Kirstein on Comcast TV Public Perspective on Academic Freedom, Palestine and Adjunct Faculty

Posted in Academia/Academic Freedom | Leave a comment

Running with Muhammad Ali

I used to live in the Hyde Park area of Chicago, which is right on Lake Michigan. One early chilly, windy Sunday morning I was running south along Lake Shore Drive. LSD was to my right and I noticed occasional honking of cars when passing a walker in front of me. As I approached the walker, I noticed it was Muhammad Ali. He wore an overcoat with the collar turned up but no head covering. He was by himself and presumably expected greater solitude in his early dawn constitution.

Stupefied, I stopped in my tracks and walked alongside him. We chatted about how he was doing and how much I admired him. He never looked at me but was friendly as I strolled with him. Cars continued to honk as they sped north on the outer drive. We then reached an overpass bridge and crossed that together.

The encounter was after his diagnosis of Parkinson’s, but he spoke laconically and clearly. His walking pace was brisk and he kept focusing ahead of him. I don’t think he ever looked directly at me. To this day, I have never forgotten such an unexpected honour of being alone with this citizen of the world: To actually have this opportunity to interact one-on-one with the greatest Vietnam War (1967) resister, the greatest boxer, one of the greatest advocates for respect for Islam, and one of the greatest advocates for black pride and power.

Posted in Diversity and Race, Religion | Leave a comment

In Memoriam: Paul L. DeVito


Dr Paul L. DeVito died suddenly and unexpectedly over the weekend of August 22-23, 2015. He had been provost at Saint Xavier University for two years. During his tenure, many witnessed a recrudescence of morale on campus, and an extraordinary commitment to academic freedom, shared governance and faculty activism. He was the greatest administrator I ever had the pleasure to serve with, on this or any other campus.

He was a member of the American Association of University Professors for thirty-five years, and retained his commitment as an associate member after he arrived from St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia. He was a strong supporter of the A.A.U.P. chapter. We had an annual wine and pizza get together with Dr DeVito that was spontaneous, without pre-submitted questions and extremely valuable in building a collaborative relationship between faculty and administration.

The provost described himself, accurately, as the “champion of the faculty.” I noticed that job announcements for various positions including deans contained a similar phrase, and I believe he played a role in this stunning component of a job description. Under his caring and effective academic leadership, A.A.U.P. principles gathered momentum throughout campus. For the first time, the A.A.U.P. chapter was allowed to host a session during the New Faculty Orientation: a two-day blitz when new faculty are introduced to faculty life.

I always wanted to make sure, that it was not new-faculty indoctrination, and that the A.A.U.P. would have an opportunity to recruit new members and share our principles. Dr DeVito was the first provost to provide the chapter an opportunity to participate at this venue. At our session, that I co-presented with Professor Jacqueline Battalora, I used a PowerPoint slide with a range of ideologically suggestive images ranging from Donald Trump, to a peace sign and a symbol of the Irish Communist Party: a hammer and sickle over a rising sun on a red background. Above appeared: “Teaching is a moral act for some. SXU Mission Statement certainly suggests it: “to search for truth, to think critically…in support of human dignity and the common good.” Provost DeVito was in the audience and interjected: “Teaching is a moral act, and you have the academic freedom to pursue it.” That was the last time I saw him.

He frequently affirmed his commitment to the A.A.U.P., publicly praised our chapter and the work it performed to defend academic freedom on campus. He was the first administrator that I heard use the words, “academic freedom,” at a general faculty meeting, much less openly affirm and extol the chapter for its commitment to the basic principles of the Association.

Faculty activism did not threaten Provost DeVito; he welcomed it and embraced its adherents’ commitment to the institution. Marginalised faculty, who had grown weary from the struggle for academic freedom, progressive values and shared governance, were particularly energised and validated for their commitment to ideals that make a university. He did not construe a dean’s sphere as sovereign, nor did he assume they were infallible in personnel matters. He would not hesitate to side with vulnerable faculty, in his gentle and amiable manner, if he felt a complaint had merit. He exercised soft power with aplomb and grace.

He was courageous, bold, kind and a uniter of disparate factions on campus. During his brief tenure as provost, adjuncts received a modest per-course increase in remuneration. He even forwarded an A.A.U.P. chapter letter to the president, calling for the university to accept the latest N.L.R.B. ruling that protected adjunct efforts to form a union. He is confirmation of the value in hiring senior administrators that are recruited from off campus. Paul introduced new thinking that changed the face of the university.

Saint Xavier has an independent faculty union, the Faculty Affairs Committee. It is not affiliated with any national union, and was formed in 1979. We have an advocacy A.A.U.P. chapter, that was established before full-time faculty became unionised. The union, the chapter and the faculty senate sent a letter to the DeVito family expressing our sorrow and condolences over this devastating loss to his family and our community.

At a reception for parents of new students in July, Dr DeVito said; “Don’t worry; we will take care of them. We will educate them. They can then go out and change the world!” For many of us, he changed our world.

The faculty of Saint Xavier University extends our deepest sympathy:

In a short amount of time, Paul profoundly changed and dramatically improved the atmosphere, the environment, and the dynamics between faculty and administration. Upon entering these halls he has been candid and kind, wise and generous. We are not an easy crowd to impress or align but we cautiously watched as Paul supported A.A.U.P. principles in word and action. We sat across the negotiations table that was at times contentious, and over which differing perspectives were fiercely advocated, and we left those negotiations knowing what a special and genuine individual we had as our provost. Paul was fearless in a gentle way and deeply committed to critical thinking and the pursuit of truth.

Paul was the consummate administrator. He was, as he put it, “the champion of the faculty.” He approached faculty as colleagues to be respected, mentored and validated. He enthusiastically greeted and welcomed us; he made sure that our efforts on behalf of the university and in the pursuit of truth were recognized and celebrated.

In the midst of our grief, we will go forward as a faculty made better by having had Paul DeVito as our Provost. His values and vision continue in the fabric of who we are today as the Saint Xavier University community. Not only was Paul this faculty’s champion, but also he was our friend. He was beloved.

With deepest sympathies,

Jacqueline Battalora, FAC Assoc. Chair (Union) & A.A.U.P., at-large representative

Arunas Dagys, FAC Chair (Union)

Peter N. Kirstein, A.A.U.P. Chapter President

Peter Hilton, Senate President

Gina Rossetti, Senate Vice President & A.A.U.P., at-large representative

Posted in Academia/Academic Freedom | Leave a comment

Kirstein op-ed in Chicago Tribune’s Daily Southtown

This is a link to the op-ed with accompanying image.

Was using the atomic bomb necessary to end WW II? – Daily Southtown

Seventy years ago on Aug. 6, 1945, World War II became a nuclear war when an atomic bomb leveled Hiroshima, Japan, and the world changed forever..

Three days later, an atomic bomb destroyed the city of Nagasaki. Perhaps as many as 250,000 people perished as a result of this horrific weapon with its mystifying mushroom clouds of death and devastation.

Chicago played a pivotal scientific and engineering role in the birth of the nuclear age. It also produced many of the first protests against unlocking the mystery of the atom.

Enrico Fermi and his team at the University of Chicago’s Metallurgical Laboratory (Metlab) built the first nuclear reactoron in an underground, doubles squash court under the west stands of Stagg Field. It marks the spot on Dec. 2, 1942, when Chicago Pile 1, the first nuclear reactor with uranium-graphite materials, unleashed the first self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction.

It was in Chicago when neutrons, in a controlled experiment, split the nucleus of a uranium 235 atom. This fissioning of atomic nuclei launched the Manhattan Project and the subsequent development of uranium and plutonium core bombs.
Under the leadership of James Franck, seven courageous scientists at the Metlab signed the Franck Report on June 11, 1945. The report denounced the planned A-bomb attack without a warning on a nearly defeated Japan. It recommended a virtual shock-and-awe demonstration with Japanese and United Nations eyewitnesses on a “desert or a barren island.”

Leo Szilard, one of the signatories of the Franck Report, orchestrated additional protest at the Metlab, He obtained scores of signatures on a petition that stated, “Our use of atomic bombs in this war would carry the world a long way further on this path of ruthlessness.” It sought a warning to Japan and an opportunity for it to surrender before the atomic destruction of its cities.

Ralph Bard went to high school in Chicago’s Hyde Park community and ran several businesses in Chicago, including Wahl-Eversharp Pen Co. He was Undersecretary of the Navy in 1945 and wrote one of the more significant documents of the 20th century — a memorandum on June 27 to Secretary of War Henry Stimson advocating that the United States warn Japan before dropping an atomic bomb.

Bard pleaded that a “great humanitarian nation” should seek peace with Japan before using atomic bombs in a sneak attack. His memo also suggested that U.S. officials guarantee that Japan’s emperor would be preserved as an institution and inform Japan that Russia had agreed at Yalta to enter the Pacific Theater.

Japanese officials had pursued an exit strategy with the Russians — with whom they were not at war until Aug. 8, 1945 — and had met secretly with American officials from the Office of Strategic Services in Switzerland. Japan had no navy by spring 1945 and was vulnerable to a devastating blockade-bombing, siege strategy that pummeled the country night and day.

President Harry Truman and defenders of the atomic bomb attacks argued that it saved lives by preventing an invasion of Japan that could have resulted in up to 1 million casualties. The pre-invasion estimates generated during the final months of the war were considerably lower, but any invasion would have resulted in many thousands of American and Japanese casualties.

Under the U.S. plan, the invasion would not begin until Nov. 1 on Kyushu. A second and larger offensive on the Tokyo Plain would not begin until March 1, 1946. Why the rush to bomb in August when the invasion was months away?

It seems likely that the combination of the siege strategy, the Russian entrance into the Pacific Theater and a guarantee that the emperor would be preserved would have induced Japan to surrender under the terms of the Potsdam Declaration without using the A-bomb.

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey analyzed the impact of the atomic bombings and concluded on June 19, 1946 that “in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

Today, there are about 9,000 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons in the world, according to the Arms Control Association. This is unacceptable. The “Little Boy” Hiroshima and “Fat Man” Nagasaki bombs contributed to the Cold War and the nuclear arms race.

Just four years after the nuclear climax of World War II, the Soviet Union tested an atomic bomb. There are now nine nations that have nuclear weapons — United States, Russia, United Kingdom, China, France, Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea.

Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and the Obama administration has entered into an agreement to delay, if not thwart, its capacity to develop them. Yet Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 obligates nuclear-weapons states to denuclearize and engage in “nuclear disarmament.”

Global survival requires an agenda beyond non-proliferation that includes striving for a nuclear-free world. Otherwise, absent new thinking, the world might be engulfed in a nuclear conflict that could extirpate civilization.

Posted in External Affairs, Politics/Music/Culture | Leave a comment

Los Alamos Daily Post Publishes Kirstein Commentary on A-bomb at 70

The Los Alamos Daily Post published an op-ed on the 70th anniversary of the August 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Los Alamos was where the Little Boy and Fat Man uranium and plutonium core atomic bombs were built and assembled. J. Robert Oppenheimer was the director of Los Alamos, a previously used facility as a prep-school, in New Mexico near Santa Fe. It was here that the bombs were built. It was here where the first “Gadget” was built and then delivered to the Trinity Test Site.

The use of the atomic bomb has been one of the more controversial events in U. S. History. I am impressed that the daily paper of Los Alamos would publish a piece that raises questions about the decision to use the atomic bomb.

Posted in External Affairs, Politics/Music/Culture | Leave a comment

Op-ed on Steven Salaita Tenure Travesty at U of Illinois

The News-Gazette of Champaign, Illinois published today in its Sunday paper an op-ed I wrote on the meaning of the American Association of University Professors’ censure of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The censure resulted from the summary dismissal of Steven Salaita for his tweets that some found objectionable last summer.

