Last year, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign revoked a job offer to Prof. Steven Salaita after he posted a string of anti-Israel comments on social media. Last week, the school and Salaita reached a settlement of $600,000 in exchange for the professor dropping two lawsuits against the university and agreeing he will never work there, according to the Chicago Tribune.
The entire ordeal will ultimately cost the university more than $2 million, accounting for legal fees, alongside tremendous publicity costs. The divisive decision led to faculty boycotts and protests, faculty votes of no confidence in the school’s former chancellor and the addition of the school to the American Association of University Professors’ list of censured universities.
Debates surrounding academic freedom and free speech at universities are longstanding. Recently, the debate has centered on the role of universities in regulating cultural appropriation, a question that has led to widespread protest at Yale University. And while the situations at Yale and Urbana-Champaign are very different — especially in the groups they affect — they both require us to consider when it is appropriate for professors or administrators to weigh in on politicized issues.
In Salaita’s case, concerns arose over anti-Israel Twitter posts that contained profane and inflammatory language, including posts that criticized the Israeli government and military for its actions in Gaza. In one tweet, Salaita wrote, "Let's cut to the chase: If you're defending #Israel right now you're an awful human being." The summer after Salaita was offered an $85,000 per year tenured faculty job in the American Indian Studies program on the campus, donors, students and parents expressed concern over his posts, and Salaita’s offer was revoked.
It is important for universities to hire faculty and administrators who can treat students with respect when they disagree. Salaita’s comments were undeniably antagonistic to students and colleagues whose political views may differ. In this case, the line between exercising free speech — expressing an opinion — and being deliberately antagonistic was blurred.
While Salaita’s comments may not have been diplomatic, they were likely not strong cause for his firing. Institutions of higher education are supposed to be places that challenge us, inspire critical thinking and serve as centers of debate. Many professors express political views, including here at U.Va. The Israel-Palestine controversy is particularly polarizing, but it is not off-limits for political commentary. Salaita did not express his views in the context of a classroom or to students without prompting; if he did, this would reframe the debate. Twitter profiles may not be private, but they are not inherently academic — and Salaita was hired for his academic contributions.
There comes a point when universities must make difficult assessments of a potential hire’s personal conduct. But Urbana-Champaign’s decision in this case unfairly regulated free speech within a non-professional sphere. Hopefully, the new settlement will send universities a strong message about how to distinguish between fireable offenses and acceptable commentary.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 21 hours agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 2 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
