought I discussed those points at the end of my comments.

I first discussed the "90 day probationary period" being a product of unemployment insurance law. After that I went into contract law and property law which is what the Professor is relying on and he has a very good argument under both concepts.

I mentioned the "at will" employment concept in terms of unemployment insurance law, then contract law, then property law. In the latter two legal areas the professor has a very good case.
.from your comment this professor may have a contact that forbids termination except for "good cause", and if that is the case he will prevail.

[alcibiades_mystery]

69. Yes, you did...I wasn't correcting you!

Just emphasizing.

[Adrahil]

83. I can't get to the original article. Was he hired WITH tenure, or to a tenure track job? Also....

... at least at my wife's university (she's a tenured professor), the University retains the right to withdraw an appointment up the point the appointee takes up their duties. Until that point, either party can withdraw.

[alcibiades_mystery]

84. He was hired with tenure

He already had tenure at Virginia Tech. He wasn't moving from a tenured job to a tenure-track job. He was hired in as an associate professor with tenure.

I'm sure it's the case that many universities say you can have your appointment yanked at any time before you get your office keys, or whatever, but having the department and a Dean and a Provost sign off on a hire for which you were explicitly recruited, with tenure, and having that yanked after you've already been scheduled, by the Chancellor and, presumably, the Board of Trustees is, well, unheard of. It's unheard of. I'm sure a researcher couldn't find 3 similar cases in the last 50 years. It never happens.

Ask your wife.

I'm also a tenured professor. It's unheard of.

[Adrahil]

88. Roger that, thanks!

Yeah, if he was coming WITH tenure, they really wanted him. This smells very fishy to me.

Still not a first amendment issue, but I bet he still has a case.

[Shivering Jemmy]

85. Don't care. Not my point.

Court will decide whether board approval is pro forma or not.


But from a free speech perspective issue not clear. This is not a private employer.

[Doctor_J]

41. Congress shall make no law...prohibiting or abridging freedom of speech

the first amendment doesn't apply

[Jim Lane]

57. The First Amendment says "Congress" but applies to the states as well.

Wikipedia gives a good explanation in its article about the Supreme Court decision in Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925):

The Supreme Court previously held, in Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833), that the Constitution's Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, that states were free to enforce statutes that restricted the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and that the federal courts could not interfere with the enforcement of such statutes. Gitlow v. New York partly reversed that precedent and began a trend toward its nearly complete reversal. The Supreme Court now holds that almost every provision of the Bill of Rights applies to both the federal government and the states.

The Supreme Court relied on the "due process clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits a state from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Court stated that "For present purposes we may and do assume that" the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press were "among the fundamental personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the states" (at 666).

The Court used the doctrine first enunciated in Gitlow in other cases, such as De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937), Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), to extend the reach of the Bill of Rights. Constitutional scholars refer to this as the "incorporation doctrine," meaning that the Supreme Court has identified rights specified in the Bill of Rights and incorporated them into the liberties covered by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(from the Gitlow v. New York article in Wikipedia)

Thus the First Amendment applies to the State of Illinois in all its activities, including the running of a university.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

76. At least Illinois statutes exclude schools like U of I

from tort immunity.

And this sure looks like an EEOC or Illinois Human Rights Commission complaint.

[Adrahil]

78. The first amendment does not guarantee a government job.

Having said that, I think his statement lies under the realm of defensible academic freedom.

[yeoman6987]

37. He was under probation too

First 90 can be fired for anything.

[happyslug]

68. All that means is his previous employer pays his unemployment.

As I explained above the 90 probationary period is product of unemployment insurance law, nothing else.

[Rincewind]

52. I live in the area,

he was not hired, his application still needed approval from the board. He seems to have anger management issues when it comes to Israel.

[leftynyc]

58. This isn't a first amendment issue

which only protects you from the government. It doesn't protect speech as an employee where there very well could be consequences from an employer. How people don't understand this simple thing is beyond me.

[Jim Lane]

62. Yes, it is a First Amendment issue -- because his employer is the government

You're right that the First Amendment doesn't protect you against the actions of a private employer. As you say, it "only protects you from the government." In this case, however, the employer is a state university, so it's bound by the First Amendment.

[leftynyc]

63. Professors DON'T get tenured

positions every single day. Under your definition, any one of them could sue the university and claim the same thing. Why haven't I ever, not even once, seen this defense? Is there some case law you could cite?