Restoring Salaita’s position would be right move

By Peter N. Kirstein

The American Association of University Professors censured the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. It might be illuminating to clarify what a censure means:

The censure applied to the administration of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The precise language of the motion that was adopted on Saturday, June 13, in Washington, D.C., was: “recommends … that the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign be placed on the Association’s list of censured administrations.” AAUP censure excluded the faculty and is neutral whether an academician should seek employment at a censured institution. AAUP does recommend prospective candidates familiarize themselves with a university’s current practices and reputation in protecting academic freedom, tenure and shared governance.

The censure does not apply to the administrations of the University of Illinois at Chicago or the University of Illinois at Springfield. However, in a practical sense, the censure clearly affects those that oversee the three-campus system. Their flagship campus has been identified as violating the guidelines and practices of the AAUP. Presumably, any exit from the censure list will entail actions of administrators, such as President Timothy L. Killeen, whose responsibility is not confined to the Urbana-Champaign campus.

The AAUP is not a policing organization and does not have explicit powers of sanction. It cannot order a post-secondary institution to adopt a specific measure. It respects institutional sovereignty, up to a point. The AAUP is effective due to moral suasion, and its 100-year history of establishing the common law of the academy, that is periodically updated in AAUP Policy Documents and Reports, also known as The Redbook. In particular, the AAUP is proud of its historic role in establishing tenure and the parameters attendant to the probationary period. It is the leader in pursuing shared governance, which is a core principle of any democratic society, and of particular importance in establishing appropriate faculty powers in shaping the mission of an institution. Academic freedom, the bedrock of the pursuit of the truth with students, research and extramural utterances is of special concern to the AAUP.

The summary dismissal of Steven G. Salaita from a tenured position at the rank of associate professor was so inimical to the basic standards of the academy, that the AAUP appropriately censured one of the nation’s leading universities. Usually smaller institutions are censured. Research institutions and flagship campuses are usually more amenable to protecting academic freedom, and resisting the winds of oppression when controversy surfaces. The UIUC is the only Big Ten university on the censure list and is, perhaps, the most prominent institution that has currently earned such a dubious distinction.

If Steven Salaita were restored to his position, in my opinion, it would be an act of courage on the part of the UIUC administration, and would precipitate a quick exit from the censure list. Changing the statutes alone would be an insufficient step to end censure. Requiring the Board of Trustees, for example, to approve appointments prior to the beginning of a semester could lead to more instances of viewpoint cleansing and academic-freedom disruptions. A settlement and statute reform might end the censure.

I am concerned about the future of Dr. Salaita, and urge the UIUC to reflect on the unseemly and cruel treatment of this professor as he was about to assume his duties last year. A humane ending to this trauma would be to honour the contract that UIUC offered and that Salaita returned with his signature

Posted in Academia/Academic Freedom | Leave a comment

Kirstein Quoted in Inside Higher Ed on Salaita Vote of Censure

Inside Higher Ed broke the Steven Salaita tenure-firing on August 6, 2014. The reporter Colleen Flaherty wrote an exhaustive article on the annual meeting of the AAUP. She quotes me on stating controversy is a good thing. I am also the professor that raised the issue of a New McCarthyism and the Norman Finkelstein and Salaita cases. Both were fired for their scholarship and social media comments on the Israel/Palestinian struggle.

It is easier in the United States to criticise the United States than the State of Israel. One can criticise a country for its actions for reasons that are virtuous and humanitarian..

Posted in Academia/Academic Freedom | Leave a comment

University of Ill. Censure: Kirstein Quoted in the Chronicle of Higher Ed.

AAUP Censures U. of Illinois and 3 Other Colleges, Vows to Fight On in Wisconsin

The American Association of University Professors voted overwhelmingly at its annual conference here on Saturday to censure the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for withdrawing a tenured-faculty appointment from Steven G. Salaita over his Twitter posts harshly criticizing Israel.

“The world—or, at least, the academic world—is watching,” Troy D. Smith, an assistant professor of history at Tennessee Tech University and secretary of the AAUP’s Tennessee conference, said in urging fellow association members to censure the Illinois flagship for violating academic principles.

The vote to censure Illinois followed a lopsided debate in which Cary Nelson, a former AAUP president and a professor of English at Urbana-Champaign, found himself alone in arguing that the association would be acting prematurely in passing such a judgment. On the other side, several AAUP officials and Illinois faculty members argued that the association needed to send a clear message that the university’s treatment of Mr. Salaita violated AAUP guidelines dealing with shared governance, due process, and academic freedom.

“If we do not censure the administration of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, not only will nothing be changed, it will get worse and worse,” said Harriet L. Murav, a professor of Slavic languages and literature at that campus.

In other actions, the AAUP members on hand for the meeting voted overwhelmingly to censure the University of Southern Maine and unanimously to censure Felician College, in New Jersey, for trampling shared governance and professors’ due-process rights in jettisoning faculty members as part of academic reorganizations.

Also in unanimous votes, the AAUP members censured the University of Texas’ M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and passed a resolution opposingproposed state legislation that would curtail shared governance and tenure in the University of Wisconsin system.

The Wisconsin resolution urges faculty members throughout the nation “to support our Wisconsin colleagues to ensure that similar proposals do not gain traction elsewhere,” and calls on the AAUP to come up with a plan for faculty resistance if the measure becomes law.

“We clearly live in a challenging time for higher education and the professoriate,” declared Henry F. (Hank) Reichman, chairman of the AAUP’s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure. He described the cases the association’s members were voting on as “sadly but the tip of a larger iceberg threatening our most fundamental values.”

‘A New McCarthyism’

The association’s vote to censure the Urbana-Champaign campus’s administration came in response to the findings of an AAUP panelcharged with investigating the university’s decision to rescind an offer of a tenured professorship to Mr. Salaita.

In a report issued in April, the investigative panel held that the university had denied Mr. Salaita the due-process rights that his tenured status should have afforded him, and also violated widely accepted standards for academic governance by not letting relevant faculty and administrative bodies weigh in on his fate. It said the university’s stated reasons for rescinding his appointment — concern that his inflammatory Twitter posts about Israel betrayed a lack of civility and portended his potential mistreatment of Jewish students — betrayed a lack of understanding of academic freedom.

Mr. Salaita has sued the university over the job revocation, and on Friday an Illinois judge ordered the university to release to him thousands of documents connected with its decision.

In response to Saturday’s censure vote, Phyllis M. Wise, chancellor of the Urbana-Champaign campus, issued a statement saying her campus has “a longstanding commitment to the principles of academic freedom and shared governance” and has already “taken several key steps to address the concerns raised by AAUP.”

“We are disappointed to be the subject of an AAUP censure,” Ms. Wise said, “and we want to support faculty who are impacted by this censure by demonstrating our unyielding commitment to the principles of academic freedom while remaining focused on the excellence in learning, discovery, engagement, and economic development that are at the core of our mission.”

The Committee A motion calling for the censure of Urbana-Champaign argued that the steps taken by the campus’s administration to deal with the AAUP’s concerns were inadequate. Critics of the campus administration at Saturday’s meeting contended that some of the fixes it has proposed, such as having a provost weigh in on controversial hires and speeding up the process by which the university system’s board votes on such hires, actually would increase political interference in the hiring process.

In arguing that the AAUP was acting prematurely in voting to censure, Mr. Nelson, the association’s former president, argued that the job offer to Mr. Salaita had been based “more on political than scholarly criteria,” with Mr. Salaita’s criticism of Israel helping to win him the job.

Mr. Nelson elicited groans from several of the other AAUP members on hand when he said the association’s “rush to censure has been compromised by anti-Israel sentiment, both on the staff and within Committee A.” Mr. Reichman, chairman of Committee A, called the allegation of anti-Israel animus “totally false.”

Peter N. Kirstein, a professor of history at Saint Xavier University and vice president of the AAUP’s Illinois conference, described the Urbana-Champaign’s response to accusations of anti-Semitism against Mr. Salaita as evidence of “a new McCarthyism” in dealing with critics of Israel.

Financial Considerations

In the cases of both Felician College and the University of Southern Maine, the AAUP’s investigative panels had rejected assertions by the institutions’ administrators that the layoffs at issue were justified by financial crises.

In response to the AAUP vote to censure the administration of Southern Maine, Glenn Cummings, the institution’s incoming president, issued a statement declaring his intent to learn from the past while looking forward. “Shared governance does not liberate us from either civility or reality; it requires all of us to contribute to the common welfare of the university above our individual agendas and personal interests,” his statement said.

Edward C. Eichhorn, a spokesman for Felician, said last week his college had no plans to respond to the AAUP’s censure vote. He said the institution was standing by its earlier response to the AAUP’s investigation, which held that Felician had handled the layoffs in a fair and thoughtful manner and, lacking any formal affiliation with the AAUP, was outside its jurisdiction.

The AAUP censured the University of Texas’ M.D. Anderson Cancer Center for its treatment of two long-serving faculty members whose contracts were not renewed and a third who was reassigned to an administrative position. Much of the conflict between the AAUP and M.D. Anderson stemmed from the center’s policy of not awarding tenure and instead hiring faculty members on seven-year contracts.

When the AAUP last summer announced plans to investigate it, the cancer center responded by sending the association a long list of questions doubting its authority in such matters. M.D. Anderson subsequentlyrejected the AAUP’s assurances of a fair investigation, and in March pre-emptively released the AAUP’s pending investigative report on it, to publicly lash out at the document as inaccurate and unfair.

Ronald A. DePinho, president of M.D. Anderson, stuck to his guns in his response to Saturday’s censure vote, issuing a written statement that said the center’s policy of seven-year contracts “not only promotes academic freedom but also fosters exceptional individual achievement and maintains the institution’s global impact on the cancer problem.”

William H. McRaven, chancellor of the University of Texas system, issued a similar statement that said the center’s contract policy complied with the system’s rules and rarely results in the nonreappointment of faculty members.

In other action on Saturday, the AAUP overwhelmingly voted to remove from its censure list Yeshiva University, which it had censured in 1982 for terminating three tenured professors, without due process, in response to budgetary concerns. The motion calling for the censure removal said Yeshiva had long dragged its heels in responding but officials there now appeared committed to a strong tenure system.

Peter Schmidt writes about affirmative action, academic labor, and issues related to academic freedom. Contact him at

Posted in Academia/Academic Freedom, Diversity and Race, Politics/Music/Culture | Leave a comment


Posted in External Affairs | Leave a comment

Decorated Air Force Academy Graduate Comments on My Battle for Academic Freedom

Dr Thomas Eller, awarded twice the Distinguished Flying Cross and a former professor and assistant dean at the Air Force Academy, was honoured with the 2014 Distinguished Graduates Award at the US Air Force Academy. He wanted my reflections on my academic freedom case when I responded to Air Force Academy Cadet Robert Kurpiel’s e-mail which led to a national controversy over free speech, academic freedom, appropriate speech, and “civility”: usually a code word from the powerful to silence the more vulnerable.


From: Thomas Eller
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 5:29 PM
To: Kirstein, Peter N.
Subject: Air Force Academy Assembly

Dear Professor Kirstein,

Until today, I was unaware of your actions back in 2002. Back in the 1960-1961 school year I served as the Cadet Chairman of the Academy Assembly. I later served for many years as an assistant dean of faculty, a professor and a department chairman. I cannot conceive of a PhD faculty member having acted as you did.

I have read your and Dr. Richard Yanikoski’s followup emails on this incident from later in 2002. (they were from 2005, posted in 2006: PNK)

I would be pleased to hear how you now, in 2015, feel about that incident and how it may have affected your behavior as a professor.

