Jewish students at the University of Illinois were concerned. A professor who had just been given a job offer by the University had engaged in anti-Semitic hate speech by tweeting that “If you’re defending Israel right now you’re an awful human being.” Those who identified with Israel faced the prospects of possibly taking classes and handing in tests and papers to Steven Salaita. How would pro-Israel students feel if the person responsible for their grades had publicly written “I repeat: if you’re defending Israel right now, then “hopelessly brainwashed“ is your best prognosis?” An atmosphere of intimidation had been created and the students were worried.
These are just a few of his long list of his hate-filled rantings on Twitter.
The conflict in Gaza has already led to a global rise of antisemitism. Appointing a professor at a major university who espouses hateful public speech directed against Israel and students who support the country would exacerbate the situation.
Should we label such hate speech as free speech that is entitled to protection? Maybe it is students who need protection from authority figures who label them “awful human beings.” The University thought so and rescinded the offer of employment. That seems like a reasonable action, especially when so many other purveyors of racist and intolerant speech are being held responsible for their actions.
Yet LA Times columnist Michael Hiltzik saw the issue as a clear cut violation of free speech.
Consider the response of Phyllis Wise, the chancellor at Illinois, to the controversy on her campus. Illinois fired Steven Salaita, an expert in Israeli-Arab relations, after he posted some strongly worded tweets critical of Israel’s conduct in Gaza.
Without using any of the actual words Salaita published on Twitter, readers might not understand what all the uproar is about. If we disregard the fact that he wasn’t “fired” (his offer of employment was rescinded) and that he was not hired as an “expert” on “Israeli-Arab relations” (he was hired by the American Indian Studies Department), we are still left with the fact that he went much further than posting some “strongly worded tweets critical of Israel’s conduct in Gaza.”
One wonders why Hiltzik wouldn’t inform readers of the actual wording of tweets like:
At this point, if Netanyahu appeared on TV with a necklace made from the teeth of Palestinian children, would anybody be surprised?
Others in the media also tried to defend Salaita. Under the headline “Professor fired for Israel criticism urges University of Illinois to reinstate him” the Guardian writes:
Steven Salaita, a university professor whose appointment at the University of Illinois was withdrawn last month after he was critical of Israel on Twitter, spoke publicly for the first time on Tuesday, saying he should be reinstated on the grounds of academic freedom.
This is not a case of free speech or academic freedom. There is plenty that can and is being said on university campuses that are critical of Israel. But the kind of language that Professor Salaita chose to use is not just criticism. It is pure hate speech and intimidation, not just directed against the State of Israel but also against those who support the nation, including students who might be enrolled in his classes.
If Hiltzik thinks that the University’s decision was wrong and writes about it, he has an obligation to show his readers what was actually said.
Free speech is a bedrock principle of academia and should be righteously defended. However, when that speech crosses the line and labels student as “awful human beings” and “brainwashed” it is intimidation, not debate. Rather than promoting the free exchange of divergent views, that kind of “speech” has the opposite effect and ends up silencing and intimidating those who have different viewpoints.
That is why the University made the correct decision and why columns like Hiltzik’s are wrong.
[sc:graybox ]Give feedback to Michael Hiltzhik or the Guardian.