[Jim Lane]

72. They can deny tenure for a host of legitimate reasons....

They just can't deny tenure (or initial hiring or whatever) as punishment for exercising a constitutional right, unless it's legitimately related to the job. (For a professor to publish really crappy research papers is protected by the First Amendment, and s/he couldn't be criminally prosecuted for it, but it could certainly be a basis for denying tenure.)

Don't get hung up on tenure. I think this principle would apply to any state benefit. (See my elaboration in #61.) Could the state of North Carolina announce that anyone who has participated in the Moral Mondays protests or otherwise criticized Governor McCrory and the Republican-controlled state legislature will, based solely on that criticism, be ineligible to be hired at the University of North Carolina in any capacity -- tenured professor, non-tenured professor, or groundskeeper? Could the state of Texas announce that no one who has called George W. Bush a war criminal will be issued a driver's license? They can still deny the license because your eyesight isn't good enough or you fail the written test or whatever. Nevertheless, just as the state could not make it a criminal offense to criticize Bush, the state can't impermissibly burden such an exercise of First Amendment rights by denying you a license for which you're otherwise qualified.

Your request for case law is a legitimate one but I don't happen to know of a case and, with apologies, I'm not interested enough to do the legal research. I'll point out that the situation would seldom arise in a way anyone could prove. Tenure decisions are subjective. I'm sure that someone somewhere has been denied tenure (or denied initial hire) with at least part of the reason being his or her statements about the Middle East or immigration or some other hot-button issue. In general, however, there'd be a plausible alternative explanation. The Illinois case is unusual in that the university offered him a tenured position, then he made his controversial statements, then the university withdrew the offer under circumstances making it clear that the decision to withdrew the offer was based solely on his statements. The initial offer undercuts any argument that his scholarly work was inadequate.

The only case I could think of was that of Eugene Genovese. He had a teaching job at a state university (Rutgers) and then made controversial statements, leading to calls for his firing, but the university kept him on so there was never a court case. A summary of what happened:

Apolitical storm hit Rutgers University in 1965 in wake of remarks made by a junior professor at a Vietnam War teach-in. One of several speakers at the New Brunswick campus’s Scott Hall on April 23, history professor Eugene Genovese denounced U.S. military involvement in Vietnam. "Those of you who know me know that I am a Marxist and a socialist,” he observed. "Therefore, unlike some of my distinguished colleagues here this morning, I do not fear or regret the impending Viet Cong victory in Vietnam. I welcome it.” Press reports of Genovese’s remarks were initially spotty, and no major controversy seemed in prospect until the state’s Young Republican organization assailed Genovese at its May convention and demanded a legislative investigation. Mounting public criticism provoked a review of Genovese’s remarks, first by a two-person assembly committee, then by the Rutgers Board of Governors. In both reports, and in Gov. Richard Hughes’s response to them, Genovese’s statement was sharply criticized, but no sanctions against him were deemed appropriate. Genovese had exercised his First Amendment rights, the reports concluded; he had not tried to indoctrinate students in his classroom. The issue might have gradually faded but for its injection into that year’s gubernatorial campaign. Seeking to exploit patriotic sentiment in New Jersey at a time when the Vietnam War was escalating, Republican nominee Wayne Dumont made the dismissal of Genovese a central theme in his platform. At a Rotary Club luncheon in Paterson on July 29, Dumont said that he supported academic freedom, but he did not believe it should "give to a teacher in a state university, supported by taxpayers’money, the right to advocate victory of an enemy at war in which some of his own students may very well lay down their lives in the cause of freedom.” Dumont pressed the Genovese case on the campaign trail and in a debate with Governor Hughes. New Jersey voters, however, did not believe that the fate of a history professor trumped other issues. In the November elections Hughes, who consistently defended Genovese’s right to free speech, trounced Dumont. The Genovese case was not entirely a triumph for academic freedom. The Rutgers administration’s treatment of Genovese—denying him standard academic rewards—suggested that the university remained uncomfortable about the controversy he generated. Genovese grew increasingly dissatisfied with his status at Rutgers and in 1967 he accepted a position at Sir George Williams College in Montreal. His subsequent career earned him a reputation not merely as a sharp-tongued controversialist, but also as a leading scholar of slavery.

(from this page about New Jersey history) (emphasis added)

[leftynyc]

75. Thanks for your response

I didn't mean to put you on the spot requesting case law - I'm just finding this an interesting topic and with a family of lawyers I find that precedent is everything. I've reached out to a few of those family members and now we're all talking about it as we also have a bunch of teachers (the arguments about tenure have been barnburners). The only real difference I see in your example is Genovese was already employed by Rutgers - in this case, the professor didn't already have the job. But I do appreciate your thoughtful response.