Thomas J Eller

My response to Dr Eller:

From: Kirstein, Peter N.
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 5:59 PM
To: Thomas Eller
Subject: Re: Air Force Academy Assembly

Dear Thomas Eller:

I have written widely on my incident in articles and lectured all over the country on it. I am sure you can find some of it, but I could link some articles. Surprised you had not heard about it. Did you know I was suspended and reprimanded for speech? For daring to challenge American militarism? For denouncing in the run-up to the Iraq War, American imperialism that was so evident in that immoral, preventive war. War criminals Bush, Rummy, Cheney should have gotten life in prison.,

So I have nothing but contempt for those who wish to silence speech. We need to protect it. Mine was not protected and that is a disgrace. I apologised to the cadet and the academy. They apologised to me. Did you know that? The academy acted honourably in this controversy and my battle was not with them, but with my own university that caved into the mob mentality of revenge. Prowar vets, prowar groups saw me as a radical, left-wing professor whom they were determined to silence. I was not silenced and will not be silenced.

Yeah I am a vet: did not make a big deal out of that because it is NOT a big deal. My daddy was an officer in the big one and was in combat in the Aleutians. Yet I hate war; it is immoral with no exceptions and those who study to be soldiers, sailors, airpersons, marines should at least be exposed to the other side. I exposed many to that side.

Thank you for your service, we hear. What service? To oil, to neo-cons, to racist militarists. Service? Military personnel are frequently pawns in the game, sent to war as heroes, come back and VA gives them 6 months waiting lists etc. We need to end war, find non-violent means to avoid killing ourselves.

Peace and end war!! As you can see, I will not yield one inch to those who think they can silence me. I have been polite and professional with you, but I have spoken my mind as an American with supposed First Amendment rights of free speech. Are you determined to take that away?


Posted in A: Kirstein Academic Freedom Case, Academia/Academic Freedom, External Affairs | Leave a comment

Kirstein Cited in Mondoweiss on University of Illinois Faculty Panel Report

Article is exhaustive analysis of reaction to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure report “On the Matter of Steven Salaita.”

I am mentioned as a critique of the report and its egregious failure to contact the professor but only interviewed the chancellor, Phyllis M. Wise, who fired Salaita last August because of her disapproval of his tweets during the Israel military actions in Gaza.

Posted in Academia/Academic Freedom | Leave a comment

Kirstein Mentioned in Jim Dey Salaita Column in News-Gazette

I had published an op-ed critical of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure report that investigated the Steven Salaita firing from the UIUC. Their dismissal of charges that outside donors and supporters of Israel had an impact on the firing and summary dismissal is hardly definitive. The CAFT failed to even contact much less seek information from the professor which is an outlandish oversight in a report that is intended to be balanced and bring to bear appropriate data from BOTH sides of the dispute.

Jim Dey, a conservative, skilled and able reporter, wrote an article in the Sunday, January 4, 2015 News-Gazette on the CAFT report that cites my critique of the CAFT report. This is the excerpt:

Jim Dey: No end in sight for UI’s Salaita controversy |

But Xavier University Professor Peter Kirstein, chairman of the Illinois American Association of University Professors, said it’s outrageous to conduct an examination of Salaita’s professional credentials as they relate to “protected political and professional speech.”

“The (committee) introduces a ‘professional fitness’ standard to determine whether Salaita’s tweets … demonstrate a lack of fitness,” Kirstein wrote in an analysis that described as Salaita as a “persecuted professor” being subjected to scrutiny that “confounds logic and vitiates the basic elements of justice.”

Posted in Academia/Academic Freedom | Leave a comment

AAUP Sends Third Salaita Letter to Chancellor Phyllis M. Wise

This is the third letter that the American Association of University Professors has sent to University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Chancellor Wise that emanated from the Salaita hiring,  summary dismissal and suspension. The first letter was sent on August 29, 2014.  The second letter was sent on September 9. The latest letter is somewhat unusual in that the AAUP is deferring the constitution and visitation of a three-person ad hoc investigating committee. Normally prior to a full-fledged investigation of violations of AAUP principles and norms, there is an on-campus visit.

I suspect the decision to bypass this procedure is due to the following reasons. There is a considerable amount of information already released by the University of Illinois administration as a result of FOIA requests, journalistic investigating reporting, and Professor Steven Salaita’s tweets that are on social media. It is also possible that the AAUP wishes to fast track a report that must precede any recommendation of censure. Once the report is published, then the Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure with the approval of the Council, could recommend a vote on censure at the annual meeting in Washington, D.C. in June. It would be difficult to complete this process within this period under the more deliberate and comprehensive process that is customarily employed.

Illinois Committee A, which I chair, played a seminal role in the process that led to the censuring of Northeastern Illinois University last June. Of course, there was an investigating committee that visited the campus and I was interviewed by the committee. The Illinois Committee also released the first professional statement condemning the firing of Salaita for tweets that were critical of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza last summer. Since our statement on August 6, 2014, the facts of the situation have only confirmed our worst fears: a professor has his signed and returned contract revoked because supporters of Israel found them to be very upsetting and provocative. We described them as “strident and vulgar” but emphasised the need to protect academic freedom and free speech in this country. We rejected a speech-code civility test.

The AAUP states in the letter that the UIUC Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure has done a sufficient amount of analysis and investigation that the AAUP need not engage in a similar exercise. I have been quite critical of CAFT both in the press and on the AAUP Academe blog. Yet the letter also states that it is not bound by the CAFT report, which is a senate standing committee at UIUC, and may reject or embrace all or any component. There has been some concern that the AAUP may recommend a further investigation of Professor Salaita’s fitness, as called for in the CAFT report. I find that very unlikely and speculation that AAUP would avoid enforcing its own principles in this matter utterly at variance with its prior actions.

December 30, 2014

Dr. Phyllis Wise

Chancellor, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Swanlund Administration Building

601 East John Street Champaign, Illinois 61820

Dear Chancellor Wise:

The approval and December 23 release by the UIUC Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure (CAFT) of its investigating committee’s report has certainly confirmed our belief that the issues raised by the case of Professor Steven Salaita are of the highest importance for the University of Illinois and higher education nationally, calling for an AAUP investigation and report.

The CAFT report upon its arrival was distributed to the membership of our standing Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the AAUP body responsible for the release and potential publication of investigative reports, and members of Committee A have been examining the CAFT report during the holiday break. Our staff executive director, who is responsible for authorizing investigations, has determined that in this case charging an AAUP ad hoc committee with conducting a site visit as the basis for a report would be redundant at best. The CAFT subcommittee has investigated essentially the same issues as would an ad hoc AAUP committee, assessing actions and positions taken in the Salaita case in the context of both UIUC official policies and AAUP-supported standards, which, more often than not, are identical. The executive director has accordingly asked Committee A to approve a report based on the CAFT report, including its three appendices, that will provide Committee A’s own findings and recommendations, which may agree or disagree in whole or in part with those of CAFT.

We expect within the next week or two to provide the concerned parties at UIUC with a draft text, inviting corrections and comments that Committee A will consider in approving a final text for publication.


Anita Levy, Ph.D.

Associate Secretary

Cc: Chair Christopher Kennedy, University of Illinois Board of Trustees

President Robert A. Easter, University of Illinois

Dean Barbara Jan Wilson, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences

Chair Roy H. Campbell, Senate Executive Committee

Robert Warrior, American Indian Studies Program

Steven Salaita

UIUC Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure:

David J. O’Brien, Chair, Fine and Applied Arts

Andrew G. Alleyne, Engineering

Melody M. Allison, Library

Matthew W. Finkin, Law

K. Gunsalus, Engineering

Christopher Roy Higgins, Education

Mark D. Steinberg, Liberal Arts and Sciences

President Harry Hilton, UIUC AAUP Chapter

Chair Bruce Rosenstock, Campus Faculty Association

Chair Henry Reichman, Members, and Consultants, Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure, AAUP

Julie Schmid, Executive Director, AAUP

President Michael Harkins, President, Illinois AAUP Conference

Chair Peter Kirstein, Chair, Illinois AAUP Conference Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure

Posted in Academia/Academic Freedom | Leave a comment

U.N. Security Council Vote on the Palestinian State and the Samantha Power Puzzle

The treatment of the Palestinians is one of the great crimes in modern history. A people dispossessed by zionism and reduced to penury and colonialism. The right of Israel to exist is not open to question or debate, but the nuclear power can afford to end the merciless oppression of these people in the open-air concentration camp of Gaza and behind the prison wall built on Palestinian land in the West Bank.

Note the eight hero states that voted to end the suffering in Palestine. One more vote would have led to passage, unless the United States exercised its P-5 veto. Note Europe is divided finally with France and Luxembourg voting to accelerate the peace talks that would conclude within a year. Note the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland voted to abstain. Yes and\ abstention counts as a “no” vote or a soft “no” but it is not a “yes” vote which indicates some movement away from its “cultural and linguistic” adherence to it partner across the pond. The resolution also would require a Palestinian state and an Israeli I.D.F. military withdrawal from the Jordan Valley by the end of 2017.

Samantha Power, who portrays herself as the defender of oppressed peoples and the great crusader for the victims of genocide and state oppression, for some reason suppresses her crusading zeal when it comes to Palestine. I wonder why this privileged U.N. Ambassador or representative seems to have a double standard when it comes to Muslims in the Middle East? I wonder if politics and an innate bias toward Israel’s colonial subjects is the response? I don’t like hypocrisy and Ms Power is just a mouthpiece for continued oppression in the region. She knows that the Palestinian suffering resulted from their dispossession when the State of Israel was created in 1948, and exercises the most excruciating balance when addressing the suffering that they have endured.


Posted in External Affairs, Religion | Leave a comment

Kirstein Op-Ed in the News-Gazette on Salaita Panel at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

This is the link to the op-ed I published on the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure report on the Steven Salaita academic freedom travesty. In another publication, I emphasised that the committee showed a lack of balance in refusing to contact Dr. Steven Salaita or his counsel. They only consulted one side of the dispute: outrageous and simply indefensible.

Posted in Academia/Academic Freedom | Leave a comment

Socialism and Christmas! Eugene Victor Debs Freed and AAUP Lovejoy Years of Wartime Oppression


Christmas Day, 1921, the prison gates opened and Eugene Victor Debs was free at last! Other than Dr King and Henry David Thoreau, the great Debs is perhaps America’s best known political prisoner. He spend a lot more time in prison that did Dr King and Thoreau during the Mexican War. Warren Gamaliel Harding, one of America’s most underrated presidents, displayed rare political courage in commuting Debs’s  sentence to time served. He was liberated as a persecuted political prisoner from the American gulag that included the federal penitentiary in Atlanta. His “crime” was opposing the draft during The Great War (1914-1918). Debs was a five-time presidential candidate of the Socialist Party and while “campaigning” from prison in 1920, received his largest vote total of 914,191 votes. He garnered 3.41% of the vote which is an impressive number for any third-party candidate much less one imprisoned by corporate, militaristic America. Debs’s denunciation of war, his leadership in the rise of the labour movement during the epic Pullman Strike (1894) and his opposition to unfettered capitalism established him as one of America’s greatest figures in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.


Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Supreme Court justice that so-called liberal court historians revere, was the grand inquisitor during and after World War I. For a unanimous Supreme Court, Justice Holmes wrote the opinion that Mr. Debs’s anti-draft advocacy was an obstruction of the war effort and was excluded from First Amendment protection. As with the Charles Schenck case, Holmes frequently ignored the constitution and conducted these Supreme Court inquests to suppress brutally any expression of dissent that challenged the war-making authority of the government.

Examples abound of Mr. Debs’s riveting oratory that resulted in his thirty-two month incarceration as a prisoner of conscience during the Wilsonian, “War to make the world safe for democracy”:

I have been accused of obstructing the war. I admit it. Gentlemen, I abhor war. I would oppose war if I stood alone…. I have sympathy with the suffering, struggling people everywhere. It does not make any difference under what flag they were born, or where they live. . . . Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder. . . And that is war in a nutshell. The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.

