The saga of the Professor who wrote that pro-Israel students were “brain dead” continues in Illinois and on the pages of the New York Times.
Our video, “Steven Salaita: Free Speech or Anti Israel Hate?” demonstrates that the University of Illinois did not fire Steven Salaita because he was a critic of Israel. They rescinded a job offer to someone who was writing hate-filled, intimidating messages about supporters of Israel. It is not a question of free speech or academic freedom.
This is a simple issue of whether a university must employ a person who is engaged in promoting a climate of intimidation. References to “brain dead” Israel supporters and “awful human beings” are not part of any legitimate debate. Expressing a wish that all “f*cking” Israelis living in the disputed territories be kidnapped and murdered is not becoming for any civilized person, especially a teacher of young people.
Yet in comes the Times with an article headlined “Organizing to Defend a Professor’s Freedom of Speech.” The article details the efforts of Professor Corey Robin of the City University of New York’s Brooklyn College in organizing an academic boycott of the University of Illinois. Professor Robin is a self-declared “anti-Zionist.” On his website:
He suggests that scholars in every field begin organizing public statements refusing to accept any invitations to speak on any campus of the University of Illinois, a serious disruption of academic business.
But not once does the Times actually share with its readers the actual hate-filled tweets that caused the University to rescind its offer of employment. Instead, the article features Robin’s work to organize the boycott. What is ironic is that the article uses this quote from Robin:
Mr. Robin sees his activism on the Salaita and other cases as an extension of his work in political theory. His first book probed the politics of fear. He has long been interested in issues of intimidation and coercion.
Ironic because by defending Salaita, Robin is actually defending intimidation on campus.
Towards the end of the article, Professor Todd Gitlin of Columbia University faults Robbins for not addressing the actual nature of the Tweets. The response?
Mr. Robin acknowledges “deliberately not engaging in the content….”
Getting into the details of the tweets, he says, is “missing the forest for the trees.”
But by running an article framing the issue as one of free speech and not getting into the substance of the tweets, the Times is the one missing the forest for the trees.
Image: CC BY-NC-SA Lance Page/truthout via flickr; adapted from Carlo Nicora, Graham Holliday