[leftynyc]

64. I read your #57 comment

and I still don't see how this protects a professor from not getting hired. I'd like to see some case law that specifically mentions that university employees are protected under first amendment grounds from consequences of their big mouth. We'll set aside that he wasn't actually an employee yet for purposes of me getting educated.

[bluestateguy]

2. I always find that suing your employer is a great way to advance your career

and it will look great in google search next time he is on the job market.

[Hissyspit]

3. Yeah, you should never stand up for what is right.

Jeez...

[yeoman6987]

7. He did stand up for his rights

And the University is too. He was a prospective employee. And now not even a former.

[leftynyc]

59. Do what's right

but understand there are consequences of that. Nobody is guaranteed a job. He behaved as if he already had tenure and I'm thinking any university will look at that lawsuit and think they don't want to have that kind of employee. It's his choice but there will be consequences.

[tomm2thumbs]

4. excerpts of some of his tweets on HuffPo

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/07/steven-salaita-university-of-illinois-fired_n_5658806.html


Only Israel can murder around 300 children in the span of a few weeks and insist that it is the victim.

I just got an email condemning my "slander of holy Israel." I reckon I can accept "slander," but "holy" seems a bit out of place.

It's simple: either condemn Israel's actions or embrace your identity as someone who's okay with the wholesale slaughter of children.

[alarimer]

8. He's not wrong in any of them.

I wouldn't want to work for any employer that expected me not to speak my mind.

[lululu]

12. Exactly so, he's 100% correct.

[liberalhistorian]

10. Sorry, but I don't

see where he's wrong. And I'm also tired of my tax dollars paying for it. But Gaza residents just aren't human enough for people to give a shit, I guess.

And even if he was wrong, universities, of all places, should not be enforced echo chambers. I had many professors with whom I strongly disagreed, and who sometimes had strong reactionary opinions, but I learned how to critically argue my position and stand up for my beliefs in and from their classrooms. Hell, I attended Kent State in the 80's, when May 4, 1970 was not yet in the distant past and memories were still strong. Those of us who kept the memory alive by being in the May 4 Task Force student group often had to deal with reactionary professors and staff who vehemently disagreed with us, but it prepared us to deal with the real world in that respect, and how to stand firm. Colleges should never be echo chambers, with thought police roaming around.

[leftynyc]

60. If the university feels

they will feel suffer consequences for having him on staff, they're like any other employer - they get to decide if it's worth it or not. They decided not.

[former9thward]

5. He supports terrorism.

I am glad the U of I has shown him the door.

[alarimer]

9. Criticizing Israel does not equate to terrorism.

Ridiculous for anyone to think so.

[former9thward]

15. He supports the murder of all Jews in the West Bank.

That is terrorism. Let's see what university will employ that crap.

[dbackjon]

29. That's the one that crossed the line for me

[xocet]

38. I could not find the comment (tweet?) to which you refer...

but his twitter feed did have some thought-provoking comments:

https://twitter.com/stevesalaita/status/489944168341712896

TO THE EDITORS OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:

Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

...

Attack on Arab Village

A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants – 240 men, women, and children – and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin.

...

Discrepancies Seen

The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a "Leader State" is the goal.

...

ISIDORE ABRAMOWITZ, HANNAH ARENDT, ABRAHAM BRICK, RABBI JESSURUN CARDOZO, ALBERT EINSTEIN, HERMAN EISEN, M.D., HAYIM FINEMAN, M. GALLEN, M.D., H.H. HARRIS, ZELIG S. HARRIS, SIDNEY HOOK, FRED KARUSH, BRURIA KAUFMAN, IRMA L. LINDHEIM, NACHMAN MAISEL, SEYMOUR MELMAN, MYER D. MENDELSON, M.D., HARRY M. OSLINSKY, SAMUEL PITLICK, FRITZ ROHRLICH, LOUIS P. ROCKER, RUTH SAGIS, ITZHAK SANKOWSKY, I.J. SHOENBERG, SAMUEL SHUMAN, M. SINGER, IRMA WOLFE, STEFAN WOLFE.

New York, Dec. 2, 1948


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9801EFDA163FE03ABC4C53DFB4678383659EDE

After looking around a bit further, I found this review of the settlements:

In your opinion, is this a fair review of what the settlements are?