They tell us that we live in a great free republic; that our institutions are democratic; that we are a free and self-governing; people. That is too much, even for a joke…Your honor, years ago I recognized my kinship within all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; while there is a criminal element, I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free. (Quotations from Howard Zinn, The Twentieth Century).

The American Association of University Professors was founded a century ago in 1915 during World War I, but two years before the United States entered the war in April, 1917. If Mr. Debs were a professor, the American Association of University Professors most assuredly would have declared his direct-action, civil disobedience did not merit academic-freedom protection. The A.A.U.P., in only its third year, released in 1918 a Report of Committee on Academic Freedom in Wartime. The report was chilling in its nationalistic deference to the U.S. government’s suppression of antiwar activism and protest. In particular the A.A.U.P. displayed an ethnocentric xenophobia when it proclaimed it “probable” that German or Austro-Hungarian born professors “desire the victory…and by implication the defeat of the United States and its allies.” It ordered them “to refrain from public discussion of the war,” and not to discuss with students or colleagues any “hostile or offensive expressions concerning the United States or its government.” It is a disgrace that the A.A.U.P. would so cravenly assault the academic freedom of academicians on the basis of national origin.

Arthur Oncken Lovejoy, along with John Dewey, were co-founders of the Association. Professor Lovejoy chaired the A.A.U.P. committee that wrote the Academic Freedom in Wartime report. Professor Lovejoy was born in Berlin, Germany in 1873. He was brought as an infant to the United States in 1875 at the age of two. His mother was German and his father was American. Yet the esteemed philosopher and intellectual historian, in a display of glaring hypocrisy, did not include himself as a potential security risk who might challenge the draft and the efficacy of marching off to war.

During World War I, Americans of German descent were hounded and persecuted either by draconian state action such as in Montana or by the national government. One can only speculate whether Professor Lovejoy’s prowar militarism was intended to escape any association with other German-born Americans that could lead to his loss of academic freedom or privileged social standing as an “elite intellectual.” Yet it is arguable that Lovejoy’s Germanic origins and his crusade against German-born academicians fueled the A.A.U.P. war against academic freedom. The A.A.U.P. co-founder joined the National Security League, a boisterous “preparedness group,” determined to get the U.S. into war and attenuate any internationalist opposition to the conflict.

The Nation magazine’s March 7, 1918 issue contained a courageous denunciation of the A.A.U.P. report as an assault on academic freedom. Titled, “The Professors in Battle Array,” it blasted the Association for delineating areas when a university could fire an antiwar professor without an initial government charge of disloyalty or disruption of the war effort. The Nation, a progressive beacon of independent judgment, charged the A.A.U.P. for undermining “the very conception of a university…The university method is freedom to discuss, freedom to differ, freedom to be in a minority.”

Professor Lovejoy responded to the magazine’s criticism in a letter to the editor on April 4, 1918. It is stunning that the A.A.U.P. co-founder attacked The Nation for supporting “complete academic anarchism.” He stated if the American university would allow unfettered speech during The Great War, it would essentially promote the spread of communism and bring to America, “the Lenines (sic) and the Trotzkys (sic).” This is almost thirty-five years before McCarthyism! Despite the persecution of professors who challenged the American entrance into an utterly senseless war, which led to 116,000 U.S. combat deaths and over 200,000 wounded, Professor Lovejoy claimed he sought limits to university dismissals related to pacifist extramural utterances.

The A.A.U.P. report episodically cautions against university dismissals during a period of almost Stalinist-type repression under the Espionage and Sedition Acts, even while refusing to challenge governmental repression of speech. Professor Lovejoy defended one professor who was fired during the war. The Report of Committee on Academic Freedom in Wartime defended an unnamed “distinguished man of science” from “an important university” who was fired after twenty-five years of service for “seditious or treasonable acts.” He had written a letter to his Congressperson challenging the draft and advocating that the army restrict its recruitment to an all-volunteer force. The A.A.U.P. described the professor’s removal as “a grave abuse of the power of dismissal.” It demanded a “trial” with academic due process and asserted that procedural safeguards are even more important during war than under “normal conditions.” Apparently professors from elite universities might qualify for academic freedom protection but not German or Austrian-Hungarian born professors or lesser lights who would take to the streets, much less the classroom, and challenge war and imperialism.

The report expresses a preference that the government and not the university sanction extramural utterances opposed to the barbaric slaughter then soaking the trenches from the English Channel down to Switzerland. Of course the A.A.U.P. should denounce, regardless of its source, any persecution of academicians resisting the barbarity and evil of war. No sanctions should be levied against antiwar protest, whether they are imposed by university administrations or the government.

While Sami Al-Arian was subjected to both governmental and university persecution that included imprisonment, the latter is more common. From Finkelstein to Chehade to Salaita, the bar has been lowered to monitor and punish research, teaching and social-media musings that criticize not only the United States but also the conduct of other nations such as the State of Israel for its treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Fine: remove the university from viewpoint cleansing, and the result will be far fewer academicians whom are hounded, fired, suspended and abused for exercising an irenic denunciation of war and the baby-killing tactics of collateral damage.

Many countries have truth and reconciliation commissions to recognize past wrongs. In many ways, the World War I A.A.U.P. report is a stain on the reputation of the American Association of University Professors that should be publicly acknowledged during its centennial with a reaffirmation of “never again.” The A.A.U.P.s early years reveal strict limits to its purported dedication to academic freedom. Lovejoy, an iconic, revered co-founder, leaves at best a mixed if not poisoned legacy. On the one hand there are the intrepid beginnings of codifying the parameters of academic freedom, and establishing the tenure system. There is also an intolerant, reactionary nationalism that silenced, with few exceptions, university professors who opposed the war.

The Nation challenged the A.A.U.P.s failure to respect academic freedom in time of war. We need to remember the past, thereby constructing a future with a more consistent ethic that rejects imposing a wartime exemption to academic freedom, the pursuit of the truth and the right of professors to demand peace and justice. As Debs walked free, so should professors now and forever.

I am grateful to Dr. John Wilson whose comment on an earlier post and e-mail introduced me to several of the documents cited above. Opinions are mine, of course, and this post, with some revisions, first appeared in Academe, the A.A.U.P. Blog. Long live socialism, long live freedom for the worker and for the establishment of health care as a right NOT a privilege.

Posted in Diversity and Race, Freedom & Socialism | Leave a comment

Fidel Castro and Malcolm X: great figures, great leaders

In 1960 the great liberator from Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista arrived for a United Nations General Assembly meeting. Fidel Castro, one of the great leaders of our time and certainly one of the most successful communist heads of state, was staying at the Theresa Hotel in Harlem. Malcolm X is his guest during this September gathering. Both have contributed much to national liberation movements in which subaltern, apartheid subjects were given a greater voice and hope of freedom amidst the horror of American apartheid and imperialist colonialism.

While Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965 in the Audubon Ball Room in Washington Heights in New York City, Fidel went on to become the world’s longest serving president prior to his yielding the office to his brother Raul. President Obama announced last week that the U.S. would restore diplomatic relations with the island nation and attempt to puncture the blockade with or without the legislative cooperation by the dreadful haters in Congress such as Senator Marco Rubio.

Posted in External Affairs, Freedom & Socialism | Leave a comment

Kirstein on Iymen Chehade Academic Freedom Case at I.E.A. Higher Ed Conference

Peter N. Kirstein Illinois Education Association Higher Education Conference October 11, 2014 at Elk Grove Village

I speak today with one purpose: to demonstrate in a workshop manner why the Iymen Chehade case was successful and what is needed for similar outcomes on your campuses. The five components are union, AAUP, lawyer, publicity and administration.

The only case that Illinois AAUP has won or at least impacted that led to a positive result was the Iymen Chehade case. That alone would have made it a significant moment but the fact that Iymen is an adjunct professor at Columbia College who is ineligible for tenure and does not possess the same degree of academic freedom that tenure track or tenured faculty possess, makes the case more unique. The most vulnerable faculty member that we have investigated in an academic freedom violation wins his battle for a restoration of a course section that was removed due to a student complaint for screening 5 Broken Cameras that is vital in the area of compensation and professional work.

The first significant element was the presence of a faculty union. Some full-time faculty look at unions as undignified and more appropriate for hard-hat jobs or those who may not possess a Ph.D. While that elitism is diminishing, it is still present among many tenured faculty who see part-time faculty as part of the lumpenproletariat.

To make matters worse, NLRB v Yeshiva in 1980 was a hammer blow against full-time faculty organising on private campuses. The Supreme Court ruled in that union-busting decision that full-time faculty at private universities are managers, not employees and, therefore, don’t have the right to organise. Tell that to faculty members on non-union campuses that have no rights, no shared governance, and no effective recourse to challenge administration diktat. Tell that to a Norman Finkelstein, Namita Goswami or a Mehrene Larudee who were at non-union DePaul or to a Steven Salaita at non-union for tenured, tenure-track faculty at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

I did not feel like a manager when I was suspended several years ago for an antiwar email to the Air Force Academy. I did not feel like a boss when I was reprimanded. I did not feel like an employer when I was subjected to Gestapo tactics of abuse and intimidation from a nation clamouring to silence me and calling me as David Horowitz did in his book, The Professors, 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America one of the most dangerous professors in the US. Even a unionised faculty is not guaranteed academic freedom, free speech, shared governance and the right to challenge arbitrary administration authority. But it sure helps.

P-FAC was obviously significant in the Iymen Chehade case. It’s contract affords some measure of protection particularly among part-time faculty with the seniority of Professor Chehade. I don’t think, despite the credit that AAUP ILL Committee A received in engaging the case, that its role would have been as decisive without the careful and comprehensive summation of Professor Susan Tyma at various stages of the grievance procedures. Ill AAUP relied heavily on her conclusions of academic freedom violations and applied them to AAUP documents and reports. In January and February 2014 she filed grievance reports that were of great value to AAUP and we cited them in our March 25, 2014 report to Academic Vice President/Interim Provost Dr. Louise Love.

Professor Tyma in a significant February 19, 2014 memorandum affirmed “the union’s contention that the cancelation of the course was a denial of academic freedom… the fact that the college canceled only one and not both sections of the course establishes merely that there was a partial, rather than complete, denial of Mr. Chehade’s academic freedom.” Any denial of academic freedom is of great concern to the A.A.U.P.

Diana Vallera publicised the event on campus when Illinois Committee A needed closure and a consensus so that we would not belie our purpose by waiting endlessly for the facts. We knew the facts, moved on them and overcame some internal resistance.

Having AAUP intervention is certainly useful as well. I cite the other members of the Illinois AAUP Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure: Matthew Abraham, who left DePaul and was replaced by Iymen, Loretta Capeheart, Northeastern Illinois University, Walter Kendall, John Marshall Law School, John Wilson, Illinois Academe newsletter editor.

A third cog in this machine rolling toward academic justice was the grievant’s lawyer, Rima Kapitan. Counsel personally requested an investigation on March 19 2014 that contained a virtual legal brief and vital attachments of the P-Fac grievance, denials of grievance, and appeal of grievance denial. It also contained a sentence of considerable eloquence:

All of the complaints appear to have been politically motivated and similar to the types of obstruction experienced across the country by professors who have the temerity to present narratives that stray from the predominant political discourse in this country about Israel/Palestine.

Another significant component of a successful outcome is publicity, publicity, publicity. The Chehade case received demonstrations, panels and student protest on campus. While some professors fear public exposure, I think in the Chehade case and, just look at the Salaita case, it was a pivotal factor in the restoration of his second course on the Israeli/Palestine conflict. Get it into print, electronic media and use social media as well. The Chehade case was covered by the Chronicle of Higher Education, the Chicago Reader, Arab Daily News website and podcasts and an AM radio station. I think the tipping point was the Chronicle story which, while somewhat harsh on Illinois AAUP’s Committee A report, did cause I think Columbia College’s administration’s to reverse course.

Having these four variables may induce the final piece of the puzzle: flexibility on the part of an administration to reverse course. I sent Dr Love on April 1, 2014 this email:

Dear Dr. Love:

Illinois AAUP Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure welcomes the decision to offer Instructor Iymen Chehade the opportunity to teach two sections of the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict course for fall, 2014. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter and are pleased that your commitment to academic freedom that you so strongly affirmed in your e-mail of March 20 is so evident in these very recent curricular decisions.​

Best wishes,


Professor Chehade showed 5 Broken Cameras that cost him his course section. It was five components of the academic freedom struggle, union, AAUP, lawyer, publicity and administration that helped repair a broken process.

Posted in A: Kirstein Academic Freedom Case, Academia/Academic Freedom | Leave a comment

Kirstein Remarks at Steven Salaita Columbia College Appearance

Academic Freedom Panel

Carolina Sánchez – Columbia College Chronicle: Steven Salaita speaking, Iymen Chehade and Peter N. Kirstein

Steven Salaita Panel, Sponsored by Students for Justice in Palestine: October 8, 2014 Columbia College Chicago. This is a link to a post on the event on the American Association of University Professor Academe blog.

Academic Freedom is defined by the landmark American Association of University Professors 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. Academic freedom gives professors the right to pursue research and publish its results. Academicians have “freedom in the classroom” to determine their pedagogy. They have the right to “speak and write as citizens…[and] should be free from institutional censorship or discipline.”

Several years ago I was suspended and reprimanded by President Richard Yanikoski of Saint Xavier University for sending an irate e-mail in response to an Air Force Academy cadet’s solicitation that I recruit students to attend a conference on that campus. Instead, I denounced American imperialism including the mistreatment of the Palestinians and the 1991 General Barry McCaffrey’s mass murder of retreating Iraqi soldiers at Basra during the Persian Gulf War.

The cadet was not a student of mine nor associated in any manner with St Xavier University. I refused the cadet’s invitation to recruit my students for a conference there and denounced violence, and the academic emphasis on killing that debases and demeans our purpose on this planet. The Wall Street Journal in two editorials supported my removal from the classroom three weeks before final examinations. The Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times covered the story as did WGN radio and many television stations. The Weekly Standard, Frontpage, and conservative talk radio piled on and celebrated my suspension or demanded my dismissal. I could have been more polite and I apologised for the tone but here is the email that found its way to US military forces stationed throughout the empire who then sent thousands of e-mails to President Yanikoski seeking my firing:

“You are a disgrace to this country and I am furious you would even think I would support you and your aggressive baby killing tactics of collateral damage. Help you recruit? Who, top guns to rain death and destruction upon nonwhite peoples throughout the world? Are you serious sir?…No war, no air force cowards who bomb countries without AAA, without possibility of retaliation…You are imperialists who are turning the whole damn world against us. September 11 can be blamed in part for what you and your cohorts have done to the Palestinians, the VC, the Serbs, a retreating army at Basra. You are unworthy of my support.”

The public clamored that I could not teach effectively due to left-wing bias that was anti-American and anti-military. Mr. Yanikoski stated my e-mail was not protected by academic freedom because it was uncivil and did not respect others’ opinions. He did not respect mine and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Chancellor Phyllis Wise did not respect Professor Salaita’s opinions. Both should have simply said: “We do not agree with the statements made. They do not speak for the university. We disavow them and find them objectionable and inappropriate.” That is all that was needed. Case closed, move on!

I was tenured and was able to hang on to my job. Steven Salaita was tenured too but was caught in the web of bureaucratic technicalities when Dr. Wise and Christopher G. Kennedy, chair of the University of Illinois Board of Trustees, violated his First Amendment guarantees of free speech and AAUP guidelines,  by claiming they could vacate a written contract offer some ten months earlier.

I did not suffer job loss; I did not suffer health insurance loss; I did not lose income; I was able to use the incident to advance my career both within AAUP and in lecturing and writing. Yet there are enough similarities between the Salaita case and my own to know what persecution is, what viewpoint discrimination is, what censorship is, what lying is when administrators and governing boards assert that someone whom they don’t agree with, must be an intolerant professor who discriminates against dissenting students.

Tonight and as long as it takes, I will stand by Professor Salaita and work to end this terrible injustice and vindictive treatment of a professor who displayed emotion while denouncing Israel’s violation of non-combatant immunity in response to Hamas’s rocket fire. Palestinian health officials say 2,139 people, most of them civilians, including more than 490 children, were killed in Gaza during the fifty-day war after Israel launched Operation Protective Edge on July 8, 2014. Israel’s death toll was sixty-four soldiers and six civilians, including a four-year-old boy who died after a Hamas rocket hit a house in Eshkol.

I condemn Hamas’s attacks on Israel and the indiscriminate firing of rocketry. There is no place for violence and we need to denounce it regardless of the ends that are sought. We must abide by a higher moral law but Israel is a nuclear power with the keys to the US treasury and due to its strength, size and power should initiate concessions and confidence-building measures. It would reduce violence from both sides if Palestinians had a nation without an illegal concentration camp wall penetrating its West Bank, without the Israeli navy blockading the Gaza coastline and without illegal settlements annexing much of occupied Palestine.

Not much of academic freedom is left in this country particularly if one wishes to engage in a critical manner the founding of the State of Israel and its conduct since its establishment in 1948. We have the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). The latter saved my job in threatening legal action and aggressive media coverage on WGN and elsewhere. While AAUP is improving, FIRE has a quicker response time and embraces direct-action tactics. AAUP, until recently, seemed uncomfortable in protecting speech that was critical of the prescribed narrative on the Middle East. The DePaul University Norman Finkelstein tenure-travesty case was tepidly addressed by the AAUP. The Salaita case, however, has induced a more vibrant and energised AAUP defence of its own values.

AAUP exercises soft law that emerged over decades in documents and reports in the Redbook that serves as the common law for higher education. Illinois AAUP Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure issued the first formal academic statement on the Salaita case within hours of the Inside Higher Ed article on August 6 and played a key role along with P-Fac in the Iymen Chehade controversy that many here are familiar with. The Salaita firing, the Chehade Israeli/Palestinian course-section cancellation, which was restored, and my suspension represent an assault on academic freedom both inside and outside the classroom. The three of us challenged the ruling elites of universities and colleges that wish to suppress a narrative that challenges the prevailing orthodoxy on the Middle East or American imperialism and its thirst for perpetual war and racist empire.

Academic freedom generally exists for those who don’t need it and is abandoned and marginalised for those who do. Professor Salaita had the First Amendment constitutional right as a professor at a public university to express those views as he did. He was a passionate defender of the defenceless as bombs were blasting over and among a poor and terrified population in Gaza. He expressed antiwar outrage with children being bombed, families destroyed, electric-power stations and homes leveled by American-manufactured fighter jets. While Dr. Salaita’s language was described in the Illinois Committee A report as “strident and vulgar,” the University of Illinois chose to decontextualise it from other tweets that stressed reconciliation between Muslim and Jew and that denounced anti-semitism. I have yet to hear Chancellor Wise denounce anti-Arab racialism. I doubt if Professor Salaita had aimed his tweets against Hamas instead of Israel, whether we would even be here tonight.

What is so disturbing about the Salaita dismissal case is that the University of Illinois bypassed the American Indian Studies hiring process and cavalierly made egregious assumptions about his teaching objectivity based on 140-character tweets. Neither my email to the Air Force Academy or Steven’s tweets, which are extramural utterances, have any bearing on one’s fitness in the classroom. Peer review classroom visits, asking a job candidate to give a guest lecture, examining syllabi and student course evaluations are how professionals evaluate teaching. Caving into fund raisers and e-mail campaigns from pro-Israel groups to deny students from receiving a balanced view­­­­­­ of the Middle East conflict was the real reason for the summary dismissal of Dr. Salaita.

In 1970, AAUP revised the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure that is relevant to the Salaita case:

“Paragraph 3 of the section on Academic Freedom in the 1940 Statement should also be interpreted in keeping with the1964 Committee A Statement on Extramural Utterances, which states: “The controlling principle is that a faculty member’s expression of opinion as a citizen cannot constitute grounds for dismissal unless it clearly demonstrates the faculty member’s unfitness for his or her position. Extramural utterances rarely bear upon the faculty member’s fitness for the position. Moreover, a final decision should take into account the faculty member’s entire record as a teacher and scholar.” {Emphasis added}

As Illinois AAUP Committee A averred in its statement defending Professor Salaita’s academic freedom and right to academic due process:

We are unaware that the university has afforded Professor Salaita any due process. In the absence of due process, particularly if a contract were signed, any institutional action to reverse an offer of appointment would be a grave violation of academic due process. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Salaita statements about Israel or Zionism that would raise questions about his fitness to teach. These statements were not made in front of students, are not related to a course that is being taught, and do not reflect in any manner his quality of teaching. What one says out of class rarely, in the absence of peer review of teaching, confirms how one teaches. Passion about a topic even if emotionally expressed through social network, does not allow one to draw inferences about teaching that could possibly rise to the voiding or reversal of a job appointment.

We shall see what happens next. I predict, speaking only for myself, there will be an AAUP investigation and a recommendation for censure of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign if there is not a restoration of Professor Salaita’s position as a tenured associate professor in the American Indian Studies Program. We need to keep the pressure on and the drean alive that justice will prevail.

Thank you

Posted in A: Kirstein Academic Freedom Case, Academia/Academic Freedom, Diversity and Race, External Affairs | Leave a comment

Daily Illini on Salaita, Kirstein Panel

The Daily Illini references my blog post from AAUP Academe that I will be on an academic freedom panel with Steven Salaita and Iymen Chehade on October 8, 2014 at Columbia College Chicago. I had posted updates on Professor Salaita’s academic freedom Chicago speaking tour.

See article below:


Since breaking his silence on Sept. 9, Steven Salaita has quickly become an activist for academic freedom on university campuses. This week, Salaita will give a series of talks on his controversial rejected appointment at Chicago universities.

Salaita’s appointment to join the American Indian Studies program at the University as a tenured professor was denied by the Board of Trustees on Sept. 11.

The lectures were organized with student leaders of the organization Students Justice for Palestine. Salaita will begin at Northwestern University on Monday with a talk titled, “Academic freedom and campus censorship.”

According to a post on the American Association of University Professor’s Academe blog by Peter Kirstein, contributing writer and vice-president of the Illinois AAUP, Salaita will lead the talks, “not only to seek a reversal of the sudden cancellation of his appointment, but also to defend other critical-thinking academicians who dare challenge the ideological preferences of chancellors, presidents, and governing boards.”

Salaita’s legal attorney, Anand Swaminathan of Loevy & Loevy, could not be reached for comment.

In the post Kirstein said he will join Salaita and Iymen Chehade, professor of Humanities at Columbia College Chicago, during a talk on Wednesday at Columbia College.

Salaita also spoke to students last week in a separate lecture series organized with professors at Centenary College in Louisiana titled, “Religion Matters.” According to Kate Pedrotty, director of strategic communication at Centenary, Salaita was asked to attend the lecture before he resigned from his position as a professor at Virginia Tech.

Salaita gave a lecture on “Palestine in the American Imagination” based on his academic work, which compares Palestinians in Israel to Native Americans in the United States, Pedrotty said.

“I think it was a great opportunity for us to hear about what some of the complexities are in the question of academic freedom and how it should be protected – and not in some people’s opinion.”