[former9thward]

44. From Post #1

In another, on June 20, soon after three Israelis were kidnapped and killed, he wrote: “You may be too refined to say it, but I’m not: I wish all the (expletive) West Bank settlers would go missing.”


That is an endorsement of murder, pure and simple.

No, the 3 minute video is not a fair review. Nothing 3 minutes long could be a fair review about any complicated issue. It is not "Palestinian land". Palestinians think all Israeli land belongs to them and none to Israel. They want Jews driven into the Sea and have said that countless times. The West Bank originally belonged to Jordan -- not to the Palestinians. Jordan lost the land in the 67 war. (When you go to war and attack someone and lose you very often lose land you had before -- ask about every losing country over the last 2000 years). Jordan made a peace agreement but did not want the West Bank back -- because they want nothing to do with the Palestinians.

[xocet]

46. Thank you for your reply. n/t

[liberalhistorian]

11. The real terrorism is Israel's

Destruction of Gaza, its murder of hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians, including hundreds of children, and the racist clauses in its ruling party's platform calling for total destruction of Palestinians and their cleansing from Israel.

Blind support of Israel, no matter what it does, and the stifling of any discussion at all of its actions if such discussion I sonny way at all critical, is the real problem.

[former9thward]

16. Blind hatred of Israel is the problem -- no matter what it does.

[OutNow]

13. Sure, it's the same as firing all the professors that supported torture by the CIA

during the Iraq War. People like Condoleezza Rice, John Yoo and dozens of others were immediately dismissed and will never work in academia because not only because they supported the use of torture, they were key to implementing it. They are war criminals.

Oh wait, Rice, Yoo, etc. were not fired, banned from teaching or imprisoned. They were, for the most part, able to slide into tenured positions. So no, Professor Salaita's actions don't compare to the actions of the war criminals listed above, and no he should not lose his position at the University of Illinois.

[former9thward]

20. I don't know what the Iraq war has to do with the U of I.

Nothing, I suspect.

[OutNow]

24. The U of I is a university funded by the state.

A useful legal technique is precedent. When/if the case goes to court the judge / jury will be asked to consider situations of a similar nature in the recent past. The arguments, at the trail level, will not be restricted to the U of I. The John Yoo case, in particular, will be compared with Professor Salaita's situation. Many organizations demanded that John Yoo be ousted due to his pernicious legal work for the Bush administration to justify the war crime of torture. The university pushed back, saying his war crimes were not part of his work for the university and therefore not germane to his teaching and working with students. Yoo kept his job.

Now do you see the similarities?

[former9thward]

26. There are no similarities.

1)The U of I is not bound by what another university does. No more than GM is bound by what Apple does. 2) Salaita never had the job. Yoo did. See the differences?

[lululu]

14. You're wrong, former9thward

He's condemning Israel's state terrorism.

[former9thward]

19. He is calling for the murder of Jews on the West Bank.

No serious university will put up with that.

[Hissyspit]

31. Utter bullshit.

[former9thward]

33. Thoughtful reply.

As usual on the subject.

[Hissyspit]

54. Your post got the reply it deserved.

[OutNow]

17. Professor Salaita is represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights

CCR is an awesome group that has won many struggles of this nature over the years. It would be in the best interest of the University to either give the professor his job back or a large 6 figure settlement right now.

[former9thward]

18. He never had the job.

So the university does not have to "give it back". He will lose the case.

[tomm2thumbs]

22. I think you may be correct

My guess is they won't budge either.

Interesting article on the legal issues
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/contractsprof_blog/2014/08/contracts-and-the-case-of-steven-salaita.html

[cstanleytech]

23. Agreed. Sad though but thats the way things are. nt

[Xithras]

25. Maybe, maybe not. It's an interesting case.

The case actually opens up an interesting legal question. Does the government have the right to filter prospective employees based on their personal worldviews?

By extending the original job offer, the university indicated, in an undeniable fashion, that he met all of the qualifications for the position AND that he was the top candidate. The chancellors decision to withdraw the offer, and the boards decision to reject the appointment, stemmed solely from his personal statements and opinions. Because the University of Illinois is a publicly funded government institution, we're fundamentally talking about a government agency rejecting a potential employee based solely on his constitutionally protected speech. From a legal standpoint, how is that any different than a government agency rejecting a potential employee based on the color of their skin? Or their gender? Or their age? If Professor Salaita were initially offered the job, and then the job offer was rescinded because he was hispanic, would we see the same division on the left? When it comes to government actions, both race (14th Amendment) and speech (1st Amendment) are protected equally by the Constitution, so the question isn't as far a reach as some might like to pretend. We're not talking about a private company withdrawing a job offer, but about a government-funded institution discriminating against a job applicant based on a federally protected trait.