Posted in A: Kirstein Academic Freedom Case, Academia/Academic Freedom | Leave a comment

Steven Salaita to Speak on Several Chicago Campuses

Academic Freedom: The Struggle for Palestine on Campus Continues

I am honoured to be on one of the panels at Columbia College on October 8 with Steven Salaita, fired from a tenured position at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for his viewpoint on the Middle East conflict between the Palestinians and Israel. Also it will be a pleasure to panel with Iymen Chehade, who had a course section removed due to a student complaint of 5 Broken Cameras: an award-nominated film on the West Bank striving of the Palestinians. Professor Chehade and I are on Illinois Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure. For updates and current schedule see Facebook and AAUP Academe Blog.

Posted in Academia/Academic Freedom | Leave a comment

Kirstein is now Contributor to AAUP Blog Academe

Professor Aaron Barlow, editor of the the American Association of University Professors’ blog Academe, has invited me to serve as a Contributor. To my readers, regular or occasional, I appreciate the support you have provided me during my own controversies as well as my engagement with others. While my blog remains, I will be posting items on Academe too that encompass issues relevant to the Association. I will endeavor to maintain the same commitment and quality of writing that this appointment requires.

I hope you will follow me on this, going forward:

Today was my first blog post in Academe as Contributor.

Posted in Academia/Academic Freedom | Leave a comment

University of Iowa A.A.U.P. Supports Salaita in Letter to Phyllis Wise


2013-2014 Officers






Open Letter to Chancellor Phyllis M. Wise of UIUC Re Prof. Steven Salaita

September 13, 2014

Prof. Phyllis M. Wise


University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Swanlund Administration Building

601 John Street

Champaign, IL 61820

Dear Chancellor Wise,

As the A.A.U.P. chapter at a university that, like yours, is a member of the C.I.C., we are writing to express our concurrence with the views and expectations that the national A.A.U.P. articulated to you regarding Prof. Salaita’s appointment in their letter dated August 29, 2014.1 We, too, view your decision as conveyed in your letter to Prof. Salaita of August 1, 2014, as incommensurate with A.A.U.P. policies on academic freedom, tenure, and due process.

No matter how much we all may prefer civility in discourse, we find untenable your ex post facto reason given on August 22, 2014, for your actions of August 1, that your university “will not tolerate … personal and disrespectful words or actions that demean and abuse either viewpoints themselves or those who express them,” a stipulation that free speech in a university community must be civil to be protected. That your position is indeed a limitation of academic freedom and the first amendment rights of students, staff, and faculty at the University of Illinois has been further demonstrated in an open letter on August 22, by Christopher G. Kennedy and the other members of the University of Illinois Board of Trustees. In that letter, the Trustees state that “there can be no place for [disrespectful and demeaning speech that promotes malice] in our democracy, and therefore there will be no place for it in our university.”

In open letters to you, numerous academic associations and scholarly experts have rightly rejected, as an impermissible constraint on academic freedom, the position that you and the Board of Trustees have asserted. The A.A.U.P. / A.A.C.U. joint 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure requires that when “college and university teachers … speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline.” The requirement that the speech be civil


as you define civility imposes censorship, and rescinding a tenured appointment on that ground constitutes the university’s most severe form of discipline.

Moreover, even if the standard of civility and its discernment were well defined, your discharge of Prof. Salaita would still constitute a limitation on a faculty member’s First Amendment rights that the Supreme Court has already rejected as constitutionally impermissible in a number of decisions, as several published open letters to you point out. The UIUC may find most instructive among these letters those from the American Historical Association (Aug. 31, 2014),2 the constitutional law faculty from around the country (Franke, Dorf, et al., Aug. 15, 2014),3 and the California Scholars for Academic Freedom.4 As the American Historical Association emphasizes in its letter to you of

Aug. 31, 2014, “[t]he First Amendment protects speech, both civil and uncivil. It does so for good reason.” We agree. There is no exception for public universities; on the contrary, in Keyishian v. Board of Regents 385 U.S. 589 (1967), the Supreme Court held that academic freedom is “a special concern of the First Amendment.”

We expect that the UIUC administration and Trustees will have noticed the skepticism expressed in many quarters regarding your claim that the civility of expression – itself inseparable from the content of protected speech – rather than Prof. Salaita’s specific political views was in fact what prompted his discharge. We share the conclusion that many readers have reached, on the basis of the 276 pages of emails that your administration made available on Aug. 22, 2014 pursuant to a FOIA request,5 that your decision regarding Prof. Salaita’s appointment was affected by objections from donors, alumni, students, organizations, and others to the content of his speech expressed as a citizen on an issue of public concern. Regardless of whether such a reading of this correspondence is correct, the widespread impression that UIUC is failing to honor its commitment to Prof. Salaita because of his specific political views will be difficult to erase. Precisely such treatment of faculty members was the reason for the founding of the A.A.U.P. in 1914, and it is not compatible with the joint 1940 Statement of Principles.

For at least a hundred years, then, college and university trustees and administrations have been subject to external pressures not to hire and not to retain faculty members whose intramural or extramural speech is controversial at a particular time. We urge you and the University of Illinois Board of Trustees not to yield to such passionate but temporary pressures from those who do not fully appreciate the importance for academe and democracy of defending speech with which we disagree – we do not, after all, require a First Amendment to protect the freedom to express calmly




5 The emails:; see too

and temperately views from which no one dissents. We believe that, despite your decision of August 1, 2014, and the Trustees’ ratification of it on September 11, 2014, it is not too late to reverse course and restore Prof. Salaita to the tenured position he was offered in October, 2013.

Sincerely yours,

Katherine H. Tachau


University of Iowa A.A.U.P. Chapter

Contact information: Prof. Katherine H. Tachau, Department of History, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242;

cc: Mr. Christopher G. Kennedy, Chair, University of Illinois Board of Trustees

Professor Roy Campbell, Chair, UIUC Senate Executive Committee

Professor Rudy H. Fichtenbaum, President, AAUP

Professor Michael Harkins, President, Illinois AAUP Conference

Professor Peter Kirstein, Chair, Illinois AAUP Conference Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure

Professor John Prussing, President, UIUC AAUP Chapter

Posted in Academia/Academic Freedom | Leave a comment

James Montgomery Votes for Salaita: A Trustee With Honour

Trustee Montgomery

University of Illinois Trustee James D. Montgomery

UPDATE: the great, visionary trustee on YouTube:

On this date, September 11, 2014, the viewpoint-cleansing mob of  the University of Illinois Board of Trustees voted to fire Professor Steven Salaita by a vote of 8-1. James Montgomery cast the sole no vote. Who is this man that wears a badge of courage and is willing to defy his corporate, anti-academic freedom peers on the board? Who is this person that refused to go along with the vicious, illegal and immoral contract reversal that was executed on August 1?

Mr Montgomery taught at the University of Chicago Law School from (1994-1996; 2000-2006). He graduated from the University of Illinois and received his law degree from the University of Illinois School of Law. He has a distinguished career as a practicing attorney, scholar and lecturer. He was initially appointed by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to the Board of Trustees in 2007. This is an appointment that the persecuted and I believe unfairly imprisoned former governor can be proud of and perhaps take some comfort in as he languishes in prison. Governor Pat Quinn reappointed him for another six-year term last year.

What is interesting is that on August 22, he did support Chancellor Phyllis M. Wise’s firing of Salaita that has triggered international condemnation of the action. Yet a month later,  demonstrating a willingness to listen and remain flexible in his thinking, he stated why free speech is not merely the protection of popular speech. This is revealing in the News-Gazette quotation of Trustee Montgomery during today’s Board of Trustees academic lynching and egregious silencing of a tenured professor:

Trustee James Montgomery expressed regret over signing a letter of support for Wise from Aug. 22. He is not saying he doesn’t support “our great chancellor.” He reflected on his challenging time on campus back in the ‘60s. Montgomery (a lawyer) said, “What makes this a great country… I can stand on a rooftop and call anybody an S.O.B.”

Boycotts, he said, are a concern. “We’ve had some bad miscues at UI in recent yrs, made some bad choices. I don’t think we need to add to that.”

His vote today to accept the appointment of tenured, associate professor Steven Salaita reminds me somewhat of the courageous intervention of John Peter Altgeld after the Haymarket Martyrs’ execution. He was a governor–with his name on a building on the Urbana campus–that pardoned the Haymarket survivors after so many were executed in 1887 for a crime they did not commit: a bomb blast in the Haymarket Square on May 4, 1886. Four were hanged for defying the union busting actions of Cyrus McCormick, advocating workers rights at the McCormick Reaper Works plant and a critique of unbridled capitalism. Altgeld never was elected again but was willing to stand for principle in an act of rare political dissent from the prevailing elite narrative that workers are expendable as are their supporters..

I am sure Mr Montgomery will not be reappointed, perhaps even be shunned by the conformist trustees that seek to preserve power and influence over principle. Perhaps Mr Montgomery will be asked to speak at student and faculty protest events to explain why he voted to accept the legal, and binding faculty and Liberal Arts and Sciences contract proffer to Steven Salaita last October. He stands alone now as a trustee who is an advocate for academic excellence and toleration of critical thinking. While his bravery and commitment to academic due process and academic freedom are in stark contrast to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign administration, let those of us who seek academic freedom and shared governance extend our praise and thanks for his vote today.

Roll Call:

Ricardo Estrada: no
Karen Hasara: no
Patrick Fitzgerald: no
Patricia Brown Holmes: no
Christopher Kennedy: no
Timothy Koritz: no
Ed McMillan: no
James Montgomery: yes
Pam Strobel: no
Posted in Academia/Academic Freedom | Leave a comment

Gender and Women Studies et al. Vote No-Confidence at University of Illinois

My source  on the Gender and Women’s Studies, Sociology and Geography  departments of votes of no-confidence and a demand for the restoration of the appointment of Steven Salaita was the Campus Faculty Association facebook page. It should be noted that G.W.S. students led the way. They were the first students on the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign campus that took direct action in terms of appearing at meetings, speaking to the chancellor, Phyllis M.Wise and promoting very publicly the cause of resisting viewpoint cleansing at the Big Ten university. ‘

Here we are in the United States, sixty years after the dreaded McCarthyism Era of the big lie, suppression of critical thinking and the age of conformity, still suffering under the sword of powerful administrators destroying the careers of sensitive, more vulnerable faculty that opposed the burning of babies and the killing of civilian populations during war. Remember that is what Professor Salaita was tweeting about: the murder and strategic bombing of an open-air ghetto in Gaza in which the impoverished were being reduce to greater levels of misery and deprivation. And Dr Wise is concerned about civility? I am concerned about war and murder and harm to the vulnerable. That is my concern!:

Gender and Women’s Studies at UIUC votes no confidence, the 12th department to do so:

“The Department of Gender and Women’s Studies at the University of Illinois stands with our colleagues in American Indian Studies and calls for the reinstatement of our colleague Dr. Steven Salaita to the AIS faculty. We therefore declare no confidence in the leadership of Chancellor Phyllis Wise, President Robert Easter, and the Board of Trustees. We do not take this step lightly, but our commitment to the principles of academic freedom, shared governance, and the right of free speech in the service of social justice compels us to do so.”

And: The Department of Sociology and the Department of Geography and Geographic Information Science and the Department of Education Policy and Leadership vote NO CONFIDENCE. So fifteen departments and programs have voted no confidence!! How can a chancellor remain in office, other than through elite empowerment by her president and Board of Trustees, with such a lack of support among her disparate faculties at the Urbana campus?

Posted in Academia/Academic Freedom | Leave a comment

A.A.U.P. Follow UP Letter to Chancellor Wise: Investigation May Follow

It is obvious that the American Association of University Professors is prepared to investigate the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. If the faculty Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure issues a report that seeks restoration of Steven Salaita’s position and is ignored, it is clear that A.A.U.P. would investigate the summary dismissal of Professor Steven Salaita.

I would assume given the strong and dynamic letters that it has sent to U.I.U.C. Chancellor Phyllis M. Wise, if the C.A.F.T. were to support the dismissal of the professor, A.A.U.P. would still investigate given the egregious violations of numerous seminal A.A.U.P. documents and reports as contained in the Redbook–not to mention in the contract materials send to Professor Salaita last October! The issues, as Anita Levy states, are of “critical importance.” The Association should and I believe would investigate, if at the end of the day, Professor Salaita has not been restored to his position as a tenured associate professor in the American Indian Studies Program.

I received this as an e-mail attachment on September 9, 2014, Tuesday, from Dr. Levy at 1:56 P.M.:


Dr. Phyllis Wise

Chancellor, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Swanlund Administration Building

601 East John Street

Champaign, Illinois 61820

Dear Chancellor Wise:

As you well know, the UIUC Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure has approved having a subcommittee “investigate the events that led to the University administration’s recent decision not to appoint Steven Salaita.” We see this as a positive step that accords with AAUP-recommended procedures for adjudicating disputes arising over issues of academic freedom and tenure.

The issues raised in this case are so critically important, and seen as such nationally, that an investigation by the Association would have commenced by now were it not for the role being assumed by the university’s committee.

We are informed that the subcommittee expects to produce a report promptly. We will continue to monitor developments closely and respond accordingly.


Anita Levy, Ph.D.

Associate Secretary

cc: Chair Christopher Kennedy, Board of Trustees

President Robert Easter

Interim Dean Brian H. Ross

Chancellor Wise

September 9, 2014

Page 2

Professor Robert Warrior, Director, American Indian Studies Program

Professor Jodi Byrd

Professor David J. O’Brien, Chair, Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure

Professor Roy Campbell, Chair, Senate Executive Committee

Professor Bruce Rosenstock, Chair, Campus Faculty Association

Professor Steven Salaita

Professor Michael Harkins, President, Illinois AAUP Conference

Professor Peter Kirstein, Chair, Illinois AAUP Conference Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure

Professor Harry Hilton, President, UIUC AAUP Chapter

Posted in Academia/Academic Freedom | Leave a comment

Salaita Express: Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures Votes No-Confidence

Salaita Fair Treatment Express Swirls Across the Humanities at University of Illinois

This is the statement of the Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures that expressed no-confidence in the viewpoint-cleansing policy of the administration at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The wave of no-confidence votes at U.I.U.C. is reaching high tide as faculty unite behind Steven Salaita’s summary dismissal:

“On 4 September 2014, the faculty of the Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign cast an overwhelming vote of no confidence in Chancellor Phyllis Wise, President Robert Easter, the University of Illinois Board of Trustees. Through this vote, we, the faculty of EALC, express our strongest disapproval of Chancellor Wise’s decision to rescind a job offer with tenure in American Indian Studies to Dr. Steven Salaita and the endorsement of that decision by President Easter and the Board of Trustees. In our view, the university administration ignored the well-established and thoroughgoing review process for offering tenured positions at this university and disregarded long-cherished principles of shared governance by failing to consult with the academic leadership involved in the hiring of Dr. Salaita. This decision has serious ramifications for the university’s standing at home and abroad and contributes to an atmosphere of apprehension and insecurity. To prevent further damage to the University of Illinois and its reputation for scholarly excellence and inclusivity, we join other academic departments and faculty bodies across campus in voicing our lack of confidence in the leadership of Chancellor Wise, President Easter, and the Board of Trustees and in calling for the reinstatement of Dr. Salaita.”

Current tally: Eleven Programmes and Departments

American Indian Studies

Asian American Studies




Latino and Latina Studies

French and Italian

East-Asian Languages and Culture

Comparative and World Literature


Religious Studies

Posted in Academia/Academic Freedom | Leave a comment

Department of French and Italian Votes No Confidence at University of Illinois

The Salaita no-confidence tide has swept the humanities at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign campus. The latest to show courage and commitment to the university’s own statutes and policies is the Department of French and Italian that has registered a no-confidence vote in the administration in the wake of the Steven Salaita viewpoint-cleansing crusade at the flagship state university of the “Land of Lincoln.”

Clearly Chancellor Phyllis M. Wise has a problem on her hands. Her effectiveness as the academic leader of the campus, recognising the role of the provost, will be stymied with the growing faculty rebellion taking place. Were she to resign, it would  be an act of courage. Were she to reverse course and publicly endorse the reversal of the Salaita suspension without pay (summary dismissal), it would be an act of greatness especially if she were forced out by the president or the Board of Trustees.  That would represent sacrifice for the common good. Suddenly she would be seen as exhibiting uncommon reflection and the capacity to listen to her faculty and the voices of reason throughout the academy in the United States. Will she? Can she? Let us hope so because UIUC committed an inhumane act of administrative abuse of a colleague and it needs to be rectified.

This is an unofficial tabulation of departments and programmes that “got game.” The list grows quickly and I do have other endeavors than keeping a scorecard! Yet I think this is accurate. Now, I wonder when will the sciences or engineers step up and seal the deal? I will not judge a department; that is not the AAUP way. I will, however, hope that the conversation that has begun across several disciplines at the great university will continue to grow in order to address a severely wounded reputation and loss of respect among so many scholars and academics in the United States.

American Indian Studies

Asian-American Studies




Latino and Latina Studies

Posted in Academia/Academic Freedom | Leave a comment

Chancellor Wise v. University of Illinois Statutes

A little nomenclature. Private post-secondary institutions are governed by charters. Public colleges and universities are governed by statutes. Now that the day’s lesson has been completed, let us proceed.

Numerous reports have suggested that the decision to void a contract offer to Steven Salaita resulted from outside pressure. Inside Higher Ed, The Jewish Forward and the News-Gazette are just some of the publications that revealed efforts were made by local and national Israel Lobby groups to derail the appointment of  Professor Salaita. E-mail, letters, conferences and fund-raising pressures to fire the professor have been documented. Chancellor Phyllis M. Wise has denied that such influence played a role in her August 1 notification that he had been summarily dismissed which the American Association of University Professors has described as a virtual suspension without pay.

Yet the timing of this letter and the evidence that efforts were made from external parties to prevent Professor Salaita from teaching would be at variance with the statutes of the University of Illinois:

The  University of Illinois Statutes state explicitly that:

“It is the policy of the University to maintain and encourage full freedom within the law of inquiry, discourse, teaching, research, and publication and to protect any member of the academic staff against influences, from within or without the University, which would restrict the member’s exercise of these freedoms in the member’s area of scholarly interest.”

Former AAUP President Cary Nelson, for example, while denying any role in the decision to revoke a written contract proffer believes that Salaita’s tweets are an extension of his scholarship and can, therefore, be adjudged in that manner. Of course it was the American Indian Studies Program that has the expertise and unit responsibility to make that decision. My point is: the statutes prohibit the coercion or sanctioning of a professor based upon “influences, from within or without the university” that impinge upon one’s area of scholarly interest. Clearly the destruction of a career, possibly; the immiseration of a faculty member who was promised a job and left a tenured position to assume it, would constitute an assault on the statutory protection of ” full freedom.” It would represent a stark attack on the protection of the academic staff.

While the term “law of inquiry” may require a more informed legal analysis, has anyone claimed that Professor Salaita broke a law? Has the University of Illinois averred that he engaged in illegal actions that constitute actions that are not protected in the paragraph from the Statutes quoted above?  The answer to both questions is “no.” While Emerson wrote, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,” I think the opposite is the case when applying statutory law or bylaws to the careers of academicians that the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign claims it is obligated to defend.

Posted in Academia/Academic Freedom | Leave a comment

Chronicle of Higher Ed Salaita Debate Cites Illinois AAUP

‘A Growing Hunt for Heretics’? 1

Greg Kahn/GRAIN   Image of Steven Salaita from the Chronicle of Higher Education

‘A Growing Hunt for Heretics’?                            What is at stake in the Salaita affair

In a debate on the Salaita viewpoint cleansing case at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign between Department of English Professors Feisal Mohamed and Cary Nelson, the former cites the initial defence of Professor Steven Salaita by the American Association of University Professors Illinois Conference Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure. This statement on August 6 affirmed that Steven Salaita’s firing was a reprehensible violation of the basic principles and standards of the AAUP. This is the excerpt from the Chronicle of Higher Education article. See here the entire article and the excerpt below:

Chancellor Wise’s actions have been widely condemned in the academic community and beyond. A petition very quickly gathered 17,000 signatures; some 1,700 academics have pledged to boycott our campus in protest, and in the case of many English professors, that boycott extends to the writing of tenure letters. The Modern Language Association has made an official statement denouncing the decision, as have the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Illinois chapter of the American Association of University Professors, and the national AAUP.

Posted in Academia/Academic Freedom | Leave a comment

Chancellor Wise Concedes Errors in Salaita Persecution

Phyllis M. Wise told the News-Gazette:

Wise told The News-Gazette she has no plans to alter her decision, but said “there have been some errors in the process. People are on campus and working before their appointments are approved by the board. We need to correct that.”

This is an admission that the board frequently meets after a semester has started, hardly a new revelation, confirming its role is basically one of processing prior recommendations for appointments. If she intends to insert directly the Board of Trustees into assessing scholarship, teaching, service and “tweets,” then she is clearly challenging the very essence of shared governance and the primacy of faculty to determine faculty status. The current facts on the ground are that the BOT does meet after scores of faculty have begun their initial appointment and that an ex post facto reversal after unit approval cannot stand. If she is recommending that the board should meet and substantively review appointments prior to the beginning of a term, she risks even a greater crisis of mismanagement of basic principles in the appointment of faculty. It is not when the Board of Trustees meets, it is the inappropriate and arbitrary assumption of authority that it does not possess.

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign chancellor stated another misgiving in the summary dismissal of Professor Steven Salaita:

But she admitted she wished she had sought more consultation before writing that letter.

“I think we need to go over the processes that I should go through in instances like this,” Wise said.”

While Chancellor Wise does not explicitly state her August 1 firing of Professor Salaita was a unilateral act as the News-Gazette claims, this is, perhaps, an admission that she acted improperly in bypassing the American Indian Studies Program and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences interim dean that had recommended and proffered Salaita a written contract in October 2013.  The “processes” that she claims need greater scrutiny and attention were clear enough at the time. If she is conceding that due process was violated in this summary dismissal, she is giving more ammunition to any legal challenge of this outrage or to any future fact-finding investigation of the American Association of University Professors.

In the News-Gazette there is a significant statement concerning academic freedom:

She also thinks university officials should review and consider spelling out what is and is not in the realm of academic freedom.

“There’s no hard and fast policy, and I think that one of the good things that can come out of that is a really active discussion, symposia, workshops, seminars on what is considered academic freedom and what is considered freedom of speech in light of digital media,” Wise said.

This is unexceptionable in principle. All postsecondary institutions should engage in self-examination and an intensive review of academic freedom and what it means. However there is a “hard and fast policy” when it comes to shared governance, academic freedom, and the powers of the Board of Trustees. Recognising there is leeway for universities to develop their own practices of academic freedom, it is not a wild west show. She chose to ignore essential documents of the AAUP that her university in its enclosures to Professor Salaita claim to honour: for example the essential 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. With regard to digital media, the AAUP has developed a comprehensive statement, Academic Freedom and Electronic Communications on the need to extend academic freedom and extramural communication into this realm.

I have no criticism of Chancellor Wise’s stated intent of opening up a dialogue. Yet it must reexamine the egregious violations on the UIUC campus of academic freedom, shared governance and denial of free speech rights under the First Amendment. It is not enough to seek possibly reform, if that is her objective, but to resolve and settle the central issue of the moment: That is the summary dismissal and monstrous firing of Dr. Salaita. This tenure travesty and viewpoint cleansing should be reversed now and then subsequently a comprehensive university-wide discussion of academic freedom and shared governance should commence.