Besides, if the government can discriminate against someone based on one Constitutionally protected trait, how are we to prevent it from discriminating against people based on others? If the government can pass up employees based on their personal opinions, what other traits are we OK with rejecting applicants over?

If this were a private employer, there would be little question about an employers right to withdraw an offer like this. Private employers, after all, are free to discriminate against any traits they wish, so long as they aren't specifically prohibited from doing so by state or federal law. Government agencies, on the other hand, are legally required to abide by the terms of the Constitution, laws applying to government agencies, AND those same specific employment discrimination prohibitions. It has to abide by a much higher standard.

[former9thward]

27. You admit a private company could withdraw the offer.

Yet a private company could not withdraw the offer based on race. So your first amendment argument fails. When you work for government you do have heightened protections but in this case he never worked for the U of I.

[Xithras]

32. Nope, you misread my post.

A private company cannot withdraw an offer based on race because federal laws specifically prohibit them from doing so. While race is federally protected, there is no federal law requiring private companies to honor someone's freedom of speech, or freedom to assemble, or freedom to be secure in their papers. The U.S. Constitution does not apply to private employers except where specific federal laws have been passed to impose them.

The U.S. Constitution does, on the other hand, apply to ALL government agencies. The Constitution was specifically written to apply a set of standards by which the government must operate. That means respecting freedom of speech, treating all persons equally, etc. Because the University of Illinois is a state funded government organization, it must also abide by these standards (we fought a civil war to end the argument as to whether the Constitution applied to the states...and the states righters lost). The University of Illinois is federally prohibited from infringing the constitutional rights of ANYONE.

The UofI has publicly stated that the job offer was withdrawn because of his speech. Under federal law, a government agency cannot penalize someone over their protected speech. The legal question here is simply: Is discrimination tantamount to infringement? If the government chooses to discriminate against you because of your speech, is that the same thing as the government infringing on your right to speak freely?

I honestly don't know that any of us can answer that definitively, and I'm not aware of any court cases that address it. It's a very interesting legal question, and it will be fascinating to see how it plays out in the courts.

[yeoman6987]

39. You Might be right if the following wasn't part of it

First of all he was not in the position yet. Heck after job offers especially federal and state government will call references to see if the are making the right choice. They do that after all the interviews and offers so not waste a lot of time calling many references and I have seen some offers withdrawn because of references that were not glowing. Second and most damaging to the Professor is that everyone has a probation period where the employer can fire pretty freely. This case will be a losing case no matter who is representing the Professor. He should just use it as an experience and try to find employment elsewhere.

[Jim Lane]

61. That doesn't negate his First Amendment claim.

The University of Illinois, as a state institution, is restricted by the First Amendment.

The First Amendment prohibits the government from throwing people in prison for what they say, but it goes beyond that. A case that arose in the context of a state university was Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972). The president of Central Connecticut State College refused to recognize the local chapter of Students for a Democratic Society (a radically left group) as a campus organization. The Supreme Court held that the refusal to extend recognition violated the students' First Amendment rights. It didn't matter that they never had a recognized organization.

Putting this in the specific context of free speech, consider this hypothetical. A state university announces a new policy: "From now on we will not hire anyone for any position, from Chancellor to groundskeeper, who has, in writing or speech or posts on DU, criticized our glorious Governor. The misguided fools who already have such jobs will reluctantly be tolerated, because of that inconvenient First Amendment, but people who never had the job have no First Amendment rights to assert." Would that fly? Certainly not. It's an abridgment of freedom of speech for the government to announce that the exercise of the freedom, in ways uncongenial to those now in power, would lead to a lesser opportunity for benefits otherwise available from the state.

Without having done any research, I'll guess courts make an exception when the abridgment of the freedom is related to job performance. If police lieutenant Jenkins has publicly stated that he thinks blacks are inferior and should be shipped back to Africa, then that can be taken into account in deciding whether to promote him to head the Third Precinct, whose people are almost all black. He'd have difficulty gaining the trust and confidence of the population, and that would reduce his effectiveness in the post.

That exception couldn't be allowed to get out of hand, though. Yes, some students at U of I would react negatively to the presence of a critic of Israel. Others would react negatively to the hiring of someone who has criticized the Governor. I'll make the further guess that the exercise of a job applicant's freedom of speech can't be considered in hiring unless the speech relates very directly to the responsibilities of the job.