Posted in Academia/Academic Freedom | Leave a comment

UIUC History Department Votes No Confidence

The History Department has joined the pro-Salaita no-confidence express at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. This action represents the fifth program or department to register this action against Chancellor Phyllis Wise and the University of Illinois Board of Trustees. Others are American Indian Studies, English, Philosophy and Asian American Studies.

The Department of History faculty voted overwhelmingly to approve the following resolution at its meeting on September 3, 2014.

Whereas academic freedom and a commitment to fairness and transparency in all academic procedures and practices, including faculty hires, form the foundations of the American public higher educational system;

Whereas Chancellor Phyllis Wise, on August 1, 2014, summarily and without faculty consultation, informed Dr. Steven Salaita that she would not forward his contract to the Board of Trustees, thereby voiding every preceding review by faculty and administrative personnel;

Whereas Chancellor Wise’s August 22, 2014, explanation for her action in the name of “civility” threatens to undermine the protection of tenure and the right to free speech, and obscures the role played in this decision by political pressure;

Whereas President Robert Easter and the Board of Trustees endorsed this violation of shared governance, due process, and academic freedom on August 22, 2014;

Whereas the American Association of University Professors in an August 29, 2014, letter to Chancellor Wise expressed its “deep concern,” and stated that “Aborting an appointment in this manner without having demonstrated cause has consistently been seen by the AAUP as tantamount to summary dismissal, an action categorically inimical to academic freedom and due process and one aggravated in his case by the apparent failure to provide him with any written or even oral explanation”;

The faculty of the Department of History at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign declares its lack of confidence in the leadership of the current Chancellor, President, and Board of Trustees.  We call on the Chancellor, the President, and the Board of Trustees to reverse this decision by reinstating Dr. Salaita.


Posted in Academia/Academic Freedom | Leave a comment

Salaita and AAUP Statement on Government

Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities is one of the seminal, classic documents of the American Association of University Professor. It was written in 1966 during the tumult of the Vietnam War when professors and students were demanding greater autonomy from the centralised, authoritarian structure of administrative control. This was the period of revisionism, of gender and ethnic studies emergence, of breaking away from the canon. One wonders since this statement was written some forty-eight years ago, whether progress has been stymied by the rise of the corporate university that is more concerned about image and public relations than the education of students.

The Statement on Government is a comprehensive exposition of shared governance which is the concept that a university, unlike a business or an autocracy ruled by a supreme leader, has various sources of authority that share the governance or decision making of the institution: the president, governing boards and faculty. Students are also part of this equation but frankly AAUP and other critical thinking groups are somewhat behind the curve in terms of student rights. The first three sources of authority have some overlapping powers where concentric circles intertwine but also a separation of powers that are uniquely dominant among a particular component. Campus rule is not contained within an entire domain of one of the major units but is shared. The sharing maybe autonomous authority equally dispersed or a shared power in which more than one of the units of authority-president, faculty, governing board-are engaged.

An area of great significance in the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Steven Salaita case is faculty status. The Statement on Government is quite clear in stating that while administrations make the final appointment, the procedures in assessment and determining the qualifications of the professoriate rest with the faculty. While technically an overlapping power, the professoriate’s determination of faculty status such as an appointment of new professors should be accepted by the administration. This is the specific paragraph that I predict will continue to expand in importance if the AAUP embarks upon, as seems likely, a comprehensive investigation of the University of Illinois that could lead to censure:

5. The Academic Institution: The Faculty

The faculty has primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process.4 On these matters the power of review or final decision lodged in the governing board or delegated by it to the president should be exercised adversely only in exceptional circumstances, and for reasons communicated to the faculty. It is desirable that the faculty should, following such communication, have opportunity for further consideration and further transmittal of its views to the president or board. [emphasis added].

What is particularly significant about this passage is the admonition that when an administration reverses lower unit review of an appointment, it must be for “extraordinary circumstances” that could justify such an intrusion into this realm of faculty predominance in shared governance. An “extraordinary circumstance” would not justify firing a tenured faculty member for tweets that were deemed divisive by vested interest groups seeking viewpoint cleansing that challenged the indiscriminate tactics that were used by the Israel Defence Forces during the Gaza conflict.

While the university has communicated its reasons to the faculty, at least through widely disseminated e-mail, it has not in the minds of many justified that decision. It has not, however, communicated the reasons for violating a contract offer directly to Professor Steven Salaita. The August 1 letter contained no specifics and the August 22 roll out of statements was not addressed directly to the professor. It is my understanding the UIUC Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure is investigating. Their report presumably would be sent to the administration. This would constitute, of course, an example of faculty response as envisioned in the Statement on Government: “[F]aculty should, following such communication, have opportunity for further consideration and further transmittal of its views to the president or board.”

However, even if Chancellor Wise and the board of trustees allow a faculty response to the summary dismissal of Professor Salaita, the burden of demonstrating why “extraordinary circumstances” led to this decision will not be satisfied. Apparently the administration, without faculty input in determining the rubrics for faculty appointments, tenure and promotion, simply ordered that “civility” become a litmus test to determine fitness prior to board of trustees’ approval. It is obvious that the University of Illinois faculty was not consulted in this arbitrary new category beyond the classic triad of teaching, scholarship and service. It was simply proclaimed ex cathedra by Chancellor Wise and Board Chair Christopher G. Kennedy. That cannot stand and for these reasons, the very existence of shared governance is in peril at the University of Illinois.

Posted in Academia/Academic Freedom | Leave a comment

Better Late than never: A.H.A. Supports Salaita

The American Historical Association has written the following letter to Chancellor Phyllis M. Wise, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign asking for the reversal of the summary dismissal of Steven G. Salaita that was initially proclaimed on August 1 and then subsequently on August 22, 2014. I am a life member of the A.H.A. since I joined in graduate school thanks to my parents giving me a membership when I completed my graduate studies. Today I feel the gift was worthwhile.

Posted in Academia/Academic Freedom | Leave a comment

Report: UIUC Wise to send Salaita file to Board


It has been reported that Chancellor Phyllis M. Wise is going to forward Professor Steven Salaita’s file to the University of Illinois Board of Trustees for their September 11, 2014 meeting. This was first revealed on the online Gender and Women Studies News where they summarise their communication with the chancellor. I am reproducing the entire analysis that these brave and sophisticated students have presented in their support of Professor Salaita’s appointment. It is fitting that any movement toward resolution would result from dialogue between students and the administration.

It was the gratuitous charge that Professor Salaita’s tweets indicated a lack of fitness to teach his courses. That he would demonstrate bias and persumably treat some students in a hostile manner that disagreed with his views on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

I see this as a positive development and quite possibly a reaction to Anita Levy’s AAUP letter to the administration which is usually the first stage of a process that could lead to a censure. I think UIUC has possibly realised that a reversal is necessary. I seriously doubt Chancellor Wise would send Professor Salaita’s appointment for board approval to seek, yet again, their support of the chancellor’s August 1 firing letter. They would not want to inflame an already tense and highly controversial decision. I believe it possible that the BOT will accept the appointment, perhaps make a statement that Professor Salaita’s tweets do not represent those of the university and allow him to teach. Here is the GWS statement:

GWS students organize to Support Salaita

GWS Student Stephanie Skora reads student letter of concerns at Board of Trustees meeting

Updated 9/1/2014, 8:00 pm central time :

From GWS Undergraduate Stephanie Skora’s report back on meeting with Chancellor Wise on Monday, September 1, 2014:

“The meeting with Chancellor Wise was a success, and we have gained some valuable information and commitments from the Chancellor!

We have discovered that the Chancellor HAS FORWARDED Professor Salaita’s appointment to the Board of Trustees, and they will be voting on his appointment during the Board of Trustees Meeting on September 11th, on the UIUC campus! Our immediate future organizational efforts will focus around speaking at, and appearing at, this Board of Trustees meeting. We will be attempting to appear during the public comment section of the Board of Trustees meeting, as well as secure a longer presentation to educate them on the issues about which Professor Salaita tweeted. Additionally, we are going to attempt to ensure that the Board of Trustees consults with a cultural expert on Palestine, who can explain and educate them about the issues and the context surrounding Professor Salaita’s tweets. It has been made clear to us that the politics of the Board of Trustees is being allowed to dictate the course of the University, and that the misinformation and personal views of the members of the Board are being allowed to tell the students who is allowed to teach us, regardless of who we say that we want as our educators. We will not let this go unchallenged.

Additionally, Chancellor Wise has agreed to several parts of our demands, and has agreed upon a timeline under which she will take steps to address them. The ball is currently in her court, but we take her agreements as a gesture of good faith and of an attempt to rebuild trust between the University administration and the student body. She has not agreed unilaterally to our demands, and but we have made an important first step in our commitment to reinstating Professor Salaita. In terms of his actual reinstatement, the power to make that decision is not hers. This is why we have shifted the target of our efforts to the Board of Trustees, because they alone have the power to reinstate and approve Professor Salaita’s appointment at the University. In regards to the rest of our demands, which we have updated to reflect the town hall meeting, we have made progress on all of those, but continue to emphasize that it is unacceptable to meet any of our demands without first reinstating Professor Salaita.

We have made progress, but we all have a LOT of work left to do. We must organize, write to the Board of Trustees, and make our voices and our presences known. We will not be silent on September 11th, and we will not stop in our efforts to reinstate Professor Salaita, regardless of what the Board of Trustees decides.

Please keep organizing, please keep making your voices heard, and please‪#‎supportSalaita‬!

Also, feel free to message or comment with any questions, comments, or concerns.”

Gender and Women’s Studies (GWS) students are involved in organizing efforts to voice their concern over the firing of Steven Salaita in August. Professor Steven Salaita’s appointment at the Department of American Indian Studies was rescinded by a top administrative officer. Protests among scholars around the country have led to a nation wide academic boycott, and now graduate and undergraduate students at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC).

On August 24, students from different departments attended the Board of Trustees meeting to voice their concerns and support for Dr. Salaita. Students of American Indian Studies (AIS) and INTERSECT grant students also drafted a Letter to Chancellor Phyllis Wise in Support of Steven Salaita that undergraduate and graduate students from different departments around campus have signed. Students have coordinated a Town Hall Meeting on Friday, August 29th 7:30 to 9:30 at the Wesley Foundation at UIUC, and a meeting with Chancellor Wise on Monday, August 1.

GWS Undergraduate Matt Speck, one of the organizers, said about the efforts: “Our efforts on campus work in conjunction with faculty and scholarly protests to hold the administration of UIUC publicly accountable for the uncivil treatment of not only Professor Steven Salaita but also his family, his department, and his students.  This is only another in a long line of injustices committed against both the faculty and students of UIUC (especially AIS) by campus administrators.  In order to provide a much desired level of transparency and accountability as regards the Office of the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees, we have taken to political action in solidarity with scholars both on campus and transnationally.  We act out of obligation to the UIUC student body, faculty, and community at large.”

From the Student Statement:

The immediate reinstatement of Dr. Salaita as a tenured faculty member in the Department of American Indian Studies.

Full and fair compensation to Dr. Salaita for time missed during which he would otherwise have been working.

Immediate increased transparency in the faculty hiring process – as a public university, UIUC has the responsibility to make public all intended faculty changes as well as take public comment in regards to any change.

GWS Grad Minor Rico Kleinstein Chenyek, one of the students who took part in the action, told The Electronic Intifada that the university’s firing of Salaita was another example of the use of “a multiculturalist ‘Inclusive Illinois’ imagined narrative, rather than to promote diversity, to actually regulate diversity and the dissent of minoritized people, and in this particular case, that of Palestinian people.” Follow Rico’s Twitter account @FreeOfSanity for up to date information.

Stay tuned for more updates on our amazing GWS students!

Posted in Academia/Academic Freedom | Leave a comment