[alcibiades_mystery]

65. It will be much more complex than the people (even lawyers) here are making it out to be

And it will be more complex based on the specificity of academic hiring, which differs from ordinary hiring practices in many ways.

He may indeed lose, and he was very foolish to give up the VTU job. However...

Three points germane to academic hiring will play a part here:

1) He was recruited for the position - he did not seek it out, and it may not even have been open to a national search. That's really bad for UIUC. In other words, UIUC faculty sought him specifically. But for the action of UIUC, Salaita would be secure in his tenured employment at Virginia Tech, drawing a salary there until he retired. His wife has a similar claim.

2) Faculty governance and hiring practices would suggest that once you are recruited, and faculty and administration provide approval (the Dean of the College signed off on the hire, perhaps the Provost as well), you have a reasonable expectation of the hire, and should. A judge may indeed rule that removing such assurance would cause too much chaos in the academic hiring cycle, which I'm sure will be an amicus brief provided by the AAUP. If everybody hired in January and February wasn't really sure they were indeed hired until late August, despite assurances from Deans and Provosts, the whole academic hiring enterprise would collapse.

3) Academic hiring cycles are very different from ordinary hiring procedures, and require far more notice in practice than other types of work. The notice he provided to Virginia Tech and to UIUC was a good faith attempt to help each institution with scheduling and similar issues. For my first academic hire, I "accepted" the offer in February for an August appointment. This is typical. I was scheduled for courses in June, before my contract even began. When a judge or jury sees that Salaita was even scheduled for Fall classes, it will complicate any claim that he wasn't de facto hired. Given points 1 and 2 and the usual practices of point 3, he has a much stronger claim that he could reasonably assume hiring enough to uproot his family. No doubt he was provided with moving assistance by the university, even if that was just emails from the Department Chair and colleagues about where to live in Champaign-Urbana. That's going to be further evidence.

This is by no means a cut and dried case. He has a real claim of a tort here and it calculates to his salary at Virginia Tech plus typical raises for the next 25 years, plus punitive damages. If Chancellor Wise and the Board of Trustees want to open up their emails and correspondence to discovery on this issue, so much the better.

[Rincewind]

53. They can't get him his job back,

he was never hired in the first place. Would everyone be so supportive if his tweets were about how African-Americans are lazy and prone to violence? Or, if he called for wiping out the Palestinians ?

[Hissyspit]

55. His Tweets didn't say that.

[former9thward]

66. He called for the murder of all Jews on the West Bank.

So yeah, his tweets did say that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. Great analysis ...

and you are correct ... it will be interesting to watch.

The only point I would quibble with is:

When it comes to government actions, both race (14th Amendment) and speech (1st Amendment) are protected equally by the Constitution,

That's not quite correct ... the 14th is absolute; whereas, the 1st is qualified based on many factors such as, the "type of speech", including what and how it was said, and the capacity of the speaker, i.e., political speech when speaking for one's self, on one's own time, with no intimation of a University connection is far more protected than speaking from one's office in the University, on a University line and intimating that one is speaking on behalf, or with the authority of, the University.

“Even worse, the administration’s actions threaten the principles of free speech, academic freedom and critical thought that should be the foundation of any university,” he said.

Free speech, definitely; critical thought, absolutely; but academic freedom, not so much. The A/F concept is not a blank tablet that always protection from every act. The academic is protected to research and write anything, within one's area of research competence. For example, a mathematician can write the most inflammatory criticism of Einstein's application of mathematics and receive absolute protection (assuming there's no defamation); but his/her A/F ends when, in that criticism, the academic launches into a condemnation of socialism as a viable political system.

(If I ever feel compelled to practice again ... this is the area I would take up.)

[whereisjustice]

40. seems to me, the rich and powerful are acting more and more in an immoral fashion

knowing that the underclass has fewer and fewer measures to dissent against those immoral actions.

Our oligarchy is getting bolder, secure with the knowledge that there is nothing we can do or say without risking our employment by way of arrest or other means of blacklisting.

Even here on web site supposedly devoted to liberal ideals you have people defending NSA, CIA, brutal police actions, thousands killed in Gaza, etc. How is this possible?

Even the president himself declared torture no biggie. We let Wall Street crooks run free to fuck us over again. Etc. As our rulers ratchet up the level of violence and injustice, we are silenced into a dull compliance out of fear of going against the political establishment.